#project real

We are taught not to copy a person’s work since it can get us in trouble. According to an article by Above The Law, a law firm is suiting another firm on the basis of copying and hijacking their website.

In Illinois, Motta & Motta is suing Dolci & Weiland over the alleged hijacking and plagiarism. The suit claims that Dolci capitalized on Motta’s reputation by using website hashtags and headers to mislead search engines into believing Motta’s website is Dolci’s website. According to the suit allegations, Dolci & Weiland’s website mirrored Motta’s copyrighted design and content and even copied (verbatim) articles and blogs on Motta’s website.

In school, we are taught many basic principles such as reading, writing, mathematics, but we also introduced into many ethical values as well, such as responsibility, quality, leadership, respect, and honesty. One way these ethical values are exercised is through integrity and not committing plagiarism. This article brings up some interesting points relating to privacy, defamation, and fraud and how Dolci’s law firm was acting unlawfully. Instead of Dolci taking the time to create their website and content, they are now facing a lengthy legal process that is going to cost them a lot of money!

Questions:

1.In what situations is it against the law to impersonate someone online?

2. When would impersonating a person online be a form of fraud, or why would it not be a fraud? 

3. The law firm that claimed to be victimized specifically mentioned hashtags in their complaint.  Hashtags are basically hyperlinks: text that results in being connected to related information.  If the law firm sued only over the plagiarism of the hashtags on their website, why do you think they would or would not have a good chance of winning their case in court?  Be specific by using other lawsuits or trademark and copyright news articles as examples when creating your response.*  

----------------- *Hint #1: Are companies guaranteed websites with their names? *Hint #2: What are some examples of trademarks, copyrights, and the differences between the two?

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/08/law-firm-claims-rival-sucked-up-business-by-copying-and-hijacking-their-website/

On January 24th, 2018, the prosecutor’s office in Big Horn County, Montana is cracking down on any expectant mothers who use drugs or drink alcohol. A court attorney is fighting to seek restraining orders against those pregnant women and is encouraging the public to report drug or alcohol incidents to the sheriff department.

The reason behind this movement is to limit child abuse during labor and to make the mother accountable for her actions. According to the article, roughly half of all U.S. states now consider substance abuse during pregnancy to be child abuse. One way it is child abuse is a birth defect called ‘sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).’

On the flip side, if the government intervenes on the well-being of a mother and her baby, it will cause a slippery slope that will jeopardize with the well-being of the mother and the fetus. Another aspect is that a woman will refuse to seek help if they feel they will be reprimanded for their outreach, which causes a discrepancy within the health provider's field.

When it comes to the aspect of law and justice, many roles are filled by police officers, prosecutors, and judges. Police officers are tasked to patrol certain areas and stop, and or prevent crime from happening. If there is probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, the officer has a right to issue a stop and act accordingly per state laws and policies. As for Prosecutors, if a person is charged with a crime, the prosecutor reviews all of the evidence that is presented within a case. Lastly, for the judge evaluates all of the aspects of the case and pleads the defendant guilty or not guilty. 

Explain your answers to the questions below, and for more details you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pregnant-women-big-horn-county-montana_us_5a674bf8e4b0e5630073b88c?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Questions:

1. Why do you think it is or is not ethical to prosecute expected mothers who use drugs or alcohol?

2. How is the mother hurting the unborn child while using drugs or alcohol?

3. Do you think the judge’s policy will help reduce the number of cases of SIDS in the community, have no impact on the number of cases, or cause an increase in the number of cases, and why do you think the policy will have that effect? 

4. Why do you feel the judge’s plan is the best one for the community, or what better solutions would you recommend and why would you recommend those over the one the judge has come up with?

On January 14th of 2018, 12 people from a volunteer group were arrested for handing out food to the homeless.

To provide some backstory to this situation, a community group called “Break The Ban” were distributing food and other items to the homeless population at a park in California. According to the police officers that arrived, they were violating a ban on sharing food in city-owned public areas, which was recently passed by the City of El Cajon in 2017. The reason for this ban was to stop the spread of Hepatitis A. the police cited some of the volunteers to jail but did not take them. But, for the two volunteers they arrested are scheduled to appear in court. The group was outraged by the act and is planning to fight the citations and the food-sharing ban.

There was another case in which this incident has occurred. According to Forbes, in Fort Lauderdale, police arrested a 90-year old man and two ministers in 2014 for trying to share their food with the homeless. In October of 2014, the city enacted an ordinance that bans sharing food in public parks, unless they have a permit from the city. As a result of this situation, the organization arrested (Food Not Bombs) sued the city of Fort Lauderdale on the basis of the ordinance violated their right to free speech and free association, and the ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague.” At first, a federal district court dismissed the case since food sharing events were outside the scope of the First Amendment since it did not convey a “particularized message.”

