Posted by Luke Iorio.

It was deemed the trial of the century–a trial with so many twist and turns it has sparked books to be written about it as well as a TV mini series. It is the O.J. trial, and there was a recent discovery that could finally provide all the answers.

The one thing missing from the prosecutor’s case was the murder weapon. There is a chance that the weapon has been discovered 22 years after the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. A retired policeman has handed in a knife that was found by a construction worker in 1998 on Simpson’s property.  The knife is currently being tested for DNA.

There is still skepticism, amongst many people, that this knife will end up having anything to do with the murders. It is a little suspicious that this knife suddenly appears in the middle of the airing of the mini series that is based on the murders and trial.

The main question to be asked is: what happens if the knife is connected to the murder and the DNA comes back connected to OJ? Because of double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment, OJ will be safe from being back on trial. Unless the trial goes to a federal court, the only problem is that there is a slim chance that a federal issue could possibly arise from a murder case.

The people that have a chance to face legal punishment if the knife is linked to OJ Simpson are the people that helped keep the knife hidden or, if his friends helped conceal any evidence. Those are the people that could end up going to jail not OJ.

It is important to conclude saying that it is very unlikely that the knife has any connection to the murders and it is just one of the hundred “murder weapons” that have been turned in over the years. But it is something to think about.

Luke is a sports management and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington D.C. is the first federal office to set up a unit to identify anyone wrongfully convicted of a crime.  The Conviction Integrity Unit will review cases where defendants offer new evidence that was not available at the original trial, such as DNA evidence, to prove their innocence.  Ronald Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney of the Washington office said in a statement, “As prosecutors, our goal is not to win convictions, but to do justice.”  Machen further said, “This new unit will work to uncover historical injustices and to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to prevent such tragedies in the future.”

The Conviction Integrity Unit follows similar ones established in state offices.  The modus for the creation of a separate unit to review these cases arises from five convictions that were vacated by the court, including that of Donald Gates, who was convicted in 1982 of rape and murder based on hair evidence.  DNA testing made available in 2009 proved that he was innocent.

The office is working with defense lawyers and the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, a non-profit organization which fights wrongful convictions.  Over the last four-years, more than 2,000 files involving hair or fiber evidence have been reviewed by the FBI.

In Torts, we discuss defamation and the strict limitations surrounding public figures when pursuing claims against people who say things that hurt their good reputation. Bill O’Reilly, a former prominent news commentator, filed a $5 million-dollar lawsuit against a former politician who posted statements on Facebook regarding his former girlfriend’s treatment by Fox News after she made harassment accusations.

The complaint states: “‘Plaintiff [O’Reilly] seeks damages for the public hatred, ridicule, disgrace, and permanent harm to his professional and personal reputations as a result of Defendant Panter’s publication of knowingly defamatory statements about Plaintiff, which were made with actual malice, as well as Defendant Panter’s intentional infliction of emotional distress upon Plaintiff.’”

Claims made by public figures are difficult, but not impossible, to prove because they require a showing of malice.  Here, the complaint alleges defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

President Trump blocked the impending merger between Singapore-based, Broadcom, and U.S.-based, Qualcomm, over concerns that it would affect national security. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States investigated “the national security implications of the deal last week over concerns that it would hamper U.S. efforts to develop 5G wireless networks and other emerging technologies. CFIUS on Monday recommended that the president veto the deal.”

The President cited “‘credible’” evidence of risk to our national security. We would lose a company with the ingenuity and technology to build the next-generation of wireless networks.

Prof. Victor N. Metallo teaches business law at Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business, Department of Economics and Legal Studies, and Montclair State University, School of Business, Department of Accounting, Law and Taxation, and has published in the areas of cryptocurrency and blockchain regulation, international tax, criminal law, civil procedure, and the First Amendment. Dr. Metallo is pursuing an LLM in Securities and Financial Regulation at Georgetown University Law Center. He holds a JD from Seton Hall University, School of Law, an MLIS from Rutgers University, an MBA in Marketing Management from St. John’s University, Tobin School of Business, an MAE in General Professional Education from Seton Hall University, a BA in Criminal Justice from Seton Hall University, and has studied at Ave Maria School of Law, Naples, Florida, the London School of Economics, and the Scuola Leonardo da Vinci, Rome, Italy. Professor Metallo clerked for the Honorable Ronald B. Graves, New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division.

This blog/website is for general information and educational purposes only  and not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the blog/website publisher(s). The blog/website should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Posted by Anirudh Ramesh.

Companies need to provide high quality services. If companies provide defective or unsatisfactory services, they may be subject to legal action. Tesla is an automotive manufacturer. They specialize in building electrical cars and solar panels. Tesla had failed to provide reliable equipment to Walmart. Thus, the company opened itself to legal issues.

“The Walmart suit alleges breach of contract, gross negligence and failure to live up to industry standards. Walmart is asking Tesla to remove solar panels from more than 240 Walmart locations where they have been installed, and to pay damages related to all the fires Walmart says that Tesla caused.” (cnbc.com) According to the contract with Tesla, Tesla is supposed to provide reliable equipment. However, Tesla did not pay heed to the defectiveness of the solar panels that were installed. This resulted in property damage to Walmart. In addition, Tesla used amateurs to inspect the panels. Tesla should have used knowledgeable personnel to inspect the solar panels.

Since Tesla could not perform the contract that it had agreed to, it is subject to breach of contract. Tesla needed to be more careful and should have taken measures to prevent this loss from occurring. Since Tesla could do neither of the two things, it will be held accountable to pay Walmart for damages. Since Walmart has sued Tesla, an out of court settlement will be ideal.

Anirudh is an accounting and IT major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Posted by Frank Volturo.Over the past two decades, the New England Patriots have been a force to be reckoned with in the NFL. They have won 6 Super Bowls since 2001, all with the same head coach and quarterback. However, as successful as they have been, they have had their fair share of scandals. In 2007, there was a scandal called “spygate” where Patriots coach Bill Belichick was charged with filming the practice of other teams. In 2015, there was a scandal called “deflate-gate” where Patriots QB Tom Brady was suspended 4 games for tampering with the air pressure of footballs. Three weeks ago, the Patriots celebrated their sixth Super Bowl since the turn of the century. But, over the past week, another scandal has risen.

Patriots owner Robert Kraft has been accused of soliciting prostitution at a massage parlor in Florida. This comes less than three weeks since the Patriots won the big game. Now, Kraft faces a lawsuit. Kraft has already been charged since the evidence is there. He was caught on camera twice at a massage parlor in Jupiter, Florida. He was caught once the day of the AFC Championship game and once the day before. If Kraft does end up getting convicted, he could potentially face up to two years in prison (one per incident), but usually there is a settlement of a fine and community service.

Soliciting somebody to commit prostitution is a major crime and Kraft will definitely be held accountable one way or another. On top of a fine and community service, the NFL will likely suspend Kraft for at least a few games and fine him as well. They may even decide to take draft picks from the Patriots if the situation is bad enough. Kraft is one of 25 people caught soliciting prostitution at this spa since police installed cameras in January. While they will all face legal action, the spa is in much more trouble. They are being accused of sex trafficking. It has been said that they have been taking women from different countries and having them work at the spa and offer prostitution. This is a major felony if they get charged.

Overall, this situation is messy on all sides. As a businessman or businesswoman, one always needs to act as if somebody is watching them at all time. Being a billionaire like Kraft, you have to know that you are not the average person. In this case, even the average people involved all got caught as well. Even when you are in private, you must think like the whole world knows what you’re doing.

Frank is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Posted by Ethan Atiles.This past week news had broken that Honda would be contacting 106,683 Ridgeline owners about an issue regarding their mid-size pickup truck’s fuel pump. It was made known that contact with various cleaning solutions or other acids could potentially cause a crack in the fuel pump feed port to crack, such crack could lead fuel leakage that lead to potential fire hazards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had reported saying that dealers will replace the fuel pump and install fuel pump covers free of charge if needed.

The actions taken by both Honda and their respected dealers are very efficient and safe. Once the issue was made known precautionary actions were taken to not only save lives, but from the company’s standpoint, helping maintain their image. Injuries and even deaths that could have arisen as a result of malfunctions within the fuel pump would have been detrimental to Honda as a company.

The amount of lawsuits Honda could have potentially faced would have left a big mark on the company. Not only would they have had to have dealt with the medical bills of everyone affected, there would have also had to have been sorts of compensations in an attempt lighten the moods of their customers. Then even on top of that, whatever else individuals felt they were entitled to Honda would have most likely had to have been dealt in court.

Damages that could have possibly affected areas around the incident also would have deserved some services from Honda as well. Finally, Honda would have had to deal with lawful actions presented by those dealerships who sold the cars in the first place as they would feel not responsible and feel Honda should cover their clients.

Honda’s quick reaction to vocalize the issue most definitely prevented maybe various lawsuits that could have risen, thus saving large amounts of money, and overall, the company’s reputation and legitimacy to the public.

Ethan is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Honda-recalling-over-100K-pickups-that-could-13624989.php

https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Honda-recalling-over-100K-pickups-that-could-13624989.php

Posted by William Steck.

Huawei, a multi-national, Chinese-based telecom company has again found itself in the headlines for the wrong reason. This time the corporation is facing several new lawsuits accusing it of corporate espionage.

