Case Study: Baquedano V. Canada

Facts: Abel Lopez was attacked in “Los Angeles in October 2009”. While cashing a check he spoke to a man who was identified as petitioner Walter Fernandez. After being asked a series of questions by Walter Abel was attacked and chased. The reason being is that Abel was in the territory of the “Drifters”, a gang that wasn’t very welcoming to people being in there territory. While running Abel called 911 but Fernandez stopped him by whistling causing four men to appear and attack Lopez as well as stealing any valuables in his possession which consisted of “$400 in cash” as well as a cell phone and wallet. The police arrived and the incident was suspected to have have gang involvement.

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

Diving in the Citizen’s United Ruling case state that corporations and other independent groups have the right to raise unlimited campaign funds. This campaign fund, representing the corporation's freedom of speech, can be used for and against federal candidates. The ruling of Citizen United permitted groups to make “independent expenditures,” not affiliated with any candidate or party since they were not allowed to spend treasury funds in Federal elections (Citizens United). Corporations and unions can have a certain limited contribution to their political action committees, organizations that raise and spend money for specific candidates, that then contribute to the outcome of federal campaigns. Organizations, social welfare, and trade associations

The sixth and fourteenth amendment both protect rights having to do with due process and right to counsel.

Jae Lee v. United States of America should have been an open and shut case back in 2016. Jae Lee, a noncitizen permanent resident, was convicted of being in possession of ecstasy with the intent to distribute. Because of his noncitizen status this particular offense qualified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, meaning he was subject to mandatory deportation. Lee’s court appointed attorney continually advised him that if he “took a plea bargain he would not be deported stating ‘the government cannot deport you’ if deportation was not in the plea agreement” (Jae Lee, 2017). Lee contested that had he known taking a plea would result in deportation he would instead have tried his luck at a trial.

The case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995) was the case of a young man in 12th grade named Alfonso Lopez Jr. who brought a loaded gun to school and was arrested and charged under Texas law. The state charges were later dismissed and federal agents charged him because he violated the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. This acts states that it is unlawful for people to bring firearms to a place that "the individual knows, or has a reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." He was charged by federal agents because he violated a federal criminal law, however this was also dismissed because it was unconstitutional. This was the big issue surrounding this case. The act was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court said congress went above its constitutional

The Whatcott’s case against Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) is a one of the most recent case that emphasized on the issue of “hate speech” and “fundamental freedoms” listed in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Whatcott’s case, four complaints were filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission about the four flyers published and distributed by William Whatcott. In the four flyers, William Whatcott expressed and emphasized strongly on religious convictions against homosexuals. He consistently campaigned against homosexuality, Islam and abortion in Saskatchewan and unfortunately, Whatcott included phrases such as “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools!” and “Sodomites in our Public Schools”(Criminal case) which can be seen as the hate speech in the flyers.

Robin Blencoe was a minister of the British Columbia government who was accused of sexually harassing his assistant, Fran Yanor in March 1995. In the Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission case) h became the respondent in the case. Once he was accused, Blencoe stepped down from his position and a month later he was removed from his cabinet by the premier. Along with this, he was dismissed from the NDP caucus. Four to five months later, Blencoe was yet again faced with two complaints of “discrimination conduct in the form of sexual harassment” (Westcoastleaf, page.2) by two other women who were employees of Blencoe named Andrea Willis and Irene Schell. There were various incidents that took place in between March 1993 and March

Giglio (defendant) and Taliento (co-defendant) were thought to be committing several forgeries. The prosecution presented Taliento with immunity in trade of his testimony against Giglio. During the trial, Taliento said that the prosecution never offered leniency for his testimony. Giglio was ultimately convicted. After filing an appeal, Giglio learned of Taliento’s offer from the prosecution.

Judicial activism acts as an important restraint on the power of the government. For instance, this was the case in Vriend v. Alberta. Delwin Vriend worked as a laboratory coordinator at a college in Alberta and was given a permanent, full time job in 1988. In 1990, in response to an inquiry by the president of the college, Vriend included that he was homosexual. In 1991, the college’s board of governors adopted a position statement on homosexuality, and shortly after, the president of the college requested Vriend’s resignation. However, Vriend declined to resign, and his employment was terminated. The college stated that the reason was because of his non‑compliance with the college’s policy on homosexual practice. Vriend appealed the termination

The court’s decision regarding Gonzales v. Raich dealt closely with the Controlled Substances Act and how the DEA could handle certain events dealing with marijuana. In 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act which in turn legalized marijuana for medicinal use. However, California's law clashed with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, an assembly of medical marijuana consumers sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court.

As an intervener, I represent an outside agency who does not have direct and substantial interest in the case at hand, but has a definite interest and perspectives that are essential to the case at bar. For the respondent’s, the Canadian Bar Association was an appropriate intervener for two reasons: the CBA had a strong interest in the mandatory minimums within the impugned legislation and the perspective of implementing an exemption would act as a good alternative to amending the legislation in case the judiciary did not see good enough reason to dismiss the appeal. I will present an explanation for why the CBA argued for an alternative to the mandatory minimum, how it relates to the submissions of the respondents, and the reasoning behind the specific exemption clause submitted.

The appellants Lee Carter, Hollis Johnson and Gloria Taylor joined with other appellants to bring the civil claim which is against the prohibition on assisted suicide found in s. 14 and s. 241 (b) of the Criminal Code (Carter, para. 20). The same issue which was brought in Rodriguez v. British Columbia 20 years ago was declared to be constitutional. In this case, ultimately Lee Carter’s appeals succeeded.

I have mixed feelings about what both Whitaker and Vincent expressed in this interview. In my view Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman shouldn’t be extradited to the United States legal system. Guzman has committed countless transgressions of the law, however those crimes weren’t committed in the United States thus extraditing him to a country where he hasn’t violated any laws wouldn’t be comprehensible. The United States should steer clear of legal matters concerning Guzman in other countries because Mexico (where the heinous criminal was wanted for over ten years) will be able to prosecute him accordingly. In addition, Mexico will be able to prosecute him to a greater degree than the United States can on account of they have greater knowledge of the

The Canadarm was designed by DSMA Atcon, Spar Aerospace, CAE Electronic (Originally Canadian Aviation Electronics), and RCA (which would later be made into Spar Montreal) and would be the hardest machine to be created of its time. The companies drafted a proposal for NASA, this proposal would be for a remote manipulator system which is a robotic arm that is able to retrieve and deploy space hardware from an orbiters payload bay. NASA was interested in the design that the four companies had created but NASA had little funding for such a risky project. This project had gained support from the Canadian Minister of State for Science and Technology, Jeanne Sauvé who helped launch the project and in 1974, Canada agreed to build the first ever Shuttle Remote Manipulator System.