Case Analysis : Mr. Fields

Case: Rick Sanchez is an older white male, who carries a flask on him and can frequently be seen drinking out of it, this is concerning because of his pension of flying his hovercraft after having a few pulls and possibly endangering his life as well as his grandsons who is often with him. Rick Sanchez has complete disregard for the law, and lives on his own terms. He is wanted by the Galactic Federation for numerous crimes. He often acts with disregard for the lives of others. He has an extreme intellect which he uses by inventing things, though he does not try to sell these inventions to the benefit of his family. Sanchez does not hold a steady job and relies on his daughter Beth for housing and financial

1.3. In order to estimate the peso discount rate, assume that the International Fisher Effect (IFE) holds. Groupe Ariel's Euro hurdle rate for a project of this type was 8%. Assume that inflation rates are expected to be 7% in Mexico and 3% in France.

It has come to my attention that we are in a state uncertainty. First off, we have the United States defending the fact that U.S citizen Abel Fields has committed a crime for which he has falsely claimed for receiving a military award. Therefore, he was convicted of the Stolen Valor Act, and given a fine for which he must pay. Then we have the other party, Mr. Fields, who has claim that he is protected under the first amendment for his claim has not harmed anyone and he did not receive any valuables for his claim. Although the majority of my colleagues believe that Fields has committed a crime under the Stolen Valor Act, I still strongly believe that Fields should be convicted of his crimes however; his sentence should be changed or altered.

For example, in the case of Elonis v. United States, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address this increasingly relevant issue in deciding whether an individual’s Facebook posts qualified as true threats. Elonis was charged in accordance to Section 875(c) of U.S. Law. Section 875(c) governs the class of statements that do not enjoy First Amendment protections because they constitute true threats. As aforementioned previously, while the Supreme Court has upheld the protections of free speech, this trial marks an instance where true threats were declared as a category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment. When analyzing statutory provisions that reference true threats, however, the Court has applied varying intent standards to the crimes, without referencing the First Amendment implications of these statements. (Best 1132) Even so, the significance of Elonis v. United States is unequivocal-the Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect legitimate or “true” threats, and that any speech that targets or endangers the wellbeing of another is not free speech and can be

This case is about Dave Armstrong, a 29 year old second year MBA student of Harvard Business School. Immediately after his graduation from a small liberal arts college in Texas, he started working for Thorne Enterprises as a computer Programmer. After eighteen months in the job, he quit to go into life insurance business in Amarillo. He applied to Harvard Business school but hadn’t considered what he would do, once accepted, he decided to go there as he and his wife wouldn’t have to compromise on their lifestyle as he would still be receiving renewal income from his old policy holders.

As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal’s freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one’s thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,

Abel Fields of California, attended a meeting about public safety. He was explaining his military experience gave him knowledge to speak with authority about public safety issues. He had served in the military for eight years. Fields claims was false. He prosecuted and convicted under the stolen valor act. Fields appealed to the 9th circuit court appeals. The 9th Circuit ruled in his favor.

To sum, the case is about an advertising the newspaper included some inaccurate story about the civic leaders, civil right events, and Sullivan. Sullivan (a public official) believed that the defamatory comments that were made of him were making a negative impact on his life, thus he sued the New York times. The court in Alabama at the time ruled “The law … implies legal injury from bare facts of publication itself, falsity and malice are presumed, general damages no need to presume.” Thus, the court from Alabama gave Sullivan a compensation of five hundred thousand dollars. New York times decided to take this case to the supreme court because they believe their 1st amendment rights were being violated. Therefore, a new question arose whether the first amendment protects defamatory, false statements concerning public officials? The court ruled that the 1st amendment does protect the publication of all statements, even false ones, concerning the conduct of a public official except when the statement was made with actual malice. Once again, we notice the irony of freedom of speech the issue is citizens are not informed that under the 1st amendment there is sufficient rights guarantee. It is not solely having the right to express our emotions towards the government, it is to expose information to citizens and have the citizens decided for themselves. Democracy does not work if the government or public official try to hide information from its citizens. Democracy function when there is a clear majority of press that expose the truth and allow people to determine what the issue is. Press must be able to protect us against an overreaching government. Sometimes executive power tries to control the press because they do not want to inform the truth about that for example the Watergates scandal, Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks and

Abel Fields was convicted due to the fact that while speaking publicly, he lied that he had been in the Military for 8 years and that he had been awarded a Purple Heart Medal. Abel was then convicted under the Stolen Valor Act. The Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruled in Abel's favor. Before the Supreme Court, Field's argued that his first amendment rights had been violated and that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional. The court of Appeals who dissented from the opinion of the court, said that, the law was constitutional and it did not set a harmful

The Stolen Valor Act was later reformed under the suggestion of the Supreme Court. Mr. Alvarez was charged for falsely representing that he had been awarded two Congressional Medals. The Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment because even though it protects you from free speech, false states do not present a threat and criminal punishment was not necessary. According to the court, the First Amendment is broad enough to to cover intentional falsehood and when the person is not under oath. False statements of fact should be subject to intermediate scrutiny; however, as drafted, the Stolen Valor Act violates intermediate scrutiny because it applies to situations that are unlikely to cause

In the year of 2011, Abel Fields attended a city meeting regarding the topic of public safety. During this meeting Fields spoke falsely, claiming he had served in the military for eight years and that he had received the Purple Heart medal. Consequently, both statements proved to be untrue and Fields was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act of 2006 and fined $1000 USD. Fields was found guilty at his first trial, and he appealed the sentence. He argued that the Stolen valor Act was unconstitutional and his First Amendment right to freedom of speech had been violated. The Court of Appeals overturned his conviction, however, the government appealed the decision

The Plaintiff, Sullivan sued the defendant, the New York Times Co. for printing an advertisement about the civil rights movement in the south and defamed the plaintiff. The Plaintiff was one of three Commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama, who claimed that he was defamed in a full-page ad taken out in the New York Times. The advertisement was entitled, “Heed Their Rising Voices” and it charged in part that a new wave of terror had been directed against those who participated in the civil rights movement in the South. Some of the details of the advertisement were false. Although the advertisement did not mention the Plaintiff by name, he claimed that it referred to him indirectly because he had failed to notice responsibility of the police.

The issue surrounding the case was whether or not the first amendment allows media like a newspaper or a broadcaster to make defamatory statements that are false about people who are neither public officials or public figures (Gertz v. Welch – Oyez).

Old Dominion University, situated in the waterfront city of Norfolk, is Virginia's entrepreneurial-disapproved of doctoral research college with more than 24,500 understudies, thorough scholastics, an enthusiastic private group, and activities that contribute $2.6 billion yearly to Virginia's

In the past, the booming economy had allowed for year to year increase in their sales because people had larger discretionary incomes. But due to the recession, smaller independent retailers had to markdown their items in order to stay in business because designer outlet stores are getting more traffic; so will Harry Rosen follow in suit? Or in order to maintain the integrity of the quality products they offer, will they continue their higher pricing and settle for a lower market share?