For years, Huawei has been seen as an industry leader, recently producing some of the first 5G compatible phones, but despite its advanced engineering tactics, Huawei has been banned from entering the U.S. marketplace. The ban stems from fear of government espionage shared by both U.S. government officials and consumers. Officials and consumers believe that if the company were to enter the U.S. marketplace, it would be pressured by the Chinese Government to create back doors in its products, leading to massive breaches in U.S. national security and consumers privacy.

Although allegations of corporate espionage are not new to Huawei, few have been able to prove it, until now. In a new report, the U.S. Justice Department states that in 2013, a Huawei engineer stole a robotic arm from a T-Mobile factory. After stealing this piece of highly coveted intellectual property, the engineer proceeded to photograph it and then return it the next day, claiming he had taken it by “mistake.” The report goes on to detail a Huawei bonus program created to incentivize its workers to steal information from competing corporations. Similar suits against Huawei are also underway in Texas, Australia, Britain, German, and Poland.

Unethical and illegal actions, like the ones taken by Huawei engineers, seriously damage companies that lose billions of dollars in trade secrets and intellectual property as well as society as a whole. This year at CES in Las Vegas, 5G was all the rage. New home Wi-Fi routers from D-Link and other manufactures will allow consumers to access the internet without the need for a cable modem. This could benefit those who work from home, as well as those who live in remote areas who could finally gain access the internet.

But allegations against Huawei continue to keep the technology out of reach for millions of people by reducing competition in the market and by inflating costs. Despite their current situation, former employees claim the company’s goal is to surpass the United States as the dominant technological superpower by 2025. In order for the U.S to remain as the dominant technological superpower, courts in the U.S and around the world will need to take a hard stance on corporate espionage and hold Huawei accountable for their actions. If not, corporations, governments, and consumers could be at risk to lose even more intellectual property and personal data.

William is a business student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/2018/10/18/texas-courtroom-tech-firm-huawei-stands-accused-corporate-espionage-aid-china

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-huawei-indictment-tells-a-story-of-deceit-and-corporate-espionage/2019/01/29/c2035abe-23f4-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b418cbdcd1a1

Posted by Wenzhuo Li.

Recently, a proposal to tax wealth finds support across party lines, along with the premise that the government should combat inequality. As leading Democrats roll out proposals to increase taxes on the rich, the American people are largely behind them.

In my opinion, there are several advantages about this proposal:

1. It can reduce the gap between the rich and the poor and improve the fairness of the society.
2. It can increase the contribution of the rich to society and make them more socially responsible.
3. It can make poor citizens have better social security like health insurance.

In this Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley’s article it said, “She says she wants to tax wealthy Americans to pay for programs for veterans, children and the homeless”. We can know that tax wealthy policy has its social responsibility and role in public welfare.

In the article, Ms. Warren said “Across party lines, Americans want the very wealthiest families to pay their fair share so we can have an economy that works for everyone.” Taxing the wealthy can pay for the economy gap.

Even there are lots of advantages of this proposal, it still has shortcomings:

1. People might lose job opportunities. Taxing wealthy will reduce the investment, so some middle-class workers like investment advisers or some companies.
2. The government may lose the support of the rich.

Anyway, it’s a good proposal but it still faces challenges; it is a socially responsible policy, but it still needs to pass the test of time and society.

Wenzhuo is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Source:

Posted by Pennie Papamichael.

They are claiming that they were groped at fraternity parties and are arguing the idea that “the school has fostered an environment where alcohol-fueled gatherings at off-campus fraternity houses dictate the undergraduate social scene” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment). The lawsuit claims that Yale does not sponsor many social events or gatherings, so people continue to go to these fraternity parties to socialize and meet other students. The lawsuit specifically states, “Male students routinely controlled the admission, alcohol, lighting, and music for many Yale social gatherings. This dynamic created dangerous environments in which sexual misconduct thrived” (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT). Most colleges and universities have ignored the many cases that have come up in order to protect their reputation, however, it seems as time has passed people are still continuously being sexually harassed and abused. The dean of the university responded by saying, “that Yale ‘plays no formal role in the organizations not affiliated with the university, including Greek organizations,’ the university was working on providing alternative social spaces and events on campus” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment). In the lawsuit these three women are fighting to have Yale and their fraternities tame their parties as well as forcing fraternities to allow women in and share all the benefits in the membership such as networks that can lead to jobs and internships.

The problem with this lawsuit is that “‘Yale often claims that the university cannot punish the fraternities because they are unregistered, off-campus organizations,’” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment). The women are fighting this by addressing the fact that the fraternities are “acting as extensions of Yale” because “Yale allows them to use the University’s name, email address, bulletin boards and campus facilities for recruitment” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment). The three women are Anna McNeil a junior, Eliana singer a sophomore, and Ry Walker 20. They all claim that they have been groped at fraternity parties in their first semesters. Furthermore, Ry Walker even explains that when she was about to go into the party, one of the fraternity members controlling who could go in, passed her over while white women could enter. Ry Walker stated, “We eat together, take classes together, exist in this coeducational place. But somehow because of the way Greek life operates on campus and the control they have over social spaces here, that means that on weekend nights, men are the only ones who have power” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment). Furthermore, the lawsuit also accuses the University of “violating Title IX of federal education law, which prohibits sex discrimination by institutions receiving federal funding, and breach of contract for not providing the educational environment it promised. It accuses the fraternities of violating the Fair Housing Act for offering housing only to men, and Yale and the fraternities of violating Connecticut’s law against discrimination in places of public accommodation” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment).

In my opinion, I believe that these three women have a lot of courage and resilience. They are trying to fight in order to make women feel safer on college campuses, which I believe is a great thing. However, I also believe that if these women feel unsafe during these fraternity parties their simple answer is to not attend. There are other ways to be included in social events which do not involve putting yourself in a dangerous situation. In my opinion, putting yourself at risk of danger is not worth a couple hours of “fun”. I agree that this is a serious situation that needs to be addressed, however I think that no matter how many lawsuits are filed for sexual harassment, it will never fully stop it, which is a terrible thing. People need to be able to make smart choices for themselves and understand the risks that they are putting themselves through at these fraternity parties.

Pennie is business undecided at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2022.

http:// https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/us/yale-fraternities.html

Posted by Anna Plank.On February 7th, Capitol Forum (whose headquarters is in Washington DC) sued Blomberg (whose headquarters is in New York). In the physical lawsuit, Capitol Forum enhances on its business model by saying, “[our] reports are extensively researched and carefully written, often the product of months of work, and [our] subscribers rely on these reports to make investment and business decisions.” Bloomberg’s net worth is 57 billion dollars, and (as found on their website) they “deliver business and markets news, data, analysis, and video to the world, featuring stories from Businessweek and Bloomberg News.” While Bloomberg has a larger global presence, both companies are business news outlets that specialize in reporting accurate, detailed information about the business world.

However, Capitol Forum claimed (within their lawsuit): “(1) copyright infringement; (2) contributory copyright infringement; (3) misappropriation of proprietary information under the ‘hot news’ doctrine; and (4) tortious interference with contractual relationships, arising from Bloomberg’s illegal solicitation, receipt, and use of Capitol Forum’s copyrighted and proprietary reports.” The company claimed copyright infringement since all the articles and research that is carried out by Capitol Forum are their own materials. As such, they are the copyrighted products of Capitol Forum. Additionally, the “hot news’ doctrine” states that there is legal protection for works that have been published and have clear authorship as well as economic value that doesn’t diminish in a small period. This precedent was established in 1918 through International News Service v. Associated Press. Their fourth claim focuses on the relationship the company has with their paying customers. If their customers see that the articles are being outsourced to other, FREE distributors than they are less likely to continue their membership with Capitol Forum.

While it seems Capitol Forum has sufficient grounds for their lawsuit, the Columbia Journal Review claims, “the Second Circuit rejected a misappropriation claim filed by Barclays, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley against a financial news site called Theflyonthewall.com.” Although Fly was taking these companies financial reports and republishing them, they did so completely under jurisdiction since they were giving all credit to each respective company. This lawsuit between Capitol Forum and Bloomberg seems to have a similar set up; however, since the hot news doctrine was put into place in 1918, before the dot com bubble exploded on the internet, it makes sense to begin to look at this law in a new light.
In conclusion to the lawsuit, Capitol forum demands for the court to declare that Bloomberg has indeed engaged in all activities listed and ask for compensatory damages in the amount of 150,000 dollars for each act of infringement. Additionally, Capitol Forum requested for a trial by jury and not by arbitration. As of now, there has been no update or response to this lawsuit, but it certainly has the potential to swing either way.

Anna is an accounting and IT major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2022.

Article Links:
https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/hot-news-lawsuit-bloomberg.php

Capitol Forum sues Bloomberg, alleging improper use of its content

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5731054/Bloomberg.pdf

Posted by Jiaqi Duan.

The “Ponzi scheme” originated from a man named Charles Ponzi (1882-1949). The investment plan is simple to say, investing in something and then getting a high return. However, Ponzi deliberately made this plan very complicated, so that ordinary people could not figure out.

In 1919, when the First World War was just over and the world economic system was in chaos, Ponzi used this confusion. He claimed that by purchasing some sort of postal bill in Europe and selling it to the United States, he could make money.

