1. Facts of the Case

Facts of the Case
The Supreme Court case I found was California vs. Greenwood. After a drug suspect provided a tip about a house that was supposedly running drugs the Laguna Beach police department requested that the trash outside the home be picked up and searched. Detective Jenny Stracner asked the neighborhood trash collector to empty his trash been and then pick up the Greenwood garbage and have it delivered to the police station. The collector did so. After searching the trash the police were able to find traces of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The neighbors also reported odd traffic to the house at odd hours of the night. The police were able to obtain a search warrant based on the contents of the trash collected. In the search they found drug paraphernalia, and traces of cocaine. The trash search gave reason to obtain a search warrant for the home owned by Greenwood. During the search of the home police found substantial amounts of drugs and cash (drug related money), which then lead to the arrest of the defendant. The owner Billy Greenwood was booked on felony drug charges. The California Superior Court dismissed the charges on the because of the fact that it was a warrantless search. According to the fourth amendment the law does not prohibit the search and seizure of garbage left out on the curb. Greenwood argued that the garbage was his personal property. As soon as his garbage left his home it became public property. “Personal property is considered abandoned when the owner disposes of it with the apparent intention of disclaiming ownership. Title to such property is transferred to the first person that takes control over it.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo, page 314). It was free will to have any person or thing rummage through it. Technically it was considered “real property”. “Under common law, ownership of real property extended from the center or the earth to the highest point of the sky.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo, page 315). When in fact the trash Mr. Greenwood left on the curb was considered personal property. “Includes all other property other than real life property, both tangible, and intangible. Example of real property includes furniture, clothing, and books.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo page 315). In fact his trash was still considered personal property. The officers that searched the garbage did not have any search warrant to go through the garbage. The court ruled that trash is trash and police cannot turn a cheek to suspected criminal activity. Thus the courts ruled in favor of California basing that in this case the police did not violate any fourth amendment rights. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_684/

2.Issue of the Case

The main issue is whether garbage left on the curb allows for a warrantless search and seizure by police. The case is before the Supreme Court because the defendant Billy Greenwood felt his fourth amendment rights were violated. Greenwood assumed his personal possessions were still considered “personal property”. Thus the Laguna Beach police department would need a warrant in order to search through the “property,” which the police did not have. The Courts argument is that the garbage was left in opaque trash bags for everyone to see. Greenwoods arguments were fair. Since the police were informed that there was possible illegal drug trafficking occurring inside the home they could not turn a blind eye to the situation. Police obtained a warrant for the home and found what they thought was true. Several different narcotics were being stored in the home. This allowed the police to arrest Greenwood on drug possession and dealing charges. The issues arose with the right to personal property. Who owns the trash once it is displayed on your curbside and with reasonable thought go away to never been seen again. The Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing place to be searched and the persons to be seized.” (www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/california_v.greenwood) In this case the police had a tip they followed and continued on with a reasonable warrant.

3.Court Decision

The court ruled in a 6-2 win for California. This case set a precedent for future court cases. Establishing a common law that law enforcement can have warrantless trash searches. In previous court cases judges ruled against the defendant. As said before in Katz vs. United States the police officers arrived at the farm on a tip not expecting to look over the fence and see illegal drugs being grown. Katz was then arrested and charged with growing narcotics. The Supreme Court ruled that the police were in the right to be on the property without a warrant. Anything that can be seen by the public is not considered private. It becomes public knowledge and anyone has the rights. The public has a reasonable right to privacy. Justice White stated "It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public." http://law.jrank.org "A single bag of trash testifies eloquently to the eating, reading and recreational habits of the person who produced it." http://law.jrank.org Brennan http://law.jrank.org. The opposing Justices also spoke on the case Judge Brenan spoke on behalf of Justice Marshall who also opposed the decision."Scrutiny of another's trash is contrary to commonly accepted notions of civilized behavior . . . Society will be shocked to learn thatthe Court, the ultimate guarantor of liberty, deems unreasonable our expectation that the aspects of our private lives that are concealed safely in a trash bag will not become public." http://law.jrank.org While you can expect your trash to be a private and personal thing it no longer becomes personal when you set it on the curb in an opaque plastic bag. http://law.jrank.org/pages/13057/California-v-Greenwood.html. The Justices refferred back to the framers of the constitution and the weight it may have had on this case. "The Framers of the Fourth Amendment understood that "unreasonable searches" of "papers and effects" -- no less than "unreasonable searches" of "persons and houses" -- infringe privacy. Justice Brennan http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZD.html

