Virginia Tech Fraud Case: University V. University

CASE 2: The president and athletic director at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) fired the school's basketball coach because an expense form he had submitted requesting a reimbursement had listed the names of two students he said had joined him for a recruiting dinner. When questioned, the students said they had not been to the dinner and knew nothing about it. The coach was stunned at being fired because he had been at UCLA for eight years and had established a winning basketball program. He said "I can’t believe I threw away my career over a $100

1. The three aspects of fraud - Perceived pressure, Rationalization, and Opportunity were present in the CIT case as follows:

Members of the University of Illinois’s men’s swim team filed a lawsuit in 1993 claiming that the school was discriminating against them by cutting their team and not the women’s swim team. The members claimed that this decision was in violation of Title IX, a law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, along with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The University of Illinois made the decision to cut the men’s swim team due to budgetary limitations. Along with the men’s swim team, the men’s diving, men’s fencing, and women’s diving team were also cut for the same reason. There were many instances previous to this case where female athletes have filed lawsuits claiming that they were being discriminated against, and that the institution was in violation of

There is one case that intrigues me, and confusing to me as well, Tompkins v. Alabama State University (AS) (1995). In the case of T v. AS, AS was told by a federal judge that the university needed to spend more state funds for scholarships to attract white students, the university was primarily black. The judge required the university to become more diversified. Jessie Tompkins along with others filed a lawsuit against the university and its white scholarship. In 2000 AS changed the name of the scholarship, making it racially inclusive. Tompkins denied the settlement because AS could still discriminate (Legislatures, June 2016). My confusion is, most want even opportunities for everyone, but AS had to change the program so it could no longer

On April 14, 2015, Brian F. Guillot, Esq., of Metairie Louisiana, submitted a complaint to Office of the Bar Counsel regarding Ernest A. Solomon. Guillot asserts that Solomon failed to comply with Guillot’s request for accounting in reference to the estate of Elmore C. Desvigne, Sr. Solomon has allegedly violated Mass.R.Prof.C 1.15(c) and (d).

Following the termination of the Colorado State University women’s varsity softball team on June 1, 1992; plaintiffs sought reinstatement on the basis of a Title IX violation ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814 F. Supp. 1507 (D. Colo. 1993) :: Justia," 1993). The girls found terminating their sports team to be unjust. The plaintiffs argued financial difficulties and lack of participation and support for the boy’s baseball team did not warrant termination of the softball program. They also argued getting recruited to play Division I level softball afforded them a better chance at improving their future. Most girls had a substantial amount of scholarship money that helped them afford college ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814

Prior to this Supreme Court case, there were many schools that were “male-only” or “female-only”. In a time when social changes were happening throughout the country (desegregation and women’s rights), having an institution that promotes men over women was not going to just fly over the heads of women and the Constitution. In 1990, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was smacked in the face with a subpoena by the district court, the United States brought upon the charges. This case was brought about by a female in high school that complained to the U.S. Justice department about VMI being a male-only institution. Her application that was processed at VMI was not accepted without even regarding her qualifications. VMI was tried for discrimination

The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

Both sides had major arguments and reasons why they thought their side was right. Regents of the University of California said that their special admissions program helped limit discrimination in our society. Medical schools normally were discriminatory towards minors (by the admission process based of credentials) so this program helped ease that problem. The Regents of the University of California also stated that the program will help poor communities by giving them physicians that will want to go and help out the cause of where they grew up. Regents of the

Terry v. Ohio was a pivotal case for the Fourth Amendment and for the citizens of the United States of America. As referenced by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, in nineteen sixty three an off duty detective in Cleveland, Ohio stopped and frisked two African American men and one white man based on a ‘reasonable suspicion that the men were about to commit a crime’ (ACLUOhio, 2014). The ruling of this case has set in motion the gross abuse of stop and frisks in minority communities and among minority races in the twenty-first century; ultimately racial profiling in a post-racial era.

Similar to the aforementioned case, Kevin n. Stanford v. Missouri, this story involves a young man by the name of Christopher Simmons as well as two other young men, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer. At the time of the incident Simmons was still a junior high school, he was 17 years of age, Charles Benjamin was 15 years of age and John Tessmer was then 16. Simmons encouraged both Benjamin and Tessmer to assist him with committing murder. Records indicate that Simmons was in fact the instigator of the crime. Simmons plan was to “commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering, tying up a victim, and throwing the victim off a bridge.” Simmons assured both Benjamin and Tessmer that once the crime was committed they could “get away with it”

Due to the fact that our client, Jackson does not understand why he is charged with three counts of arson when he only set one fire, I will search the Maryland statutes to determine whether Maryland has sound authority for charging a defendant with multiple counts of arson. Next, I will find case law that supports the case statute I find regarding arson. My strategy to approach the research is to start off simple. For example, I will start off with just the search term, arson and see what I find. If I do not see anything regarding multiple counts of arson I will try to change the search term. For example, I may try to use a quote, such as, “I set one fire, but I am charged with three counts of arson”. If I still cannot find a statute to help me with my research I will browse case law first instead of trying to find a statute. I will also use secondary sources to help me with my research, such as, an encyclopedia or articles about law.

The subjectivity of a Supreme Court justice’s interpretation of the Constitution can sometimes create some fogginess. Such is the case when speaking of R.A.V v City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003); Two identical cases, with the issue of cross burning and the question free-speech at the center of the arguments, yet two different rulings were handed down. In short, the nuances of the cases are what ultimately led to the different rulings, but let us take a more in-depth look at how the cases were decided.

As requested I have completed an analysis of the accounting fraud case at Computer Associates (CA) in preparation of your speech at the American Accounting Associations annual meeting. I have structured my analysis to correspond to six key questions that arose from the case and Stephen Richards actions while Head of Global Sales at Computer Associates.

A business can not work out without an account system, which includes internal. Internal controls are used by companies to make sure financial information is accurate and valid. Strong internal controls are signs of a financially healthy company and protect the company’s integrity. Strong internal controls can also increase a company’s profitability. There are several types of internal controls that companies used to protect themselves such as: Segregation of duties, asset purchases, supervisor review, internal audits and adequate documents and records. This paper will discuss several topics from a case study about And the Fraud