EOC WEEK 8

Update final project; Business Law, we have been giving the task to find a Supreme Court case and write about it. The case I chose was Chicago V. Morales a case that questions the motives and interpretation of Chicago’s Gang Congregation Ordinance. I chose this case because it struck me funny the way people try to hide their true intentions, and think none are the wiser. To me this is another form of profiling just in a different package. The ordinance allowed officers to become officials in who is and isn’t displaying apparent purpose. A definition used by Chicago’s police department to describe loitering in public places, mainly targeting “Criminal Street gang members”. (Chicago v. Morales, 1999) This project will been done in seven parts, part one I have already posted titled “Facts of the Case” what brought the case before the supreme court, other post will cover topics like “Issue of the case” a post on why the case was brought before the supreme court, “Decisions of the court” how the case was ruled, “Reasoning of the court” analysis on the thinking on the decision, “Rule of law” a summary on the main precedent, “Your own argument” my judgment on the ruling, and “Dissent” what was the opinion of the justices who ruled against the ruling. I plan on researching the case and following through to see if there were any precedents ruled prior to this case. Reading the judges reasoning for ruling in favor or against the case and posting my findings on this blogspot. I plan on doing a systematic review of the material I find on the Supreme Court’s ruling. So let the hammers swing as they may!

Facts of the Case

On December 9th, 1998 The U.S. Supreme Court began to hear the case of Chicago V. Morales, which addressed Chicago’s Gang Congregation Ordinance. This is a case where the Supreme Court had to rule on Chicago’s loitering ordinance targeted towards gang members. According to Dictionary.com loitering means: to linger aimlessly or as if aimless in or about a place. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loitering apparent purpose seems to be the undercurrent of the case. The ordinance goal was to prohibit gang members from loitering in public places showing or displaying no apparent purpose. A police officer using his or her discretion could order a group of two or more people to disperse, claiming that the individuals were loitering, even if one of the people is a non-gang member, and there was nothing these people could do. Anyone not complying promptly with the ordinance is in violation. The police department trying to avoid profiling only allowed certain officers to actually do the arresting, nonetheless; establishing a detailed criteria for defining street gangs. “The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance violated due process in that is impressibly vague on its face and arbitrary restriction on personal liberties." (Chicago v. Morales, 1999).

EOC WEEK 7

The 1990 movie “Pacific Heights” starring (Melanie Griffith)as Patty Palmer, (Matthew Modine) as Drake Goodman, and (Micheal Keaton) as Carter Hayes is a great example of what can go wrong if you don’t cover your butt as a Landlord. Melanie Griffith and Matthew Modine play a young couple who see their purchase of a San Francisco Victorian triplex in upscale Pacific Heights as an opportunity to invest in their future, as well as create a home. Micheal Keaton plays a tenant from hell taking advantage of California’s lenient laws towards tenants. I use the word tenant loosely, because he never really pays the proper considerations to occupy the space; nor signed a lease. Drake being in a rush due to a colossal mortgage, and feeling a good judge of character takes Carters’ word at face value, avoiding the necessary steps in verifying Carters’ credentials. Right from the start red flags where shown indicating that there was more to Carter than he let on. Using deception and manipulation to gain access to the unit, once inside the unit Carters’ real motives start to un-fold, using tactics of noise pollution and breeding cockroaches to infest the other tenants unit is only a glimpse. Another rushed decision by Drake put Carter in a position of power, establishing history depicting the landlords as the slum lords. Drake and Patty stressed by the unwanted tenant, struggle with what to do, as their relationship feels the effects.
If your find yourself in a similar situation purchasing a rental property, I suggest you watch this movie not to scare you from the thought of owning real property, but on what no to do in selecting a tenant. There is a reason why certain steps are taking in processing a tenant’s application for rental, especially someone you don’t know, or even someone you might know.

Instant Extra Credit

Three Names I have been called:
1. Slow
2. C-Low
3. Midwest
Three Jobs I have had in my life:
1. Nightclub Owner
2. Production Supervisor
3. Foreman
Three Places I have lived:
1. Minneapolis, MN.
2. Dallas, TX.
3. Las Vegas, NV.
Three TV shows that I watch:
1. Gangland
2. CSI Miami
3. Sons of Anarchy
Three Places I have been:
1. New Orleans, LA.
2. Anchorage, AK.
3. Miami, FL.
Three people that e-mail regularly:
1. Milcc my Friend
2. Jamie My Brother
3. June My Cousin
Three of my favorite foods:
1. Deep fried Tacos
2. Roast Beef Stew
3. Shrimp Scampi
Three cars I have driven:
1. 2003 S500 Mercedes Benz
2. 2002 Chevy Avalanche
3. 1994 Chevy Impala SS
Three things I’m looking forward to:
1. Graduation from Art Institute of Las Vegas
2. Employment
3. My Kids Graduation from High School

GREED IS GOOD

EOC Week 6
Wall Street the hidden face on the American dollar, few realize the significance of Wall Street and its effect on American culture. If you wish to know where we stand as a nation read the indexes, one of these being the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). This is where will find the price of oil by the barrel, or how much Orange Juice is going to cost in Super Markets. When something has value and enough people want it, and can become a publicly traded item known as shares or stocks. The day the idea of Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), was conceived the inventor truly thought he had something and so did Wall Street, another way to fuel their greed, however; I can see the potential in this concept. I feel as though it was poorly governed and regulated, but was truly meant to give those with not so great credit a chance, to obtain an American quality of life that may have been unimaginable before, or was it? I firmly believe anything controlled by man can be manipulated to work in another’s favor.
Being the father of this brain child entitles you to a certain amount of compensation, but when your child becomes the destroyer of worlds, that compensation should be forfeited until all the bugs are worked out of the system, or is it the price Americans pay for doing business?
The movie “Wall Street” depicts the power of greed and what one will do to achieve it, regardless of whose left holding the check. The movie is 30 years old and still reflects today’s business practices indicating the same problems that existed then, we still experience today. As long as business is conducted someone is guaranteed to receive the short end of the stick.

Morse vs. Frederick

EOC WEEK 5
This is one of those times I’m going to have to agree with the Courts decision. Although, I wouldn’t have been offended by the banner displayed by Frederick, it was done in poor taste, and definitely at the wrong venue. I feel as though he truly believed he had the right to display his sign, but why at this event, and what was his motivation? Did he see himself as making a major blow for the Legalization of Marijuana? Nonetheless, he received what he had coming his way.
The sign that was displayed by Frederick was meant to get attention and show his views on the issue, I wonder if a High School is the best place to do this. I support freedom of speech, but there is times where some things just aren’t appropriate, this is call morals. He was asked to take the banner down and refused to comply that sounds like a suspension a me. I think Frederick had an obscure understanding of the first amendment and truly felt he was going to make his contribution. The 1st. Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. However; if he was truly committed in his beliefs he wouldn’t have went across the street to do it. This tells me he knew he shouldn’t of use a school as his stage.
I find it funny that it became such a deal, Frederick a student told by a Principal to remove disruptive material for a school sanctioned event. “A minor on the schools watch cased closed”.