4.Reasoning of The Court

This case set a precedent for future cases. Since the ruling it is now legal for law enforcement to look through a garbage bag left on the curb. A court case Katz vs. United States. Katz had placed no trespassing signs all over the property of his farm. Two police offers arrived at his farm acting on a tip that Katz was growing narcotics. In plain sight the officers were able to see that Katz did in fact have marijuana growing on his farm. Both of these cases have set a precedent for future court cases. The court ruled 6-2 against Greenwood. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz v. United States, supra, at 351. We held in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 1979 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=486&invol=35. The Justices involved were: Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Conner, and Scalia. All voted against Billy Greenwood. Justices Brennan and Marshall voted for Billy Greenwoods defense. The justices concluded that garbage left willing on the curb is accessible to anyone including animals, children, scavengers, and police. The trash is not protected. The trash is meant to be picked up by a third party (the trash collector) who may also rummage through the items and if so hand them over to the police who may further their investigation."So far as Fourth Amendment protection is concerned, opaque plastic bags are every bit as [p49] worthy as "packages wrapped in green opaque plastic" and "double-locked footlocker[s]." Cf. Robbins, supra, at 441 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting) (objecting to Court's discovery of reasonable expectation of privacy in contents of "two plastic garbage bags")." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZD.html
Justice explain that the bags were clear enough that anyone could have looked through them. If the contents were placed in a locked garbage can then then this would have justified a warrant. The defending Justice still pleads that the garbage was still personal property siding with the defedant. "A container which can support a reasonable expectation of privacy may not be searched, even on probable cause, without a warrant." Judge Brennan http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZD.html

5.Rule of Law

To summarize the case the defendant left his garbage on the street in front of his home. Assuming the garbage man would come and haul it off to the landfill. A drug suspect in another case told police the suspect was a trafficking drug through his home. Detective Strancer asked the regular trash hauler to empty his truck, pick up Greenwoods garbage, and deliver it to the police station. The trash was delivered and searched by police. The contents of the trash bag included drug paraphernalia and traces of cocaine. The police were then granted a search warrant to search the property where they found a substantial amount of illegal narcotics. The case wentto the California courts where it was dismissed. Then carried out to the Supreme Court. The court concluded that the warrantless search of the trash was justifiable under the Fourth Amendment the trash search was valid. The court held the defendant responsible. The final vote was 6-2 against the defendant. The court stated “The police cannot be expected to ignore criminal activity that can be observed by "any member of the public."” http://www.oyez.org/cases/19801989/1987/1987_86_684/

6.My Argument

My argument In my opinion Billy Greenwood was breaking the law. I have to side with the courts on this issue. I am a firm believer in justice for all. My mom always taught me if you do something wrong you are always going to get caught in one way or another you would pay the consequences. I believe in this case Billy Greenwood was a victim of his own stupidity. By leaving his trash on the curb in clear bags with drug paraphernalia is just a calling card. Perhaps it was the drugs taking over his mind, which caused him not to think clearly when he was doing this. I believe the fourth amendment protects our privacy. But if it were so private why would you put it on the curb for anyone to rummage through. I also believe that if the police know that there is a crime occurring that should have the right to search through garbage. So the Police and the law had every right to search his trash. He was breaking the law there for his rights were narrowed as soon as he became a suspect.

7.Dissent of the Case

The case was decided in a 6-2 vote. The Supreme Court Justices that voted against California stated that privacy is a right in this country "Scrutiny of another's trash is contrary to commonly accepted notions of civilized behavior . . . Society will be shocked to learn that the Court, the ultimate guarantor of liberty, deems unreasonable our expectation that the aspects of our private lives that are concealed safely in a trash bag will not become public." Justice Brennan addressing the court and the people. http://law.jrank.org. What Justice is saying is that you have the right to free property as soon as the government takes that away we are sacrificing the rights that we are born with as Americans. We no longer have control over what we own and what we put on the curb. We are giving the law a free ticket to search and do anything they wish. What you put in your trash no longer is personal. "We reject respondent Greenwood's alternative argument for affirmance: that his expectation of privacy in his garbage should be deemed reasonable as a matter of federal constitutional law because the warrantless search and seizure of his garbage was impermissible as a matter of California law." Judge White http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZD.html. A defending Justices opinion that is it is unconstitutional to search trash deeming that is still considered private property.