Since Ponzi, in less than 100 years, various “Ponzi schemes” have emerged around the world. With the process of China’s reform and opening up, the “Ponzi scheme” has also entered China in large numbers. In the 1980s, there was a “rat meeting” in the southern part of China, which was a replica of the “Ponzi scheme”. The more well-known “Ponzi scheme” improved version is a variety of pyramid schemes.

All scams have a common character. As we all know, the risk is proportional to the return is the investment of iron law, “Ponzi scheme” often does the opposite. Liars often attract investors, who do not know the truth of a high rate of return, and never emphasize the risk factors of investment. The return rates of various cases may vary, some are too high, such as Ponzi’s promised investment can get 50% return within 45 days, and some are stable and extraordinary returns, such as Madoff’s annual guaranteed return to customers. His was only about 10%, but he strongly stressed that “investment must be earned, there is no loss.” But in any case, scammers always try to design an investment path that is much higher than the average return of the market, and never reveal or emphasize the risk factors of investment.

There is also the use of funds to make up the replenishment characteristics. Since the promised return on investment cannot be achieved at all, the return on investment for the old customers can only be achieved by the participation of new customers or other financing arrangements. This puts a very high demand on the flow of funds for the Ponzi scheme. Therefore, the scammers always try to expand the scope of the client, broaden the scale of the funds absorbed, and get enough space for the funds to replenish. Most scammers never refuse to add new funds, because the scope is bigger, not only the benefits are more substantial, but the risk of capital chain breaks is greatly reduced, and the duration of scams can be greatly extended.

And there is also the pyramidal features of the investor structure. In order to pay the high return of investors first, the “Ponzi scheme” must continue to develop offline, attracting more and more investors through seduction, persuasion, affection, and connections, thus forming a “pyramid” style. Investor structure. A small number of insiders at the apex benefit from extracting a large number of participants from the bottom of the tower and the tower. Even the inscrutable Nasdaq’s former chairman of the board, Madoff, is inevitably entangled in the layman’s clichés, making extensive use of friends, family and business partners to develop “downline”, and some people get commissions for successful “investment”. The downline has developed a new “downline”, and the snowball type has grown into a “pyramid” structure.

Jiaqi is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Work cited:
Dunn, Donald. The Incredible True Story of the King of Financial Cons, Ponzi, 2004.

Posted by Amy Chin.

Coming off the horizon of a myriad of data privacy scandals, legislators have called attention to the lack of federal regulation in the sector of consumer privacy. While some states, such as California, have taken charge and created statutes and regulations of their own, there exists no overarching federal statute. Many cases have fallen to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) but even this federal agency lacks the substantial power needed to establish and enforce ethical data practices.

One of the most widely discussed scandals is Facebook’s sharing of personal user data first discovered in the case of the Cambridge Analytica scandal which questioned whether Facebook broke a consent decree to improve its privacy practices. The case made another public appearance recently in discussions with the FTC of a multi-billion dollar fine in response to this abuse of data. This would be the first significant fine issued joining the other approximately one hundred enforcement actions issued by the FTC in the past decade.

A common theme of this topic is the glacial pace of regulation and federal action in comparison to the everchanging speed of the technology it aims to regulate. With proponents pushing for legislation in Congress it still took two years for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to author and publish the report on February 13th asking for the establishment of a “comprehensive federal privacy statute with specific standards.” The mixed bag of state statues, a limited FTC, and the judicially unexplored field of technology, the need for a universal policy is apparent.

Concerns over the misuse of data first arose from questions on the basis of ethics. Without official regulation the norms of business procedures are usually the only guiding factor in determining moral practices. Accordingly, since technology has advanced so quickly the industry has yet to pause long enough to set such universal standards. As a result, Zuckerberg and other companies avoided scrutiny for some time and have yet to be held accountable legally. These actions earned Zuckerberg the title of “digital gangster” from British lawmakers with the accusations that Facebook and similar tech giants were walking over the few rules and standards that had been set.

The nuance of data privacy in conjunction with consumer unawareness of where all their freely given data is being used leaves the field of data privacy exposed and with no direction. In the words of Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ.), who requested the GAO report, “consumers’ privacy is being violated online and offline in alarming and dangerous ways.” Lacking any concrete federal legislation or laws, the enforcement of data privacy standards has been anything but effective. While the GAO report is a step in the right direction, the fast pace of technology has lapped the subdued reaction of the government in creating effective laws to protect the information and data of its constituents.

Amy is a marketing and information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2022.

https://www.cnet.com/news/us-needs-an-internet-data-privacy-law-gao-tells-congress/

https://apnews.com/ea753cc557664ba9922666b220d4d9b4

Posted by Linnea Endersby

We are often told that one mistake can set fire to an entire reputation. This has been the case for the Nissan Chairman Carlos Ghosn. Up until recently, Ghosn was known for having a very successful career, but the uncovering of his corruption has permanently tainted all of his previous successes. Ghosn began his career working for Renault, a French automotive company, in 1996. When he first started with the company, the company was experiencing some financial difficulties. However, in approximately only year Ghosn was able to make the company profitable once again. Three years later, when Renault purchased a 36.8% stake in Nissan and Ghosn took over as the CEO of both companies, he was able to help dramatically reduce Nissan’s debt. It could be argued that the peak of his career came when Renault and Nissan combined with Mitsubishi and the three became the largest automotive group in 2017. All of these victories aside, what most people hear about Ghosn now is that he was recently arrested.

Carlos Ghosn, along with his associate Greg Kelly, were arrested by the Tokyo District Prosecutors Office when it was discovered that they were not reporting Ghosn’s full compensation. The two were responsible for underreporting $44.6 million. The compensation was not fully recorded in the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and so many other members of the company were not aware of how much Ghosn was actually gaining. After an intern al investigation Nissan found other incidences of misconduct, such as the use of company assets for personal use. In a statement to the press the current CEO of Nissan, said that he believes that this kind of corruption comes in part from placing too much power in the hands of one person. Nissan has officially released a statement saying that Ghosn will be removed from his positions within the company. After these findings, Ghosn’s reputation will be irreversibly damaged because of his financial misconduct.

The law acts as a guideline for how to do business. By stepping outside the law Ghosn not only tarnished his personal reputation, but also the company’s. Now the company is associated with scandal. It appears to me that Ghosn and Kelly committed all of these crimes simply because of greed. They were not satisfied with the amount of money they were making, and so they took it into their own hands to find ways to make more. As a business student this case only emphasizes the connection between ethics and business practices. Every decision that is made for a business should be made with the ethical impacts in mind. At the very least, even if the business is not overly concerned with being ethical it needs to be sure to remain within the law. Without these steps, the successes of a businessperson become irrelevant.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/nissan-chairman-arrested-hiding-millions-pay-n937901

Posted by William Steck.

Huawei, a multi-national, Chinese-based telecom company has again found itself in the headlines for the wrong reason. This time the corporation is facing several new lawsuits accusing it of corporate espionage.

For years, Huawei has been seen as an industry leader, recently producing some of the first 5G compatible phones, but despite its advanced engineering tactics, Huawei has been banned from entering the U.S. marketplace. The ban stems from fear of government espionage shared by both U.S. government officials and consumers. Officials and consumers believe that if the company were to enter the U.S. marketplace, it would be pressured by the Chinese Government to create back doors in its products, leading to massive breaches in U.S. national security and consumers privacy.

Although allegations of corporate espionage are not new to Huawei, few have been able to prove it, until now. In a new report, the U.S. Justice Department states that in 2013, a Huawei engineer stole a robotic arm from a T-Mobile factory. After stealing this piece of highly coveted intellectual property, the engineer proceeded to photograph it and then return it the next day, claiming he had taken it by “mistake.” The report goes on to detail a Huawei bonus program created to incentivize its workers to steal information from competing corporations. Similar suits against Huawei are also underway in Texas, Australia, Britain, German, and Poland.

Unethical and illegal actions, like the ones taken by Huawei engineers, seriously damage companies that lose billions of dollars in trade secrets and intellectual property as well as society as a whole. This year at CES in Las Vegas, 5G was all the rage. New home Wi-Fi routers from D-Link and other manufactures will allow consumers to access the internet without the need for a cable modem. This could benefit those who work from home, as well as those who live in remote areas who could finally gain access the internet.

But allegations against Huawei continue to keep the technology out of reach for millions of people by reducing competition in the market and by inflating costs. Despite their current situation, former employees claim the company’s goal is to surpass the United States as the dominant technological superpower by 2025. In order for the U.S to remain as the dominant technological superpower, courts in the U.S and around the world will need to take a hard stance on corporate espionage and hold Huawei accountable for their actions. If not, corporations, governments, and consumers could be at risk to lose even more intellectual property and personal data.

William is a business student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/2018/10/18/texas-courtroom-tech-firm-huawei-stands-accused-corporate-espionage-aid-china

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-huawei-indictment-tells-a-story-of-deceit-and-corporate-espionage/2019/01/29/c2035abe-23f4-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b418cbdcd1a1

Research proposal posted by Valentina Reyes.

Tort law carries the “no duty to rescue” principle, which establishes an individual’s freedom to choose whether to intervene in situations of peril while imposing no sanction on those who choose not to act. “While there is properly in law a duty not to harm, there is not . . . a negative duty not to allow harm to happen” (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes). So long as there is no fiduciary relationship – which is defined as a relationship of trust or legal obligation of a person to another – between the two parties, an individual is not obliged to intervene, even if refraining from doing so may lead to the impending death of the other. This principle was established with the idea that people should not be held responsible for the demise of others unless they were directly involved with the causation of the incidents that led to the other’s peril, or had some established duty of care to the other, and to protect one’s freedom of choice.

