Progress Update - Week 8 EOC

I am still gathering more facts of the case to solidify my material for the rest of the points that need to be included in the Final Project breakdown. I will structure next couple points to include my opinion and weather i agree or disagree based on facts that are stated. there are not many resources to look up facts about this case. I will continue to pull up local press or websites about this case. and I will also look at similar cases cause somehow i get the feeling that this case is broad and tied into other findings and issues that arose. I would have to break down the 2 parties and facts of both parties on why they entered a supreme court case. I would have to look at existing laws during that time frame and how they affected the arguement. I will also try to include morality within my opinions and judgements about the case. I will make it as detailed as possible. I will also include a more detailed summary of facts based on State laws and federal laws on marijuana use and prohibition. And also my personal views on the laws itself.1) Issue of the Case - I will try to include issues coming from the plaintiff and defendant. And also my opinion of both and where I agree and disagree.2) Decision of the court - I will include my opinion on the court decision and validating points as much as possible.

EOC – Week 7 Property rights

What are your rights as a property owner?
Your rights as a property owner is to uphold any and every other legal rights to anyone else in the house. For the sake of the movie. The rights that the land lord have for the other tenants are still obligated. If I was the property owner I would have pressed charges the moment the unwanted tenant entered the house without regard. The moment he was in the house without permission of the land lord is trespassing. There was no contracts signed and also no money that was transferred from the tenant to land lord. As far as I am concerned the guy with the Porsche is homeless. I think the laws favor owners over tenants. I think I would have a right to lay the smack down or to take matters in my own hands. I would kick the door down and vacate the house and let the judge decide who was right and wrong in the situation. Humans have a general idea of what is right and what is wrong. We are born with it, we have a general map of right and wrong. And I am assuming that the law has a certain idea of right and wrong. The movie was probably glamorized to prove a point. As a land lord I think I have a right to kick anyone out of the house if they didn’t pay the rent. At the very least put an eviction notice because down payment or rent was not received. As a property owner you have a right to call the police and/or lawyer when you think a tort is committed against you. Of course you have a right to be upset but being violent may not stand in court. You also have a right to publicize your situation to any editorial or newscast in an attempt to gain public acceptance and or legal expedition.

greed is good week 6 EOC

Greed is good
EOC Week6
Business Law
In any field in any business, if you are an expert on a subject, it gives you a certain amount advantage over normal people. So be it. Greed is good in an enterprise and worldwide sense. The owner ship of materials or currency itself is with the element of Greed. Experts will use what they know in order to gain most prophet. No matter who loses. I con concur that it is not always about having enough, rather its about doing more. A venture capitalists only concern is to venture out into the global market and capitalizing on any and all prophets that may come along.
Performance bonuses are sometimes extreme. And in many cases the only people who will benefit from them are the some people who created them. These are usually people who are high up the food chain. The non laborers. Whatever happened to compensating the people who actually ran a business? I believe the performance bonuses should have a cap on some sort based on a dollar amount and not on percentage. These people who create these bonuses can already picture the amount because they are experts at what they do. It gives them a compeling reason to follow through with a particular plan, often neglecting the cream of the crop laborers.
In all I have mixed feelings with this subject. I believe that greed is good only with the correct principles and morals in place. It may be the underlying driving force in propelling a worldwide enterprise but who is to know when it is enough? Greed is only good in the right hands. There has to be a balance in it to where compensation is without ridiculous performance bonuses. Its sad to know that in America the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Bong Hits for Jesus - they assumed, bong=illegal drug use

I disagree with the ruling of the supreme court to Frederick. The banner was assumed as a pro-drug banner. As stated by school officials, the banner that read “bong hits 4 jesus” was pro-drug. It sounded like the school officials supported the fact that the banner which included the word ‘bong’ was to promote illegal drugs… lets look more into this.
In most states Marijuana is illegal. In most states drug parafinalia is illegal. But a bong, as well as tobacco papers is sometimes misconstrued as an apparatus for illegal drugs.
So how do we get bongs in the market? In almost all of the smoke shops that I have been to, merchants are not allowed to refer any of the smoking parafenallia for use of anything else but tobacco. For example, they would sell tobacco pipes, hookah pipes, tobacco bongs, water pipes for tobacco. All of the pipes or smoking devices is refered to and sold as tobacco smoking products. This is because if they market these products for something ‘illegal’ such as ‘marijuana pipe’, it will make their establishment illegal because of illegal parafenallia distribution. So smoke shops would sell the products under legal terms. Society now may realize that a bong is not nescessarily an illegal item for drugs. It just became a legal item for tobacco use.
Now considering the whole ‘tobacco pipe’ industry. A tobacco bong is completely legal for sale and use. A banner that read ‘marijuana hits 4 jesus’ may be pro-drug and the school officials have every right to discipline Frederick for a pro drug banner.
However, a banner the reads ‘bong hits 4 jesus’ has no indication that a bong is for tobacco or an illegal drug, marijuana for this matter, therefore deeming the school official reasoning for the allegation invalid for illegality. While reading this article, it feels like the school officials all the way up to the supreme court made the COMPLETE ASSUMPTION that the stated ‘bong’ word in the banner ‘bong hits 4 jesus’ was for marijuana and not of tobacco. The word bong is heavily misconstrued and assumed that the use for it is totally for illegal drug. When it could simply be a tobacco bong and deemed legal.