Naked Nymphomaniac

Naked Nymphomaniac

Today we watched an older movie called the Naked Nymphomaniac. The movie was about a questionable porn movie that was sent to the Supreme Court. At the time of this movie there were six Supreme Court Justices. One was a woman. In the movie the men of the court seemed to talk down to her because she was a woman. In the movie Justice Snow (a man) refused to watch the movie because he felt that the producer had every right to release the movies, to him it was art. The woman justice felt this was very unfair and that he should eliminate himself from the judging if he wasn’t going to watch the movie. There is no longer an issue with appointing women to the court. There are in fact a majority of women are being nominated for the future position. Perhaps we need more women in the Supreme Court. I think we need equality in the courts. Why not have equal justices white, black, yellow, brown, male, female, transgender, Christian, Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim. As long as the people in the supreme court are qualified and can present a reasonable opinion on United States court cases, then why not. I think the porn industry is sad. I really feel that men and women degrade themselves to make money. I grew up in a very small suburb city so coming to a big city like Las Vegas opened my eyes to what people will do for money. I see so many women in my daily life that are willing to take their clothes off just to make a car payment. Take all the “things and the stuff” you need in life away and you wouldn’t need to do any of that. The producers are even more scummy and money grubbing then anyone. They will pay top dollar to any young girl that will perform for them. It needs to be stopped, but in reality this sort of thing has been going on for a very long time. The issues on the film become even more relevant today because there is so much of it on the internet. It’s so easy to access for anyone including young children. To me it needs to be regulated somehow. As technology gets faster more issues will begin to arise and more court case will as well. This is a never ending cycle/

Supreme Court Case

Fourth Amendment Rights, which state that a person has right to personal property the right to privacy. In the Greenwood case the defendants garbage was questioned whether or not it could justifiably be considered personal belongings since it was left on the curb. Which most might think that once it is put into an opaque plastic garbage bag does it become the right of whomever picks up or rummages through this garbage. The bag is no longer in your possession the defendant willing left the bag on the curbside completely unprotected. The fourth amendment clearly states that “It is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” (Fourth Amendment). The interesting question is whether the fourth Amendment protects specific privacies such as a garbage bag. Judge Brenann who voted for Billy Green wood states “It should make no difference what type of package it is, as long as its contents are concealed. Brennan also pointed out that it should make no differencethat Greenwood used the bags to throw away, rather than to transport, his belongings. Greenwood's decision to throw away the trash does not lessen his expectation of privacy. "A single bag of trash testifies eloquently to the eating, reading and recreational habits of the person who produced it." (http://law.jrank.org/pages/13057/California-v-Greenwood.html). However if in case the police are informed of possible crime in progress are they expected too turn their heads. In holding that the warrantless search of Greenwood's trash was consistent with the Fourth Amendment, the Court paints a grim picture of our society . . . The American society with which I am familiar . . . is more dedicated to individual liberty and more sensitive to intrusions on the sanctity of the home than the Court is willing to acknowledge.” Judge Brenan (http://law.jrank.org/pages/13057/California-v-Greenwood.html). The law and the police have more power over privacy than most would like to aknowledge. After this ruling it is now more common for police and FBI agents to search through garbage bags. “In some fundamental sense, we are what we throw away.” (Sanders, Time Magazine, Lifting the Lid on Garbage, 2). “Just how embarrassing a search can be even for innocent parties was demonstrated in 1975, when the National Enquirer made off with five bags of refuse from outside the home of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and published its gleanings. Other celebrities have also had their garbage snooped. In some fundamental sense, we are what we throw away” (Sanders, Time Magazine, Lifting the Lid on Garbage, 2). Privacy is only private if you create privacy.

Illicit Goods

After watching the video I am carrying around a bit of guilt. My mother, sister, and I are guilty of purchasing knock off designer goods. The thought never really crossed our minds while we were purchasing the goods. We thought they were "cute" great prices and looked like the real thing. We were excited that we didn't have to spend $1200 on a bag instead we paid only a $100 for. To me the cost now is much more than that. People’s lives were lost in the production of the bags or goods In one particular store in Colorado the bags actually had the authenticity card (which was probably fake). I don't think a lot of Americans think about the production and the place where the bag came from. What really went into getting this bag into this place? I couldn't believe that people would actually buy pills off the black market. You don't think people will consider the safety and the health risks that go into buying pills of any sort from someone you don't know. It's suicide. People in foreign countries who are on social security or who have to accept cough medicine that is potentially tainted as "poison" they don’t know any better. They don’t understand that a rich billionaire is just trying to make money and whether someone dies or not really doesn’t matter to that person. I will think twice before I buy another bag, sunglasses, or some other knock off good just because it’s cheap and it looks nice. So question is do I destroy my knock offs or from now on do I just think twice before purchasing fake knock off goods?