In some instances, some courts may find that if a person began to rescue another and then ceased, the rescuer may be found liable if the reasonable person would have continued to rescue the victim. Under the umbrella of negligence, this is called “undertaking to act.” However, some states provide immunity from liability under specific statutes typically referred to as “Good Samaritan laws.” These statutes are put in place to protect those who, in good faith, decide to help in an emergency situation from being sued in civil court for any damage which may result from their act or omission to act. Depending on the situation, courts may wish to protect a rescuer or deem them responsible for negligent acts if the additional damage caused to the plaintiff resulted from an unreasonable act by the rescuer.

While the “no duty to rescue” principle was put in place to protect people’s liberty to choose, it also gives people power to allow others to perish. On the one hand, people are free to choose whether to get involved, but if they choose not to help when they are capable of helping and when the help may save a life, then they have the indirect power over another’s life. The principle also reinforces individualistic behavior that is already very much present in American society and culture which is often noted as being extremely averse to collectivism. Further, if a person intends another to perish by doing nothing, they may be able to get away with being the indirect cause of the other’s demise by choosing to do nothing out of a desire to cause the other harm. In this case, we have the element of mens rea without actus reus (so long as the bystander was not involved in the proximate cause of the victim’s accident or ailment), and the person intending to do harm by doing nothing could be protected under the law. In the case that the defendant was involved in the proximate cause of the victim’s accident, as was the case in Podias v. Mairs, the defendant could be found guilty for doing nothing because at that point, a fiduciary relationship is formed because but for the defendant’s actions, the victim would not have been put in danger.

Catholic social teaching teaches us that we should love everyone and show a sense of community towards our neighbors. We should treat everyone how we would like to be treated and respect and protect all forms of life. Whether we are free to choose, we should do the correct thing and provide help when we can for those who need it because if we are the difference between life and death for another, it does not take much away from us to give another what they can never get back. Gaudium et Spes states “[…] the duty which is imposed upon us, that we build a better world based upon truth and justice. Thus, we are witnesses of the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is defined first of all by this responsibility to his brothers and to    history.”

Works Cited

http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/i-mill.html

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/specific-legal-duties.html

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1187493.html

https://www.stthomas.edu/media/catholicstudies/center/ryan/conferences/2005-vatican/Uelmen.pdf

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/specific-legal-duties.html

http://negligence.uslegal.com/specific-duties/duty-to-rescue/

https://www.shrm.org/legalissues/stateandlocalresources/stateandlocalstatutesandregulations/documents/goodsamaritanlaws.pdf

Research proposal posted by Jessica Page.

Topic

The principle of double effect creates a set of guidelines to “determine when it is ethically permissible for a human being to engage in conduct in pursuit of a good end with full knowledge that the conduct will also bring about bad results” (The Principle of Double Effect). Generally, the principle states that when someone is deciding a certain conduct that has both good and bad effects, the course of conduct they choose is “ethically permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the bad result” (The Principle of Double Effect). The moral criteria for the principle of double effect generally states the action in itself must be good or indifferent, the good effect cannot be obtained through the bad effect, there must be a proportion between the good and bad effects brought about, the intention of the subject must be directed towards the good effect and merely tolerate the bad effect and there does not exist another possibility or avenue (What is the Principle of Double Effect?).

Pros and Cons

The issue with the principle of double effect is that each situation where the principle applies is different. If an act is bad, it cannot become good or indifferent by a good motive or good circumstances. If it is evil in nature, this will not change. That being said, the principle “the end justifies the means” must always be rejected. The idea that needs to be applied to each issue is the fact that a human must never do evil, but they are not bound to prevent the existence of evil. One example we can apply this to is the BP oil spill that was discussed in class. By not mandating a cut-off switch because of how expensive it was, even though the safety benefits were astronomical, when an explosion happened on one of the rigs, eleven workers were killed and seventeen were injured. Not to mention the five million barrels of oil that gushed into the ocean. Had the US mandated these switches like they wanted, even though BP lobbied against them, it could have avoided the deaths, injuries and pollution caused by the exploding rig. In this case, the deaths and havoc caused by the explosion did not justify the fact that BP was trying to save money for their own personal benefit. Another example where the principle of double effect is relevant today is the controversy of euthanasia. It is used to justify the case “where a doctor gives drugs to a patient to relieve distressing symptoms even though he knows doing this may shorten the patient’s life” (BBC). The doctor’s intention is not to kill the patient, but the result of death is a side-effect of reducing patient’s pain. One problem that people argue against this doctrine is the fact that they believe we are responsible for all anticipated consequences of our actions. Another is the fact that intention is irrelevant. A third issue, specifically in the euthanasia issue, is the fact that death is not always seen as a bad thing making the double effect irrelevant. Lastly, the double effect can produce an unexpected moral result.

Ethics and Principles

When looking at the incorporation of Catholic, one of the main issues that concerns this principle and the Catholic religion is that case where a pregnancy may need to end in order to preserve the life of the mother. The example most often given is a woman with uterine cancer. By removing the uterus, it will bring death to the fetus but the death is not “directly” intended and in turn, the mother will live. It is an issue that still is debated today (Soloman). Another similar case having to do closely with Catholic ideals is when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and must receive surgery to remove the embryo. At a Catholic hospital, it can be questioned whether that specific procedure is considered a direct abortion, going against the Catholic ideals and morals, no matter what the means of the surgery are. “The principle of double effect enables bioethicists and Catholic moralists to navigate various actions that may or may not be morally justifiable in some circumstances” (Kockler). The idea of proportionate reasoning has also been condemned by Pope John Paul II. He categorized proportionalism as a species of consequentialism. This is condemned by the Church because no Catholic moralist would agree that a desirable end justifies any means (Kockler). These are serious issues, especially when considering the principle of double effect from a Catholic standpoint.

Works Cited:

Kockler, Nicolas. The Principle of Double Effect and Proportionate Reason. http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2007/05/pfor2-0705.html

“The Doctrine of Double Effect”. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/doubleeffect.shtml

“The Principle of Double Effect”. http://sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

“The Principle of Double Effect”. http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208300/theories/double%20effect.html

“What is the Principle of Double Effect?” http://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=132

Research proposal posted by Jessica Thomulka.

Part One

Healthcare costs are skyrocketing in the United States. Even prior to the passing of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, the burden on American corporations to provide healthcare to their employees was placing stress on businesses. Lifestyle control is the term given to an employer’s influence on an employee’s actions outside of the scope of their duties as an employee. Some of the most common examples of lifestyle control revolve around the preventative measures to lessen the pressure of the paying for employee medical coverage. The two most costly medical conditions are complications arising from smoking and obesity. The National Business Group on Health reports that obese employees cost employers $700 more than their average-weight employees, annually, for their healthcare. Along with healthcare, another aspect of business that employers are concerned about is productivity. In a 2002 study, the Center for Disease Control reports that productivity losses associated with workers who smoke cigarettes are estimated to be $3,400 per smoker.[1] Business owners and executives are concerned with maximizing their profits and ensuring the health of their company, and by keeping their employees healthy, they can reduce their risk of paying high medical expenses for preventable diseases. Some states like New York have passed provisions to prevent employer discrimination against an employee’s “after-hours” conduct, however there is no federal statute.

Part Two

There are both pros and cons to the idea of employers having control of the lifestyle of their employees. The stakeholders involved include the employer, the employees, the family of the employees, and even the ‘vice’ industries that the employers are safeguarding against such as the tobacco and gambling industries. The employers reap the most positive benefits out of lifestyle control provisions. They lower their cost and increase their productivity. The employees may also benefits from such provisions due to increased health, but they give up some of their freedom in the process. Some companies also impose lifestyle control upon the employee’s family if they are on the same health insurance policy so likewise, they may gain health benefits but sacrifice some of their freedom. Lastly, ‘vice’ industries suffer the most from lifestyle controls because they ultimately lose business due to embargos on acts like smoking and gambling. If enough companies impose lifestyle controls they could potentially bankrupt ‘vice’ industries.

Part Three

The biggest ethical question regarding lifestyle control is the autonomy of the employee. Should an employee be free from external control or influence by the employer? According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) there are several themes of Catholic Social Teaching.[2] Rights established in the Catholic tradition have an impact on lifestyle control. While privacy is not explicitly protected under the United States Constitution it falls under the penumbra of implied rights in the Bill of Rights due to its importance. The Catholic tradition teaches that human rights and responsibilities are at the heart of a healthy community. Within the workplace there is a basic right of workers to be respected by their employers. That is in decent wages, the right to unionize, and a productive work environment. The USCCB notes that work is more than just providing for yourself and your family because it is a way to participate in God’s work. They also suggest that a worthy measure of an institution is its ability to enhance the life of the human person. In the case of lifestyle control, Catholic Social Teaching aligns with provisions to protect the health of employees. This would support a ban on smoking and other such vices that are known to be detrimental to one’s health. If the motives behind the employer’s lifestyle controls align with what is good for society then they should be permissible under the Catholic Social Teaching.

[1] Halbert, Terry, and Elaine Ingulli. Law & Ethics In The Business Environment. 7th ed. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western West, 2003. Print.

[2] “Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching.” Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching. Web. 09 Mar. 2016. .

