Sosa V. Humberto Alvarez-Machain

On October 29th, 2015, I made the trip to small claims court at the Superior Court North County Division in Vista, California. The case I observed was a contract dispute between Michael Mendell and Ediga Narashima. The plaintiff (Mendell) was sueing the defendant (Narashima) for $4,000 over a breach of contract. Narashima had given Mendell the opportunity to build theatre system and a bookshelf for his home. They both came to an agreement that the total cost of this procedure would be $4,100. Mr. Mendell is a professor at APT College where he teaches telecommunications. Mendell claims that the full $4,100 was never paid to him. During the whole process of the build there was many setbacks and problems that arose. Mendell claimed that while he was working on this home theatre project, he missed out on work and money he could have obtained from his other job as a professor. That is the reason why he is sueing Narashima as well as the fact that Mendell claims Narashima did not pay him his final installment of $300 for the job. Ediga Narashima claims that the final installment was paid through a friend or third party named Mario Diaz. Mario was a friend of both the plaintiff and defendant. He had referred Mendell to Narashima for the job. Mendell counterclaims that he had never received the final installment from Mario. The big question is to whether Mario had payed the final installment to Mendell as they agreed in

Ms. Juanita Machado is a Line Assembly Technician. She was employed with the insured approximately for seven months. Within the seven months, she has been with the company; she had known of the claimant, Mr. Donald Arauz after he had been hired early on last year in 2016 when he was hired to the same position that she currently holds.

Whether the fourth amendment search and seizure constitutional right was in violation in Encinitas, Ca. when Mike Pilazzio and his passenger, Mrs. Walden was pulled over after Mr. Pilazzio crossed a sold double yellow line, not giving him permission to search his belongings in result finding a purse full of crack cocaine without probable cause.

• Castañeda vs. Pickard was a case that revisited the ruling and implications that were determined in the Lau vs. Nichols case.

The First Amendment guarantees U.S citizen with basic freedoms such as religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. In the 2010 Case between Salazar and Buono, The First Amendment was put on trial in the Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court examined whether a religious cross, meant to honor World War I Veterans, violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Frank Buono, a former preserve employee, filed the lawsuit to get rid of the religious cross in the reserve permanently, stating that it was built on federal land thus creating a sense of favoritism of one religion over another in government. The favoritism exhibited in the Salazar and Buono Court Case was towards the religion of Christianity, therefore the U.S government did violate the Establishment Clause by promoting Christianity over all other religions.

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

The arrest of Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman was a victorious circumstance for the Mexican government, who have been closing down on his presence for the recent past years. Mexican authorities began taking down high ranked members of the Sinaloa Cartel including two of Guzman’s main associates. On February 22, 2014, the world’s most wanted man had also been captured. Although the biggest drug lord has been captured, the crime and violence left behind cannot be forgotten.

United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?

“In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”

I, Debryan Bush am the lawyer of the killer Sebastian Ramirez. He has been charged with 1st degree murder. Ramirez murdered an elderly man named Robert Jenkins. I am not here to prove to you that Sebastian Ramirez is guilty of the murder. I am here to prove to you that he is insane.

Successful ELL programs in schools require specific knowledge of ever-changing federal and state laws including funding requirements, as well as current knowledge of “best practices” regarding ELL programming. These subjects will be discussed as well as resources for reviewing programming policies against current laws, regulations, and policies.

Thesis Statement: How Joaquín Guzmán Loera became a mythical figure in Mexico, both a narco folk hero and a villain

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

With his political aspirations no longer a possibility and the United States pushing for Colombia to extradite him, Pablo unleashed terror on those who he considered to be his enemies. Escobar fought hard for a non-extradition clause and amnesty for those involved in trafficking if they gave up their trade (U.S. News & World Report, 1991). Unfortunately, the violence would result in the deaths of thousands including politicians, journalists, judges, police officers and ordinary citizens. In 1989, he was implicated in the bombing of a Columbian plane that killed more than 100 people and led to the public and drug traffickers turning against him (Levinthal, 2012). In June of 1991, Pablo Escobar surrendered to the Columbia government with the threat of extradition lifted and was allowed to spend his prison term in a luxury prison which he was permitted to build for himself (Maclean’s, 1992). Escobar’s imprisonment saw the deterioration of the Medellin Cartel whose offices were raided and leaders were killed by police officers. While authorities were attempting to move Pablo to a secure facility, Pablo escaped and a 16 month manhunt began. In December 1993, authorities finally caught up with Escobar in Medellin, where he and his bodyguard were shot and killed as they tried to

On April 30, 1984 in Bogota, Colombia, the violent ambush and assassination of Justice Minister Rodrigo Lara Bonilla sent a chilling political message – violence would be employed against anyone who supported reforms against the illicit narcotics trade. Before his death, Justice Minister Rodrigo Lara Bonilla was one of the first politicians who voiced opposition to the exploding drug trade involving cocaine. The cycle of targeted violence returned only a couple of years later, on November 17, 1986, when a former chief of the anti-narcotics police force, Colonel Jaime Ramirez Gomez, was brutally murdered while traveling in a vehicle with his family. This public figure had not only shut down one of the biggest cocaine producing plants (at the time) but was set to testify in a tribunal to implicate Pablo Escobar in the murder of Justice Minister Bonilla. Then in 1989, Luis Carlos Galan, a Colombian presidential candidate who denounced the criminal ventures of the cartels, was gunned down at his political rally. During his campaign, he fatefully challenged the likes of Pablo Escobar, by promising to institute extradition laws of drug traffickers to the United States. The pattern of calculated violence towards these prominent political figures, who supported justice reforms against drug traffickers, exemplified the extreme measures that the Medellin Cartel used to exact revenge on public dissenters. The drug cartels publicly executed political figure heads, typically in