Supreme Court Case Progress

For my blog I will continue to research the case Greenwood vs. California. As my understanding goes the issue amounted to a man who previously violated the law. His “rights” were violated when the California police department received a tip regarding some suspicious activity reported by his neighbors. A suspect in a drug case confirmed that there was in fact drug trafficking occurring in that particular home. The police searched Greenwoods garbage and found drug residue and paraphernalia (without a warrant). I am beginning to understand more the rights of those who uphold the law and those that are intentionally breaking the law. So in fact I would like to know more about Greenwoods opinions on the case. Does he truly feel that as someone who broke the law he deserves to have rights. When it comes to personal property what is personal and what is garbage. If you put something out on a public street corner are you not going to assume that anyone including police, children, and animals are going to go through the trash? I would like to know the responsibilities of a police offer if he sees a suspicious package sitting on your curb side and is concerned for the well being of the people. Does he have a right to investigate this item without reasonable cause..just a mere hunch? For next week this is what I plan to research.

Pacific Heights

The couple in this movie forgot some very important rules when they allowed this man to basically squat on their property. For one they didn't run a credit check. When they tried to do a background check it didn't pass. They allowed him to move in (kind of unwillingly on their part) without paying any rent or deposit. The most important thing they forgot to do was sign a lease. He can basically do whatever he wants because there is no contract between the land lord and the tenant. In this case the couple didn’t have a chance to say whether he was or wasn’t allowed in the home. He established that he was going to be staying in the home whether they liked it or not. Without signing any sort of lease agreement though you would think the landlords would have more rights than this tenant does. From what it seems everyone is against them. They are the ones who are truly in favor. The fact of the matter is that the landlords should have all access to the space they are renting without question. The tenant changed the locks which is probably another violation of the law. The tenant promised money up front assuring them that they would be paid a full sixth month’s rent when in reality he probably had no intention of ever paying. When the land lords turned off the lights and the heat the “tenant” called the police. The police said the tenant had every right to be there. The land lords were in the wrong for not providing him with heat and electricity. The tenant also violated the quiet rule. He was drilling and hammering at all hours disturbing the peace. Maybe laws have changed since then. Hopefully more intelligent people that will think before they buy property and maybe they will ensure they have sufficient funds to cover the mortgage if something were to happen.

Bobble Head Octopulett Mother

I don't know who I would create a bobble head if I could. Perhaps I would create a bobble head of the number of people who continuously throw their garbage and cigarettes out the window. People who drive so fast and so recklessly they will hopefully be pulled over by the next state trooper and cited for reckless driving and endangerment, as well as stupidity. I think I would create one of the women who have captured news headlines for the 14 children she has mothered. She continuously grabs news headlines with the "Octopulett mother's home in foreclosure” “Octuplet mother wishes she could have been on Oprah”. This lady needs a bobble head with eight hammers (one for each baby to hold). I question her motives for having so many children without being financially stable. The lady doesn’t have a full time job, husband, or even home to put these poor children. I think I would also create one of the doctors who allowed such a thing to happen with the knowledge the mother wasn’t fully capable of taking care of the children. Every one of the children may have suffered some sort of disability because of this. Or maybe I would create a bobble head of the people that continually run the stories about these women and her children. I understand it’s an amazing story and a sad one at that. It’s time to cover real news so I would give the news team a bobble heads for this reason. Why not cover something significant like the war in Iraq something worthy of time and energy. Why not focus on something positive I understand it’s a true miracle that these babies survived and it will be another miracle if she can keep them all alive and well for the next 18 years of their lives.

Greed Is Good!