Research proposal posted by Elizabeth Donald.

Part One: Topic Explanation

Liberty of contract was originally introduced into U.S. constitutional jurisprudence through the case of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). In this case, Joseph F. Lochner challenged a provision of the New York Bakeshop Act of 1895 that prohibited bakers from working more than ten hours per day and 60 hours per week. The Supreme Court held that this regulation failed to pass constitutional muster in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the Court found “liberty of contract,” that is, the freedom of individuals and groups to enter into contracts, to be a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Other Supreme Court decisions continued to build on this idea during what is now referred to as “The Lochner Era” of cases. This includes Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), invalidating a minimum wage law and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 286 U.S. 510 (1925), deeming unconstitutional a regulation that led to the closing of many private Catholic schools.

Part Two: Pros and Cons

The Lochner decision was considered one of the most controversial cases of its time after being handed down in 1905. Progressive jurists, politicians, and scholars alike denounced Lochner, whether for attempting to constitutionalize laissez-faire economics or for exceeding judicial authority.[1] They believed that the conservative-leaning Lochner majority reached far beyond the scope of its powers. This is because although the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly list “liberty of contract” as a fundamental right, the court still found it to be so under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause which states, “[N]or shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XVI, § 1. In finding a liberty of contract within the Constitution, Progressives saw the majority as an advocate of big business that attempted to adopt policy by means of judicial decision. These Progressive jurists instead encouraged a deference to the legislature on all matters, economic and personal. Since the early 20^th century, Progressive ideology has shifted, but still views liberty of contract in a negative light.

Flashing forward to today, jurists across the political spectrum remain highly critical of Lochner. Constitutional theorist Bruce Ackerman places Lochner in his “anticanon” of cases. Unlike early 20^th century Progressives, today’s Progressive jurists typically believe in using strict scrutiny to analyze laws regarding personal rights. Yet, they now isolate personal liberties from economic liberties, which are still considered unwarranting of constitutional protection.[2] Twenty-first century conservatives, likewise, do not tend to favor liberty of contract. Conservative jurists today often advocate for a deference to the legislature on both personal and economic issues. Thus, the conservative viewpoint has also significantly shifted from the Lochner Era right-wing belief that natural rights precede positive law and that liberty of contract is one of those inherent natural rights. This leaves little room for hope for the few present-day proponents of liberty of contract. However, the idea of contractual freedom as a fundamental right might not be as bad as many make it seem. In fact, liberty of contract is really a derivative of the natural law.

The natural law, according to St. Pope John Paul II, is a law that resides within the “depths of the conscience.” It is written on the hearts of all men, according to which God will be the judge. Legal theorists have found certain rights to be inherent within this natural law. The Constitution itself was founded on the idea of natural rights. James Madison, a drafter of the Constitution, believed that man “embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage…”[3] This idea was the bedrock of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which was eventually applied to the states through the Fourteenth. Therefore, the Court majority in Lochner simply viewed liberty of contract as one of these natural rights under due process. This reading of the Due Process Clause achieves much greater validation than suggested by Lochner’s opponents. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30, which gave way to the Fourteenth Amendment, listed liberty of contract first in the rights accorded to man. In this act, the 39^th Congress wrote that, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties …” This act served the purpose of enforcing the natural rights of man. Therefore, the Lochner majority’s belief in liberty of contract as a fundamental right was not unwarranted.

Part Three: Questions of Ethics

Liberty of contract is intertwined with ethics because the very idea of ethics rests on the natural law. St. Thomas Aquinas said that the natural law “constitutes the principles of practical rationality,” which are the rules by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable.[4] It is from this ethical theory that fundamental rights were developed. Not only that, but contractual freedom is essential to business ethics as well. The significance of liberty of contract comes through in the employment-at-will rule which gives employers unfettered power to “dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of a legal wrong.” However, because the employment-at-will theory is supported by laissez-faire economics, it too is often criticized by Progressive jurists who oppose free markets. Yet, even though early 20^th century Progressive jurists denounced the Lochner decision for its association with laissez-faire ideals, this does not invalidate the fact that liberty of contract can be viewed as a fundamental right within the natural law. Further, just because liberty of contract is an economic liberty does not mean it cannot be a fundamental liberty. Since provisions of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 demonstrate that both the Founding Fathers and the 39^th Congress understood liberty of contract as deriving from the natural law, it is valid to not only consider this liberty as fundamental, but also ethical.

Works cited:

[1] David E. Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner (2012).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Colleen Sheehan, James Madison and Our First Duty, THE CENTER FOR VISION AND VALUES (Sep. 23, 2014), http://www.visionandvalues.org/2014/09/james-madison-and-our-first-duty-by-dr-colleen-sheehan/.

[4] Aquinas, ST I-II. Q94.

Research proposal posted by Brian Kane.

In the digital age, the rights and laws regarding privacy are being contested now more than ever. Today personal privacy, both digital and physical, is being discussed. One of the earliest examples of privacy laws in the United States is the 4^th amendment. Under this amendment gives “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution). This and other laws, including the Federal Wiretap Law of 1968, are designed to protect the individual against unlawful searches of personal property by an unfair government. The individual right to privacy is held sacred in this country.

However, the laws of privacy protection are not absolute. Communications and interactions in general areas, such as online chatrooms, and digital communication used for work. Surveillance monitoring by employers has been contested by employees in courts in multiple cases. In City of Ontario, California v. Quon, for example, a search was justified because there were “reasonable grounds” and done “for a non-investigatory work-related purpose” (Ontario v. Quon).

Some argue that the privacy laws are for the best interests of individuals. Individuals and consumers are protected when the monitoring parties have clearly defined limits and barriers. When the government requires search warrants and the corporations are required to obtain consent, the best interests of those being monitored are kept in mind. The constant surveillance by powerful entities removes the right for individuals to act freely and live their own lifestyle. Gratuitous monitoring dehumanizes the employee and implies guilt without any evidence.

Privacy law is not completely virtuous, however. Like all laws, some may seek to exploit privacy law and use it to shield unproductive, immoral, and unethical behavior. When employees use corporate email accounts for personal business, they often claim a right to privacy when investigation begins. Many act recklessly online in this digital age, assuming that the right to privacy is absolute and unbreakable. There are instances where there is legitimate reasons to investigate an individual. When there is probable cause, public good supersedes individual privacy.

The issue of privacy and surveillance laws raises many ethical questions. The rights of individuals and the definition of individualism is put into question when anyone is monitored by a third party. There is concern for the maintenance of human dignity, as some see these searches dehumanizing and distressing on private lives. Pope Leo XIII spoke out against increased surveillance, saying that it intruded and lead to control over individuals. In Catholicism, the holy sacrament of confession revolves around the private recounting of sins and transgressions. When discussing privacy, the matter common good is raised. Aquinas believes that law is created for the common good, “made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated” (2 Bix).

Privacy and Surveillance Law is a widely contested issue in the catholic faith and general ethics. It has its advantages and disadvantages, as any other issue in law, but it will continue to be contested as new innovations shape the information age.

Works Cited

Bix, Brian H. “Secrecy and the Nature of Law.” October 2013. University of Pennsylvania School, Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law. Web. 3/3/2016. Avaliable: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2418-bixsecrecy-and-the-nature-of-law-full

City of Ontario v. Quon. 560 U.S. 746. Accessed 3/3/2016.

Research project posted by Rafael Gabrieli.

Eminent Domain

Part I:

Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use by a state or national government. There would be just compensation for the private property seized, however, many problems arise from this act. The way that eminent domain works is that it is backed by the Fifth Amendment to the US.  Constitution, which is that your state government has power over all property in the State, even private land. The land can be taken without the consent of the owner, as long as he or she is justly compensated. The purposes for which eminent domain vary, however, it has to be used for a public good somehow. This means that roads, courthouses, schools, or any other infrastructure that can benefit the public will come into place of the land that the government took using eminent domain. The state government or national government is able to use eminent domain for large-scale public works operations or even growing freeway systems.

Part II:

Pros:

In Houston, Texas, land was obtained by the use of eminent domain in order to create the Minute Maid Park baseball stadium, which has benefitted the surrounding community immensely. The baseball stadium brings millions of people each year to downtown Houston. What is amazing to see is to compare it with the Houston community before the stadium was built, which was very barren and unsocial.

The I-85 widening project in Concord, North Carolina will reshape the way inhabitants travel around Concord. The inhabitants are being justly compensated, and some are even getting 5%-10% more than the initial appraisal value. This new freeway widening will allow traffic to be lessened during rush hours, which posed a big problem for the city during the past couple of years. It is a necessary and responsible use of eminent domain.

Cons:

Private property could have sentimental value, like a house that has been in the family for generations. This is the case with the Keeler family from Claverack, New York, who lived in their house for four generations and were being forced out due to the state’s plan to expand power lines. Another problem with eminent domain is that the price that the owner feels he deserves is more than what is being offered to him. This happened to Rich Quam, owner of a house in Fargo, North Dakota since 1997. The town stated that his backyard could become structurally unstable, so the city offered him an amount to buy the property from him. Rich Quam declared it an insult however, because the amount did not reflect the years of hard work he put into renovating the house, adding a second level and a garage. A third problem is the simple desire to not want to abandon a profitable business, which almost occurred a couple years back to Perry Beaton, property co-owner of a Burger King that the city of North Kansas City was attempting to seize from him.

