Dr. Morris Case Summary

Art Beaumont, the newly hired president of MediSys Corp, created a core team in August 2008 in order to accelerate the IntensCare project. Team consisted technically competent employee in six areas: research and development, engineering, software design, production, marketing and regulatory affairs. Jack Fogel, a senior production manager was assigned the project leader. IntensCare project was very important to the success of Medisys but the team had very tight schedule. However, differences started to emerge soon after which obfuscated the future of IntensCare project.

Dr. Henry Morgentaler and two other doctors set up a private clinic in Toronto to perform abortions on women. According to the law at that time women were required to obtain a certificate from a therapeutic abortion committee that would Asses whether they qualified for an abortion. Morgentaler and his colleagues made public statements question the wisdom of these abortion laws in Canada. They believed that women should have the sole decision on having abortion. The three appellants where charged on the grounds of conspiracy amongst each other between November 1982 and July 1983 with the intent to perform an abortion on women contrary to s.423 (1) (d) and s.251 (1) of the criminal code . This was an appeal from the court of appeal for Ontario.

#1 With no change in volume (utilization), is the clinic projected to make a profit?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Today we have a very serious charge before you. We have Dr Richard Kimball, who is before you on the charges of first-degree murder. However, he is not guilty based on our success to provide reasonable doubt that Kimball planned and deliberately kill his wife or that he was provoked into killing his wife in the heat of passion.

Gonzales was first employed by the Plaintiff in this case on December 2, 2014. He met with the Plaintiff on January 12, 2015. He discussed with the Plaintiff her prior medical history and performed a physical examination. He then reviewed the Plaintiff’s medical records.

The third key piece of evidence in the crown’s case was Gary Anderson’s testimony. Anderson’s testimony proved that the murder of JoAnn was not only at the hand of Colin Thatcher but that it was premeditated. Gary Anderson testified he had met Thatcher in the fall of 1980 and Thatcher had asked him if he was interested in killing JoAnn Wilson for a fee of $50,000. Anderson stated he knew another person named Charlie Wilde who might be interested. Wilde suggested a third person, Cody Crutcher, who would be willing to take on the job. Anderson stated that Thatcher gave him $15,000 to pass on to Crutcher, and that Anderson paid some $14,500 to Crutcher, together with a picture of JoAnn Wilson and a set of her car keys. Nothing came of this and

On 8/3/15 worker spoke with Ms. Lisa Welch, SW at the VA, for the purpose of gathering information on Mr. James Kimbrell's current situation. Ms. Welch stated the VA had been involved with Mr. Welch for some time. During their involvement, Ms. Stacy Grey, primary caregiver and rents a trailer from Mr. Kimbrell. She refuses to pay rent but transports him to doctor appointments and grocery shopping. However, she charges him money for transportation. and when he buys groceries, she puts personal belongings into the buggy. Mr. Kimbrell is blind and is not aware of what he purchases until he gets home and she starts taking groceries just purchased out of the home.

In Taney’s opinion on the Scott vs. Sanford case, he reasons why the court’s decision to refuse Dred Scott’s citizenship was the right one. Taney pulls from multiple sources, such as the declaration of independence, the constitution, and congress to void Dred Scott’s case. With a stoic tone, Taney meticulously tears Scott’s claim to shreds. Taney does not believe that Dred Scott is entitled to citizenship. In his written opinion, he conveys this in the most professional way possible.

The Dred Scott decision was a landmark Supreme Court decision on slavery in 1857. Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom after living in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory where slavery was banned. Mr. Scott argued that he should be free since he had lived on free soil. The Supreme Court was to decide three questions: should a black person be considered a citizen and have the ability to sue in court, Did residence in a free state make Mr. Scott free? Did Congress possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? The Court was divided on these questions and each Justice issued an opinion. Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney, declared “that only white persons could be citizens”. He insisted that the founding fathers believed that

Mr. Saunders is a 60 year old male who presented to the ED via LEO under petition by his niece, Rachelle, for allegedly putting a gun into his mouth, him putting a gun in another individuals mouth called "legs", and increasing alcohol consumption. At the time of the assessment Mr. Saunders is calm and cooperative. He denies suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation, and symptoms of psychosis. Mr. Saunders reports he has been depressed for several months and has been binge drinking alcohol. He reports relational issues with his wife has been the primary stressor contributing to his distress. He express feelings of hopelessness, worthlessness, irritability, and isolation. He does admit to informing a friend, William, he see no reason to leave if he can not be with his wife. Patient does not appear to be exhibiting signs of agitation,

Nova Scotia politician Steve Sampson, a member of Richmond County council says that he has been blackmailed over a mail escort. Sampson says that he recently received an anonymous letter that shows a call from his hotel room to a male escort agency. In the letter, the blackmailer had written that they will release a copy of a hotel bill from February 2014, unless Sampson resigns from his position and promises not to run for office again. Sampson had later confirmed that the bill included a phone call to a male escort service, incurred while he was on county business in Seattle, Washington. Sampson said that he trusted local residents to weigh the motives of the blackmailer against his conduct during twenty-five years as a councilor. He said

Mr. Bates cooperation assisted the government to successfully prosecute co-defendant Jonathan Coleman. Mr. Coleman originally pled not guilty and his case set for jury trial on March 23, 2015. On March 11, 2015, the government sought a superseding indictment adding Mr. Bates as leverage to induced Mr. Coleman to enter into a guilty plea.

On 09/15/16, there is a Screening Report stating that Ms Rikki Miller (AKA: Bennett) called the GPPD asking to take her child, Keaton to the hospital because he was having bad behavior and she also asked to have her child removed from her home. DHS took that child and placed in the child’s home.

Although the price of each lettuce head is equivalent for each shipment, I would choose to purchase the lettuce from Holland Marsh. This is because it is likely to be a lot fresher than the lettuce from further away. Additionally, shipping lettuce from Holland Marsh consumes the least amount of energy compared to the two other lettuce shipments. In other words, it costs the company less money to ship lettuce from Holland Marsh than from Thorold or Solano. Correspondingly, the shipment for this lettuce emits the least amount of carbon dioxide. All things considered, the lettuce from Holland Marsh is likely to be sold at a price cheaper than the lettuces imported from the two other places. These are the reasons why I would choose to purchase

I feel that Dr. P has a case in this situation. I feel he has the ability to sue for compensatory damages. I would argue that Dr. P is a public figure. As you said he is the foremost academic on exposure to violence and the human psyche. Since he is a public figure and his work is important to public interest. Because of this we have to prove malice. In this case we also have to determine how defamation of DR. P is present. We have to answer how his reputation is being harmed, how his standing in the community is being harmed.