GREED IS GOOD
Greed is good? Or is it? The question comes to mind when considering we are in a world and a nation of people who are out to make a buck. Have times changed though? Are people starting to realize the light that money and things don’t make a person better. I once heard from a man who lost everything he had. Dave Ramsey, well renowned financial analyst and talk show host, bought a ton of real estate when he was 21 years old. He was a millionaire by the time he was 26. By age 30 he was broke! He and his wife had a small baby and were flat broke. People were suing him over and over again. He became on a first name basis with the man who delivered court orders. Mr. Ramsey began to realize that greed had taken over his life. He was forced to turn his life around the things that he surrounded himself with before became less important and the people around him became more important. He once said who we are really out to impress anyways with all these things and all this money. People who were once powerful bankers and investors are now being uncovered as crooks, thieves, and liars. The big bankers somehow forget all of their moral obligations when money comes into play. “The duty of loyalty means that a director has a legal and ethical obligation to administer to the affairs of corporation with personal integrity, honesty, and candor.” (The Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, page 270) Their loyalty become obstructed and their honesty a blur when the dollar signs appear. If these people like Bernie Madoff had considered what life might be like if he had just acted morally would his life possibly be better? We will never know the thoughts of Bernie Madoff. Mr. Madoff is now sitting in his 9 million dollar pent house on house arrest for embezzling 50 billion dollars from investors. “The crime of embezzlement may be defined as wrongful taking of money or other property that has been trusted to a person as part of his or her employment.” (The Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, page 36). We wonder if he is contemplating his duty of loyalty and this duty of care to the people he stole money from or if he is just simply sorry he was finally caught after all these years. Greed can be a very dangerous thing. When greed is involved there seems to be no remorse to fault just the victims who are left with empty pockets and broken hearts.

Comments on Grand Theft

The majority of the blog opinions seem to go against the grandmother on her law suit over the explicit sexual content of the Grand Theft Auto video game. Aaron Taylor felt that the same way I did he said. ”I feel as though this grandmother had no right to file suit against the makers of a well-known “provocative, and or damaging” video game. She must have known, not only by the rating of the video game, but also the scenes and graphics covering the packaging that this video game would not be suitable for a 14 year old boy.” (http://thezerostaronline.blogspot.com/ ). In reality though she is 84 and things that are shocking to people younger than the age of 30 are generally more shocking then those who are older and generally haven’t been exposed to that sort of content. On the other hand she did know that there was excessive violence, she was however deceived into thinking that there was that and only that in the video game. Michael Polack agreed with me on this point. “I never saw it from the grandmother’s point of view. The fact is that even if the game needs to be hacked to achieve this content, it’s still available to minors. Anything containing sexual content must be at least rated for views 18 and older; because it was not given this rating Cohen had all the right to attack the makers of the video game.” (http://m3mediadesign.blogspot.com/). We have to think on both sides of the fence sometimes. Some people think she’s wrong, wrong, wrong, and she should just understand that she bought a mature video game for a 14 year old boy knowing it had a least some sort of violence. On the other hand what she wasn’t prepared for was to explain to her 14 year old grandson the sexual content of the game. Some thought that responsible parenting and being a watchful consumer maybe have altered this situation. Roland Copland agrees with this statement. “It’s upsetting to me because all of this would have been avoided if she did research or asked someone at the store she bought the game at for more information about it before purchasing it. I’m assuming she did not read the label that was on the game before she purchased it. And even if she did, she should have seen it coming.” http://flipbeatsproductions.blogspot.com/. So if grandma wasn’t an impulsive buyer she may have avoided her shock and dismay at such games. As consumers and parents we do have to understand what exactly what we are exposing our children too. Rochelle Aquino said it was the grandmothers responsibility to monitor this was well. “Rated R movies show soft-core pornography sometimes and it includes a lot of violence. Now, would the grandmother take her little grandson to watch a movie like that? I wouldn’t think so. It was her own mistake and the company should not have been punished for it.” http://rovegasdesign.blogspot.com/. In response to this I think most people are blamming the grandmother for her inability to understand the product she was purchasing. People aren't blamming the company because it is well know that the game contained very violent acts and it was more of a underground situation that provided the grandson with the sexual content. Point is monitor your children and look at the products you buy.

Used Car Law and Tort List

Jaclyn DonatelliEvelyn LeeBrittany HillSky Diaz
1. Assault
2. Vandalism
3. Assault of a police officer
4. Evading arrest
5. Leaving the scene of an accident
6. Unlicensed driving
7. Attempted murder
8. Reckless driving
9. Speeding
10. Child endangerment
11. Trespassing
12. Driving under the influence
13. Illegal gambling on a sports game
14. Unlicensed transactions
15. Agreements that interfere with public service
16. Transaction of over $500 with out a written agreement
17. Misrepresentation
18. Conspiracy
19. Illegal restraints of trade
20. Negligence
21. Perjury
22. False advertising
23. Destruction of Property
24. Alluding arrest
25. Nuisance
26. Fraud