Part III:

In Economic Justice for All, it is stated that the common good may sometimes demand that the right to own be limited by public involvement in the planning or ownership of certain sectors of the economy, which is essentially the basis for eminent domain. Catholic support of private ownership does not mean that anyone has the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth, rather, it states that “no one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities.” Thus being the Catholic Social Teaching stance on Eminent Domain: if it is for the public good, an individual should be more than willing to give up his property that is not essential to his well-being in order to further the development of society and his surroundings.

Works Cited

Clayton, Adam. “Family Rallies to save Farmland from Eminent Domain.” Columbia-Greene Media. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

“Economic Justice for All.” Wall Common Good Selected Texts. N.p., n.d. Book. 10 Mar. 2016.

Lewis, David. “Eminent Domain: Still A Useful Tool Despite Its Recent Thrashing.” Planetizen. Planetizen, 5 Sept. 2006. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Messina, Ignazio. “City Threatens Eminent Domain.” Toledo Blade. N.p., 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Reaves, Tim. “Making Way for the Freeway: Eminent Domain Claims Homes.” Independent Tribune. Independent Tribune, 7 June 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Ross, John. “Hands Off! North Kansas City Loses Eminent Domain Case « Watchdog.org.” Watchdogorg RSS. N.p., 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Posted by Shellian A. Murray.

The basis for this blog will be an Enron story” The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)” which was retrieved from the documentary listings on Netflix. A 2929 Entertainment, a Wagner/Cuban Company, Magnolia Pictures, HDNet Films. The documentary takes a behind the scenes look at the reliable energy company whose downfall will forever change the scope of business prospects around the globe. The “Jesus saves” notion was embedded with everyone asking the same sets of questions, which include, whether or not one main person was to be blamed, or it is a shared effort, and what mechanisms were put in places to make sure such events will never occur again. The fall of Enron was considered to be the largest bankruptcy in the United States of America history.

Enron, a company that took approximately 16 years to build and with a net worth of over a 100 million in assets took 24 days to go bankrupt.  What everyone thought was a significant investment and a company that was poised to take over the energy section with major gas prices, turns out to be the biggest Ponzi scheme. But in an instructive tale of corporate greed, negligent and diffusion of responsibility, there was no evidence of directors’ fiduciary duty, integrity, and stewardship displayed from those who were the leading players in the Enron scandal.

Jeffery Skilling, the former president and CEO and Kenneth Lay chairman/CEO were both Harvard graduates, the leaders of Enron, and were known as “the smartest guys in the room.”  Skilling and Lay were the captains of the ship; one that they thought was too powerful to go down. The employees that were involved were consumed by pride, greed, arrogance, and intolerance that they fail to realize they were just sinking themselves into a hole: a hole that will be unable to climb back out. The chaos caused by Enron traders in the 2000 California energy crisis left many disgruntled. California was seen as the money pit for Enron. The game was to create blackouts that would then drive-up gas prices significantly.  Many called on the federal government to fix a deregulatory system that Enron officials took for self-interest, but were told that the state was on its own and had to correct the problem by themselves.

On the other hand, Enron’s CFO, Andrew Fastow was still able to continue leaving massive debts off the balance sheets and booking future earnings, producing an illusion of market-to-market profit.  The Security Exchange Commission (SEC) did not have a problem with this accounting method and failed to enforce against companies like Enron. But reported profits were actually losses, even though amounts were not collected or collected, but were supposedly prepayments from clients, where such momentum was created to keep the stock price up.  But after winning the award for the best innovative company six years in a row, many persons started to question, how Enron made its money. A reporter by the name of Bethany Mclean wrote an article, “Enron stock overpriced?”  realizing that the cash flows were not coming together.

Jeffery Skilling the CEO had resigned suddenly, which lead the SEC to launch an investigation.  Enron declared bankruptcy on December 4, 2001, giving employees thirty (30mins) to leave the building. But before such bankruptcy declaration, on October 23, 2001, Author Andersen, the prestigious accounting firm had destroyed thousands of documents which were related to Enron finances.

Opinions and Reactions

The operation of Enron defrauded employees and investors out of millions of dollars, which at the same time the “big guys” who were involved in the game were quietly bailing themselves out, putting millions in personal and offshore accounts including the banks, such as, Chase and Citi Bank. Ken Lay had a high level political figure as a good friend, one that could help Enron to maintain its operation’s practices. Consequently, and if one were to believe it or not, politics is the driving factor for all regulatory and policies within any countries operations.

ArthurAndersen, the prestigious accounting firm, was paid a million dollar per week, denied their awareness of such practices of Enron. Auditors that supposedly gave reasonable assurance that the financials were, in fact, true and fair and free of material misstatements. As a result, many persons questioned the integrity and independence of the accounting and auditing profession. Such questions left a bitter taste in my mouth, within a career that has my interest and aspiration. A profession I held a role as an external auditor, internationally, and now as an accountant, I am in an “aww” moment, as to how people’s greed could allow them to continue embezzling cash or equivalents by any means necessary, no matter what harm may have caused by such actions. The disappointment I have with these people that are involved, by allowing their integrity to be compromised because of the greed of money is very heart rendering, wherein the end, mostly the poor suffer from such harsh deals.

Shellian is a master of science in accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Faris Alzahrani.

On June 20th Christiano Ronaldo was accused by the government prosecutor for evading tax four times amounting to $16.5 million. Ronaldo was investigated and was expected to appear before Pozuelo de Alarcon court No. 1 on July 31. His summoning accorded with the same prosecutor who indicted Mourinho for evading tax two times. The prosecutor reported that there was enough evidence that Christiano Ronald used a shell firm to hide the cash she had acquired from the team image rights. However, Ronaldo pleaded not guilty.

It believed that Ronald had to move out of the country and join another football club because of the accusations against him. It was alleged that Mourinho committed tax deception in a period between 2011 and 2012; this is according to Madrid’s prosecutor. All of the evidence was based on the facts delivered by Spain Tax Office that indicated that Mourinho also hides money from profit rights and avoided to pay tax (Fox, 2017).

Everything was left in judges hands. It is crucial to note that these individuals are not the first to be accused of tax fraud. Last year a Barcelona striker, Lionel Messi was indicted for tax fraud on three counts that amounted to $4.6 million, this mainly from the income made from image rights. He was given a 21-month jail sentence, but he was not expected to serve in prison, since it was his first offense and his sentence was below two years.

Faris is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

News, F. (2017, June 20). Cristiano Ronaldo, Jose Mourinho caught up in Spain tax scandal. Retrieved from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/06/20/cristiano-ronaldo-jose- mourinho-caught-up-in-spain-tax-scandal

Posted by Ahmed Alzahrani.

In this article, the rapper DMX is accused of evading tax. The rapper pleaded not guilty to any of the charges against him.  He was later released in prison after spending one day in jail; this was after he paid $500,000 bond. The persecutor asserts that Earl Simmons also known as DMX evaded an estimated $1.7 million in tax in the peak of his profession between 2002 and 2005.

He purportedly avoided paying taxes, including establishing accounts on other names and paying most of his expenditure in cash. This was a violation of the law whether you are a celebrity rapper or not; paying taxes is necessary to all Americans. The prosecutor also indicated that DMX failed to file his returns in the period between 2010 and 2015; the prosecutor added that the accuser filed a fake affidavit in the US Bankruptcy Court (LIBBEY, 2017).

The bail postulated that DMX to be restrained in New York City. However, his lawyer reported that he would ask for permission for the accuser to travel for a show performance in summer. After the hearing, Mr. Simmons (aka DMX) told the journalist that his faith played a significant role in coping with a legal issue. It gave him the courage to face the situation.

Ahmed is a graduate accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

LIBBEY, P. (2017, July 16). DMX Pleads Not Guilty to Tax Fraud. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/arts/music/dmx-pleads-not-guilty-to-tax-fraud.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FTax%20Evasion&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collect.

Posted by Abdullah Almohammadi.

51-year-old Steven Croman is a landlord with more than 141 apartment buildings in Manhattan. In 2016, was arrested for the allegations of obtaining loans fraudulently and committing tax fraud. Croman pleaded guilty for giving false business records, grand larceny, and criminal tax fraud. He was sentenced to one year jail and a five million fine.

The case came from the investigation of the allegations that Mr. Croman was harassing his tenants. He was alleged that he pushed rent-regulated out of their apartments. He also withheld the state payroll taxes to earn a bonus for forcing the rent-regulated tenants.

He was taken to court on Tuesday but declined to address the court. Justice Jill made a judgment stating that he was given time in jail to think about the people he has harmed. As he left the court in handcuffs heading to prison, an elderly tenant, Carol, stated that his apartment was in bad condition since Mr. Croman had refused to clean the apartment. Another elderly tenant by the name Cynthia suggested that the public ought to be protected from such a person as Croman forever. This indicated that Mr. Croman should have life jail term. On the other hand, Mr. Croman lawyer believes that Mr. Croman will behave appropriately in jail which will make him be released after eight months instead of one year.

Abdullah is a graduate accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Source:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/10/03/nyc-landlord-sentenced-to-year-in-fraud-case.html

Posted by Kelly Shaw.