crime and tort

Coriandra, Sara, Christian and Keoni

Sexual harassment
Refer
Fraud
Illegal
gambling
Vandalism
Bribery
Underage driving
Reckless driving
Speeding
Lying under oath
False advertisement
Illegal use of drugs
MonopolyGun use/attempted murder
Embezzlement
Conspiracy
Trespassing
Running from the police
Standing up in the bed of a truck
Driving on the wrong side of the road

What I think of other peoples blog about The Law

KE0N1 @N6EL MUSIC said...

WOW! I am a believer! most parts of the law is there to protect a certain age. certain group of people. even, certain kind of people. Even laws just for woman. Even laws for just for men. Of course they cater to a certain people. I guess its all a matter of where you are at and does the law affect you? I can see that with the trials that you stated, the laws are corrupt. It not always provide the truth on the subject matter but rather provide LEVERAGE to any parties involved depending on the societies inscentive of the law, the end effect. It provides a starting point for defendant and plantif. A baseline on which we live by. For the most part they are not always corrupt. But I have to agree that some times its just plain wrong. I am one of those who think that laws are made to be broken.

APRIL 23, 2009 10:28 PM

http://websitedivisions.blogspot.com/2009/04/eoc-week-two.html?showComment=1240550880000#c609731639763678073

 

 

KE0N1 @N6EL MUSIC said...

I thnk you hit it just right. Law is essential, no matter what side you are on. The law really does not favor any side. I agree that some are unjust and they are usually the ones that are complex. It also helps us display a certain level of honesty to our government. I also agree that it holds us accountable. However, I disagree in that there are people out there that run away from the law. There has been people out there running away from the law ever since there was law. Many people do misconstrue laws and twist them. I am a firmly believe there are laws out there that maybe passed through certain loop holes and it very well may be kept in place to bring balance to a certain mechanism within the system. Laws are very often made with good intention but not always a good inscentive may come out of it.

April 23, 2009 10:08 PM

 

http://simplytimelessphoto.blogspot.com/2009/04/eoc-week-2-what-i-think-of-law.html#comments

what i think of the law

What do i thnk of the law 

EOC week 2

I think the law is there to govern the lives of people.  It has econimical inscentives.  It is also there to protect people.  They also have loop holes.

Laws govern people in many ways.  Take traffic.  The law states that you cant drive a vehicle on the I215 faster than 65 miles and hour.  You also must STOP when it says you have to stop.

If you violate any of these things in the presence of a law enforcment officer, they have every right to pull you over and write you a ticket.  Each traffic ticket that you have recieved requires a fine or if not a fee to pay or some money to be taken from you in one way or the other.  In any case, if you get a ticket you are losing money.  Money that could have still been your had it not been for the ticket.  That money goes towards the same government that formed the law.  Hence the Economic Inscentive, for the Government that is. 

65 miles an hour on I215 is a speed limit to regulate speeds that are deemed unsafe for regular driver.  Driving over the speed limit is considered dangerous and there for a threat to other drivers.  Regulating the speed on highway reduces dangerous speeds. 

Now coming up to the stop sign and NOT stoping may be dangerous in the same way.  In that proceeding without stopping is dangerous going into coming traffic.

In any one of these situations there are loop holes in which you can still violate the law and the law will not persist.  If you violate these laws with no law enforcment officer there to witness and/or issue a ticket.  The affect is that you are still allowed to commit the violation however you are not getting penalized for it.

What I think of Lawyers

They exist only to defend whatever side they represent, weather it is plaintiff or defendant. They represent as if their side is the most righteous. It doesn’t seem like they choose to make correct moral ethical judgments at all times. They make money through a percentage, more of inscentive. The Idea of them making money at a non-flat rate and more on the % based may cause improper judgments on their part. It would be interesting to see, in the future, if they will work under the government for a hourly rate no more/less.
Lawyers come in handy for representation on something as minor as a traffic citation that needs to be taken care of in court. For example, if you got a traffic citation in another state and the citation requires you to be present on a certain court date. You may then hire a traffic lawyer to represent you. You would be communicating through the lawyer on the status of your traffic citation. If it wasn’t for the lawyer you would probably have to go back at the latter date to represent yourself.
I don’t think most lawyers make the correct moral judgment at all times. It is to their best interest to make money. And they will work harder for you depending on what their inscentive is rather then helping you on what your real problem is. They are experts in their own field and may keep the truth away from their clients depending on what their end compensation will be. They are not always truthful and honest on a situation. They are also highly persuasive because they know how the system works and it is to their own advantage to yield more money off a particular case. I strongly think they may work differently if they worked for you for a flat rate.