But, under that line of reasoning, that sounds like the First Amendment is confined to expressions conveying a particularized message. So, as a result, the case was ruled that Food Not Bombs does have a First Amendment right to share food. The case was sent back down to the lower courts to determine if the city’s ordinance was in violation of those rights. The city of Lauderdale has not responded to the request yet.

Explain your answers and for more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-el-cajon-california-arrests_us_5a5de4f4e4b0fcbc3a1355f4?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

And / or

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/08/27/federal-court-first-amendment-protects-sharing-food-with-homeless-people/#fe8283b4884

Questions (answer them all!):

1. How does the First Amendment apply to these news stories?

2. Why do you feel the ordinance being issued to prevent the spread of Hepatitis A was or was not justified? 

3. Are there laws in your community restricting feeding the homeless, if so what are they, how do you feel about there being or not being laws about this activity in your community, and what can you do to support/change those local laws/policies?

4. (High School Students only) Even if you disagree with the policy in this case, imagine that there are some activities that people volunteer for or donate to that are meant to ‘make the world a better place’, but which should be managed or limited by local laws. How should local governments and law makers decide if an activity requires them to get involved in those activities (ex: Should sheltering homeless animals and feeding the homeless face the same kinds of restriction)?

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you. You have the right to an attorney….”  Those words – which you may recognize from shows or movies – are the words used to inform someone who is being arrested if their Miranda Rights.   They’re not just for entertainment though – they are very real rights every American is entitled to, but they have only been read to suspects since 1966.  That process came about as a result of a Supreme Court decision, but their origins date back much earlier. In fact, the process of reading a suspect their Miranda Rights is rooted in a historical event that took place in 1919.

That year, a triple murder of foreign diplomats occurred in Washington D.C. (a diplomat is someone who acts as the representative of a foreign government). The three victims all worked for the Chinese Educational Mission before being assassinated. When there were no leads or clear motives, the police focused in on the only suspect they had.

On the day of the assassinations, a young Chinese student named Ziang Sung Wan had been seen at the house where the killings had occurred. The police went to his home in New York and after searching it without a warrant, pressured Wan (who was suffering from a flu at the time) into going back to Washington D.C.  with them.  Upon their arrival, the authorities isolated Ziang in a hotel room and held him without formally placing him under formal arrest.  After extended periods of isolation and interrogation that lasted more than 9 days, they eventually pressured him into making a confession.

During trial for the murders, Wan took back his confession, saying that he only confessed to make the detectives’ interrogation come to an end. The judge refused to acknowledge Wan’s statement despite the conditions that were used to obtain his confession.  Eventually, Wan was found guilty of first degree-murder.  At the time, the penalty for a guilty first-degree murder conviction was death-by-hanging.

Wan’s case was one of many at the time that had stirred debate among judges and lawyers in the country over which police conduct and interrogation methods were lawful, and which of those methods and behaviors were unlawful.  At the same time, Ziang’s attorneys were filing appeals and pursuing their client’s acquittal relentlessly, knowing that his life was on the line.  Eventually Ziang’s lawyers managed to get his case heard by the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS).

As a result of the raging national debate in the law community over police tactics and the constitutional questions raised by Ziang’s case, one justice was tasked with drafting up a decision that would lay the groundwork for the Miranda Rights we know today.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote the court’s decision, in which the court interpreted the Fifth Amendment as permitting only volunteer confessions as being admissible as evidence in federal court proceedings, and that a confession could be coerced involuntarily even if an explicit threat had not made.

If that’s too wordy, think about it like this: The police didn’t tell Ziang “If you don’t confess we’re going to break your legs”.  Because they held him for 9 days though - while he was sick, in uncomfortable conditions, and without telling him when they would stop -  they had basically forced him to confess to end the torment he was experiencing.

Unfortunately, because Wan had been tried in Washington D.C. (which is a federal jurisdiction) the new standard only applied to cases in federal courts. The ruling wouldn’t apply to states or local court proceedings for years.  The standard created by Justice Brandeis’ ruling also ended up being interpreted in a variety of ways for decades after it was first issued.  For years after the ruling, cases ended up before SCOTUS that would produce rulings which added more specificity to Justice Brandeis’ initial court opinion on Ziang’s case.