Morris Zukerman, age 72, plead guilty in June 2016 to obstructing the IRS as well as tax evasion. He was sentenced to 70 months in prison for his criminal offenses in March 2017. Morris sold a co-owned petroleum products company, which was owned by a subsidiary of his investment firm M.E. Zukerman & Co., and then proceeded to mask the income he received from the sale. By doing so, Morris was able to evade taxes on his $130 million in income in 2008.

One may wonder how Morris was able to hide such a large profit from his accountants and receive clean audits over the years. The cover story that was given stated that in 2007, Morris transferred ownership of the subsidiary to a trust account. He even went as far as creating false documents to support his story such as a promissory note. By not reporting the $130 million sale, M.E. Zukerman & Co was able to avoid paying $33 million in corporate income taxes.

To add to Morris’s list of crimes, he also claimed a $1 million charitable contribution deduction in 2009  and 2011, which he was not entitled. Morris was registered to purchase a property on Black Island that the Maine Coast Heritage trust (MCHT) was preparing to purchase and use for business purposes. After contemplating about whether he would make a charitable contribution or not, he ultimately purchased the land for himself through his new LLC for $1 million. On his personal tax return, he convinced his accountant that the purchase should be stated as a charitable contribution to MCHT which was incorrect.

A quote from the US Attorney John H. Kim, “While amassing a personal fortune through, among other things, the $130 million sale of his company, Morris Zuckerman cheated on his taxes for years, illegally scheming to evade almost every one of his tax liabilities. Through his criminal schemes, Zukerman deprived the public of over $45 million in taxes he rightfully owed.” It is evident that Morris Zukerman’s actions were motivated by pure greed with little regard for the consequences of his actions.

Kelly is an MBA student with a concentration in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-energy-investor-sentenced-70-months-prison-evading-over-45-million-income-and

Posted by Mohammed Almanqari.

Uber Company is always thought of being sued now and then for one or two issues. Apparently, the company has sued an advertising company called Fetch Media. Uber has taken to court Fetch Media accusing it of click fraud. The company had improperly billed Uber for online advertisements, which were not genuine. Fetch Media took advantage of the same and benefited from application downloads that did not belong to it. Fetch Media is owned by Dentsu, one of the largest advertising company in Japan. The case was filed by Uber on 19^th September 2017 in the US District Court in San Francisco.

After placing the charges, Uber said that it expected not less than forty million dollars as compensation for the damages caused by Fetch Media. However Uber is not fond of taking to court most of the issues it faces; in fact, according to report prepared by Bloomberg, Uber has been a plaintiff twice but has been accused in more than 250 cases. Ever since the internet became a money-making platform, fraud related to online advertising has been on the rise. “One of the biggest challenges we face as digital marketers is to reduce mobile ad fraud.” This was according to the chief executive of Fetch Media, James Connelly. According to the head of media at Fetch Company, Steve Hobbs, a big percentage of downloads from Fetch`s system are noted as invalid or not genuine.

Uber became aware of this fraud during a period when it was putting efforts to shut down and avoid a scandal that was different. Uber Company then requested Fetch Media not to post any advertisements on a certain website called Breitbart news which was being run by the former chief strategist of President Donald Trump. However, ads stills appeared on that site. Fetch canceled the running of ads from any network that was related to Breitbart but this did not reduce the number of application downloads. There is a specific fee paid to Fetch by Uber when a customer downloads the company`s application. From the years 2015 to 2017, Uber had paid close to $8.4m for ads regulated by Fetch Company.

Mohammed is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

http://www.fin24.com/Tech/Companies/uber-goes-on-rare-legal-offensive-suing-ad-agency-for-fraud-20170919

Posted by Muhammad Azeem.

Playing the role of a forensic accountant can be a fundamental one as it will influence various individuals whether in a business valuation or in a fraudulence sense. This article talks about how forensic accountant can play an indispensable part in perceiving issues and working up new tradition proceeding, irrespective of facing issues during the trial.

When in doubt, forensic accountants will join money related and legal capacities in choosing the proximity of a wrongdoing. Also, they can use their skills and expertise in recognizing those factors that should be considered in a business valuation. The arranging of using a forensic accountant could in like manner ask for quick and excellent results that oblige relationship with existing clients.

Whether it is for the inspirations driving business valuation or diverse examination of data, an accountant can be a fundamental part in recognizing issues. Observation is one of the biggest issues that forensic accountants face. If you are estimating a business or attempting to choose something that requires examination of a huge amount of data, an expert accountant might be the individual you require at the end.

Muhammad is an undergraduate student in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Article Link: http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Are-the-Biggest-Issues-Facing-Forensic-Accountants&id=9240899

Posted by Ahmed Alhadaith.

Embezzlement is an illegal activity which several business owners have found themselves in over the years. One of the most recent cases in the United States involved one Jonathan Todd. He was an entertainment manager and through his dealings; he allegedly embezzled funds from some of his clients. Some of the clients sued him in a civil court and on January 18^th 2017; he accepted that he had embezzled funds amounting to more than 6.5 million.  He had done this by taking “Clients money for himself and Falsifying Account records to conceal the embezzlement.”

In the case, the judge sentenced him to six years in prison ruling that his actions were plainly “insidious’, ‘audacious’ and they brought about ‘grave economic and psychological harm to his victims’” (Robb, 2017). From the case, Schwartz had stolen money from multiple clients. In one instance, he had said that. His admission to the claims levied against him brought him to the seven year sentence. However, he agreed that he had made the mistake and took full liability for his actions.

In his actions, he had broken the law and hence met the full force of the law. In another article on the same site, the judge said that money managers hand responsibilities, both moral and fiduciary, to preserve the assets of their clients without using the money for their own gain. On top of this, He had evaded taxes by filing false tax returns for the year 2012 ,and the Judge noted that he would face ‘serious consequences’ as a result. His case was taken especially to serve as a lesson to other financial professionals and deter them from engaging in fraudulent activities as he had (Robb, 2017). Through these articles, the Deadline Blog sheds light into Business Forensics accounting and the application of commercial law in indictment of embezzlers and fraudsters.

Ahmed is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

References:

Robb, Davi. Alanis Morissette’s Business Manager Sentenced To Six Years In Prison After Stealing $7 Million. 04 May 2017. .

Robb, David. Manager Admits He Embezzled $4.8M From Alanis Morissette. 18 January 2017. .

Posted by Alexander D. Bakogiannis.

Earlier this year the SEC reported that a medical device company named Orthofix was being charged with improperly booking revenue and making improper payment to doctors and government owned hospitals in Brazil.

They improperly recorded revenues as soon as a product was shipped before securing payments. When a company makes revenues from its operations, it must be recorded in their ledgers and then reported on the income statements every reporting period. According to GAAP, there are two criteria the company must meet before it can record revenues. First there must be a critical event that triggered the transaction process, and the amount collected from that transaction is measurable within a certain degree of reliability.  These wrongdoings cost the company over $14 M to settle charges.

One specific instance involved Orthofix recording revenue even when they gave their customers significant extensions of time to make payment. A company can recognize revenue from a transaction when the buyer of the company’s good or service agrees to a purchase, and the amount that the customer is going to pay is determined. By giving their consumers all this time to make their payments, the payments are fully determined, thus all the revenues should not have been recorded yet. These accounting failures make the company misstate data on their financial statement from 2011 to 2013. “Their accounting failures were so widespread that it caused them to make false statements to the general public regarding their financial condition”.

Orthofix violated the FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) when their associates in Brazil used high discounts and made improper payments through third parties to solicit doctors employed by the government to use their products; fake invoices were used to facilitate this. All of this could have been avoided or contained if Orthofix had the proper internal controls in place and to ensure that proper payments were being made on their behalf to the correct individuals, and the right data was being recorded at the times times. Unfortunately, this was not the case. As a result, their sales were inflated.

Alex is an MBA with concentration in Accounting, and a Forensic Accounting Certificate, Class of 2017.

Reference:

https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2017-18.html

Posted by Basil Almubaddil.

On July 14, 2017, a renowned rapper by the name DMX pleaded not guilty to 14 charges against him concerning tax fraud. This was after he had spent a night in jail and later posted a $500,000 bond and he was released. According to the prosecutor, DMX whose real name is Earl Simmons had evaded $1.7 million in taxes during the peak seasons of his career from the year 2002 to 2005. “DMX allegedly went out of his way to evade taxes, including by avoiding personal bank accounts, setting up accounts in other`s names and paying personal expenses largely n cash.” The prosecutor clearly stated that no one  has the right to evade taxes regardless of title or fame. “Celebrity rapper or not, all Americans must pay their taxes.”

In addition, DMX was charged with failing to file tax returns from 2010 to 2015 in the United Bankruptcy Court. The bailed agreement argued that DMX is confined to the New York City area. However, his lawyer, Murray Richman, said that he was going to request permission for DMX to travel and perform his shows during the summer season that followed.

Mr. Simpson is quite a wealthy man.  This is because between 1998 and 2003, five of his albums ranked No.1 on the Billboard 200 chart. Mr. Simpson has also acted in various films like “Romeo Must Die” and “Belly” among other films. After the hearing on the charges against him, DMX told the reporters that his religious faith had been so helpful to him in dealing with legal troubles. “It`s allowed me not to be scared of the situation and face it head-on.” In addition, DMX told the reporters that his life was in God`s hands.

Basil is a graduate accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

Posted by Chris Widuta.