EOC,Week 3

84-year-old grandmother, Florence Cohen, saw a commercial for the video game "Grand Theft Auto, San Andres." The game depicts very violent and criminal acts including murder, and of course theft. The grandmother went to the store to purchase the game for her 14-year-old grandson. While watching her grandson play the game she saw that there was more sexual explicit content that was not described in the commercial or within the description of the game. She contacted her lawyer and filed a class action lawsuit against the makers of “Rock Star Gaming” for false and misleading practices. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the licensing owners of the game. The grandmother won and was awarded her money back or a newer version of the game that didn’t contain the sexual content.
The grandmother had every right to sue the gaming company. The company was responsible for selling the game under false pretenses. Even thought the game contained murder and criminal activity, things Florence knew about. The company is still responsible for selling the game with the hidden content. The company claims that the content was not supposed to be available on the game it was removed from the game. A code was made available to the consumer to unlock this content. The company claims that someone had to type in the code in order to unlock this content (who unlocked the content in this case is still unknown.) Whether there was a code or not the company is still responsible for selling the game under the false pretenses. “The term false pretenses describes a broad category of crimes that involve activities intended to deceive others by making false claims.” (Essentials of Business Laws, Liuzzo, page 24). In my opinion I think that the grandmother was essentially responsible for purchasing the game. She was aware that the game depicted violent and criminal acts and she still felt this was okay. I don’t quite understand her justifying violence and crime, but not sexual content. I understand that she was upset that she was not aware of the sexual content. If she knew there was some of this content would it have stopped her from buying the game? What in the first place was her mind thought when she purchased the violent game for her impressionable 14-year-old grandson?

Lawyers

I have never been in trouble with the law (knock on wood). So I haven’t had very much experience with lawyers. I see a lot of the commercials on TV for lawyers in Vegas. Vegas probably have the most commercials for lawyers I have ever seen in my life. My personal opinion on lawyers was with a custody lawyer for my parents. I remember trying to say something that I believed was the truth. The lawyer tried to twist what I was saying and attempted to get me to say things that she wanted to hear. She manipulated and twisted my entire story. In the situation I was trying to be as fair as possible to both sides, but I what I needed to say was the truth which she did not want to hear. I think this was a special case though. I cannot classify all lawyers into one group though. I have met some lawyers that are very good, honest, hard working people. I think we need lawyers to defend the innocent and provide justice for victims of crimes. The law profession is a very important job and it takes the right type of people to complete the job.

RoVegas comment blog

I went to RoVegas blog. Here is what I found. I found your take very interesting. She disscussed her point of view being someone that works with lawyers everyday. She appears in court as a witness for theft cases. She knows a lot of lawyers so she has a very good take on them. People don't realize that we need lawyers and they are a very important part of society. They maybe portrayed as dishonest and slightly scummy sometimes, but it is important to have people to represent our cases when we need them!

EOC, Week 2

Internet Hoax
Megan Meier’s was a mentally fragile 13 year old girl. For most of her young life she struggled with ADD, depression, and a weight problem. So when she first began her MySpace account her parents carefully watched as she befriended a young boy named Josh. The friendship grew over a six week period. What Megan and her parents didn’t know was that Josh was actually the 40 year old, Lori Drew, mother of Megan’s former friend. After several weeks of communication between the two Josh turned on Megan and began verbal harassment toward her. The fictional Josh called Megan fat, said she wasn’t a good person, and the world would be a better place without her. Broken and crushed a few days later Megan took her own life. The friend’s mother claims she only wanted to befriend Megan and find out what Megan was saying about her daughter. She never thought Megan would commit suicide. She never offered an apology or regret for what she had done to Megan.An FBI investigation was launched. . She was then charged with misdemeanor for violating MySpace Laws by obtaining personal information to inflict emotional distress on a teen .Since her death a 2006 law prohibits online harassment if it is under a pseudo name. Because she used a pseudo names she violated the agreements on MySpace. I felt that she was responsible for pushing this young girl over the edge. Whether she knew it or not this girl suffered from severe depression. With further research could this woman also be charged with even more including negligence? “Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care necessary to protect others from risk.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, 50, 51). She didn’t consider the girls state of mind at the time of this incident. By provoking her and bullying her on the internet she was negligent. The woman could have also been charged with slander and or libel because she wrote insults on a public forum. Stating Megan was fat, and a bad person. “Slander is spreading of damaging words or ideas about a person directly or indirectly, in all other forms. “ Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, 45). “Libel is the spreading of damaging statements in written form—including pictures, cartoons, and effigies (likeness). Defamation on radio, television, and websites is also considered libel.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, 45). What this woman did was wrong. She should be held responsible in some way for her behavior.