Eventually, in 1966 Chief Justice Earl Warren would mandate safeguards for suspects dealing with police in the opinion he issued for SCOTUS in the case of Miranda v. Arizona.  Those safeguards would eventually develop into the Miranda Rights most people are familiar with today. His writings leaned heavily on the court opinion issued in response to Wan’s case, making it clear the Ziang Sung Wan v. United States is the legal soil from which the Miranda Rights we know today grew from.

Thanks to the Wan and Miranda decisions, today suspects are informed that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them in the court of law, that they have the right to counsel, and that if they are unable to afford one, an attorney will be appointed for them.

1)    Now that you know some of the history behind Miranda Rights, do you have any feelings about your right to remain silent? What questions do you have about your right to remain silent?

2)      TV may lead you to think that the right to remain silent is only used by criminals who are done talking to police and want to leave the interview.  That’s not the case at all though.  What are some situations that could lead someone to exercise their right to remain silent?

3)      Suppose you found yourself needing to exercising your right to remain silent.  What would that look like?  Simply saying “I wouldn’t talk” isn’t enough: Tell us Why you might have decided to exercise your right, what you would do while exercising that right, how you would be treated while exercising the right, and the possible benefits and consequences of remaining silent.

When replying to any of the questions above, please provide detailed responses.  If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1919-murder-case-gave-americans-right-remain-silent-180968916/

Thieves in one Texas community attempted to steal courthouse ATMs three times in just one week!  During the third attempt, thieves used a stolen pickup truck to smash the back door of the courthouse, attached some sort of strap to the ATM and dragged the machine out of the building.

It is unknown if the suspects who stole the ATM on the third attempt were behind the previous two incidents, but the timing is certainly suspicious.  Whether they were the same people or different ones, the people behind each of those incidents will face serious consequences once they are caught!

If the thieves had taken the time to think about their actions or if they’d been fortunate enough to know some basic things about the law, they’d realize the risks that come with getting caught involved with these heists are ridiculous!    

Very few criminal charges result in a trial for the defendant.  That means the accused rarely has a chance of being acquitted (being declared ‘not guilty’ of the crime he or she has been charged with).   That’s because trials are expensive and don’t guarantee an outcome.  Most of the time, lawyers for both sides will negotiate a deal to avoid a trial and to guarantee they get the best outcome they could hope for if things did not go their way in court.  In criminal cases, a lot of time that can mean the person being charged still ends up going to prison, they just go for less time than they would if they had been found guilty in a trial.  

One of the tools a prosecutor has to motivate defense teams to negotiate is their ability to ‘stack charges’.  In the ATM story, you might think “Ok, the thieves will be charged with stealing the ATM”.  It’s not that simple though!

Consider all these things that we already know about the ATM theft incidents:

- The thieves stole a truck to use for the ATM theft

- The thieves used a stolen truck to commit the ATM theft

- The thieves were trespassing in the courthouse after hours

- The thieves broke into a property

- The thieves damaged a property

- The thieves broke into a courthouse, which may interfere with courthouse proceedings

- The thieves damaged a courthouse which may interfere with courthouse proceedings

- The thieves used a vehicle to intentionally damage a courthouse

- The thieves stole the court’s property

- The thieves stole an item worth thousands of dollars

- The thieves stole an ATM, which can also be considered a form of bank robbery

- The thieves may have spent the money in the ATM

Those aren’t just 12 facts about the case – they are 12 possible charges that could be filed against a person for one criminal incident. That means the person would be charged with 12 crimes from the one event!  That also means the defendant would face 12 different punishments if they were found guilty of each charge!

Don’t forget: Thieves had attempted to steal ATM’s from courthouses in the area 3 times that week!  If someone was convicted on all of the charges for just one of those incidents, an angry judge could sentence them to spend what would likely be the rest of their lives in prison.  If they were found guilty of all the crimes related to all 3 ATM incidents that week,  things might be even worse for them!

1)    What is the minimum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for one incident, if it happened in Nevada?

2)    What is the maximum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for one incident, if it happened in Nevada?

3)    What is the maximum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for all three ATM incidents, if they happened in Nevada?

4)    What federal laws were broken by the ATM thieves, and what is the maximum federal punishment they could receive?

5)    If the thieves were caught and found guilty of all charges related to the final robbery in Nevada’s state court, and then they were found guilty of all the possible federal charges in Federal Court, what is the maximum penalty they would face?

Explain your answers to any question you reply to in detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions. The article this piece was originally sourced from is available here if you’d like to get a few more details first:

http://abc7chicago.com/thieves-target-texas-courthouse-atm-for-3rd-time-in-a-week/3365855/