Did you ever stop to notice how busy life can be? Either you’re on your way to your parents, maybe going to class that meets twice a week during rush hour, or off to the gym to see your friends. Life got busy really quickly for me and I am still managing to handle the responsibilities that come with it, which includes bills, an apartment, a relationship, and most importantly my future.

On a Wednesday at nine o’clock in the morning, I was headed down the highway doing a steady 20-mile per hour in light traffic. I was headed to meet with my college professor to discuss statistics before the final examination. The entire drive was very smooth with no one cutting me off. At the same time, I thought the slow moving traffic would make for a great time to multitask. Isn’t it true that more and more people getting more done by doing two things at the same time? Walking and talking is more than simply talking, obviously. For me, that Wednesday morning I was working with my television provider to opt-out of the TV service I thought I didn’t need. Cable is expensive and those types of calls are stages of perpetual holds. I was multitasking.

I was just a few feet away from my exit, blinker on, driving with both hands on the wheel, using my cell phone by holding it with my shoulder. The state trooper was already conducting his business that morning in the emergency lane, when he turned and saw me, communicating. I thought nothing of it as I knew I was within the law. I continued to proceed off my exit, slowly accelerating since traffic was clearing up and all of a sudden, red and blue lights jumped right into my rear-view mirror. This trooper was able to do two things at once, too! The amount of time it took him to leave that scene and open another had to be less than 30 seconds, and quite frankly I was impressed.

He pulled me over and asked for all the necessary documents. I always ask why I was pulled over, because I know that by most tickets are written by the discretion of the officer. He stated that I was on my phone and quite frankly I agreed. I was on my phone, and I stated to him that I was not holding it in my hand. I stated that I had both hands on the wheel, and I asked the officer if he saw me holding the wheel with both hands, at the 10 and 2 position. I believed that if he was able to see my head and phone, he must have been able to see both hands, which would be unmistakable, being about chin level from his vantage point.

At this point, the officer started to look like a State Trooper. He had the hat and was very serious, more serious than a local police officer. I knew that he had to be in a bit of a hurry when he gave me my insurance and registration back immediately and held my license. The trooper then stated that it didn’t matter how I was holding the phone, but the fact that I was on my phone was worthy of a ticket and illegal. I didn’t make a fuss of it and proceeded to my stats lesson.

It took me only a few minutes to research the most recent statue description for 39:4-97.3, or “Operation of a motor vehicle while using cell phone.” The statue number was right on the ticket, and a quick Google search pulled up some results. I proceeded to the 215th Legislature because that lead to the most recent additions to the law. I know how important it is to know current law rather than outdated information from the Internet. After reading through the entire statute, I came up for air and formed a judgment. The statute clearly stated in Article 2 Section 1: “The use of wireless telephone . . . device by an operator of a moving vehicle on a public road or highway shall be unlawful except when the telephone is hands-free wireless telephone or the electronic communication device is used hands-free.” That line right there gave me great hope that I was within the law, and hope that my day in court I could prove that. I was mentally preparing for a trial, pro se.

My first appearance in Municipal Court came 11 days later. Due to the fact that the situation was minor, and really only a monetary fine, I knew that the “ball was in my court.” You see, most municipal courts just love these kinds of evenings. People who are “money right and time poor” just plead guilty, pay the fine, and go on with life. The municipal court makes hundreds of thousands of dollars on these court nights, especially since the average fine that night was around $290 a person. These fines are like a tax on a poor decision.

This situation is the exact opposite. I am a student with a part time job, 15 credits, and financially responsible, who has some extra time to save some money. The fine was $200, a pretty large amount, and something I couldn’t lose. I was charged to go in with the prosecutor and plead my case. The first step I took was to sit down with the prosecutor and told him I plead, not guilty. He told me that by pleading not guilty I would request to have a trial, acting pro se. The prosecutor aggressively asked me if I was ready for “trial” as if it was a big and scary event. Of course, I knew this meant a trial so I was prepared. I also told him that I would be sending an “order” for discovery, which was my Constitutional right. He repeated what I said in a joking manner as if I was doing something wrong, but I confirmed that was what I wanted and thanked him for his time. I proceeded to sit down in the court room, second row from the font. I chose the second row because I wanted the judge to see my face and I wanted to be in the right position to hear the lawyers around me and the cases being presented that night. It was important to hear everything that was said because I was going to eventually head to the bench.

I took notes, studied, and remembered what the judge and prosecutor said for over 4 hours before I had the chance to speak. They called my case. The judge read the statute, told me the fine, and asked how I plead. After a moment or two of silence, I clearly stated “not guilty.” I may have been trembling a little on the inside, but it was important that he heard no wavering in my voice. The judge stated that I should prepare for a trial, but included a certain lead that gave me great hopes; the judge said, “If that phone was in your hand, you’re breaking the law.” I thanked him, and listened to him say that I would be getting a trial date. I walked out of the court room almost 5 hours later.

I quickly wrote up an request for the prosecutor. This official letter included my summons number, the date and who I was. In the order, I reminded him that it was my constitutional right for this discovery. I asked for all recordations of the interaction, including but not limited to, officers notes, audio, and dash cam video.

Preparing for the case was a matter of determining what facts were going to be most important to getting the charges dismissed. It was imperative that I used the officer’s comments against statute and the judge’s interpretation of the law. I truly believed that I was within the law, so it was relatively easy to find good reasons to throw this charge out. It was also clear to me that I would be making decisions based on political decisions; to be exact, I realized that the courthouse was making a bet that the State Trooper would be a witness and testify, but more on that later.

Weeks went by and a discovery packet was never sent. It was the day before the trial date and I called the courthouse to speak with the court clerk. I had told her I have not received discovery and asked for a new date. She said that she could not give one and trial will still go on tomorrow. This was actually good news. Because it is my Constitutional right to have discovery, I knew that the court would not judge against me, and at this point, the worst that could happen would be a new trial date. I could live with that.

I appeared to the court house dressed well. I went to the prosecutor’s office to speak with him, mainly on the fact that I have not received discovery. He was surprised to hear that I sent an request and he never received it. I reminded him of his words and what address to use. He also included a very important hint of what was to come. The prosecutor told me that the witness, the trooper, was not at the trial. This means that the only witness that the State has did not show up! I knew my rights under the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment that, “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witness against him.” These new facts greatly swayed my emotions to believe that I had a chance to get this dismissed that night. I was excited to sit in the court room.

Surrounded by lawyers, I was attentive and engaged. Every poor soul that stood up there took the charge and paid the fine. I prepared and thought of a response for what I would say for every one of the questions that the judge asked. Many other people had trials that day, and most if not all led the accused to lose their case. I did not give up hope, as I knew I had a different tactic. Instead of arguing the law, I planned to argue why the rules of the court should sway the judge to dismiss this case. They called my name and I felt much more confident this time around. All the possible scenarios played through my head already and I was ready.

The judge read the charge as I laid my papers on the table. Before I looked up, the judge quickly and effortlessly offered to cut the fine in half. This was completely arguable, I thought to myself. I said was that I was not granted my Constitutional right because I did not receive discovery. Before he said anything, I handed the officer a copy of the letter I sent to the prosecutor. He read it and asked a few questions about what I was requesting. The judge specifically asked how I knew that the interaction with the officer was recorded. Quite frankly, I assumed that it was recorded, I didn’t know for a fact, but I didn’t let him know that. I answered his question by referring to the fact that this was a state trooper and I believed the State installed video long ago, and how important it is to have video for more important interactions. He proceeded to ask about recordations, which I also requested.

The prosecutor followed up with a statement that the officer, who was their sole witness, was not present. He asked if it would be okay to reschedule for another date. I quickly returned his comment by asking for a dismissal. The judge rebutted with some guilt tripping remarks, including that ever since 9/11, State Troopers are very busy, and that certain arrangements for special occasions are required. I wasn’t going to fall for this guilt trip. It is important for the witness to be present at any trial, especially this one. I responded with the fact that this was a trial and asked if a trial is important enough to request their witness to be present. I also stated that he should have been subpoenaed for the trial. The judge did not respond. I asked to kindly accept my motion for a dismissal.

After what seemed to be an eternity, the judge looked up and said, “Case dismissed.” His words were truly the most relieving and gratifying two words I could have possibly heard. All of the hard work and time I put in to this exercise, not only saved me the $200 fine, but I confirmed to myself that I could stand up to my opponents and be victorious. The best part of this was, I didn’t even have to argue the law, I used the law in my favor and the judge nor could the prosecutor do anything to stop me.

Chris is a business administration major with a concentration in management of information technology at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

The United States Supreme Court dismissed cases involving President Trump’s executive order blocking people traveling to the United States from certain countries. A September order replaced the March order expanding the restrictions. Since the March order expired, the cases pending before the High Court were moot.

The Supreme Court also vacated the underlying Ninth Circuit opinion blocking the order.  The effect is now there is no precedent, which the district court in Hawaii relied upon to block the September order. The Justice Department will be asking the district court to revisit his ruling now that the Supreme Court has acted.

President Trump blocked the impending merger between Singapore-based, Broadcom, and U.S.-based, Qualcomm, over concerns that it would affect national security. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States investigated “the national security implications of the deal last week over concerns that it would hamper U.S. efforts to develop 5G wireless networks and other emerging technologies. CFIUS on Monday recommended that the president veto the deal.”

The President cited “‘credible’” evidence of risk to our national security. We would lose a company with the ingenuity and technology to build the next-generation of wireless networks.