#ProjectREALNV

[projectrealnv]

The Patents Behind Facebook’s Scary Accurate Friend Suggestions...

Have you ever heard of people receiving Facebook “friend suggestions” that were so accurate that they were creepy? Maybe one night they attended a party and only talked to one person, then somehow  woke up the next morning to find that Facebook had  suggested the person friend-request them!

It happens more often than you think, and there is a perfectly legal reason for it! The social media site uses technology to connect two people based on the metadata from cameras used to upload photos and the data embedded into those pictures (data like GPS coordinates where the picture was taken). Even scratches and dust marks in the pictures could be used to identify a specific camera that was used to take the picture.

Facebook is legally allowed to do all of this, but people only know that the company even had the idea to do that because of a series of patents they filed in 2014 and 2015.  If someone else uses their invention (in this case the technology) without permission, they can be taken to court and sued!

One of the patents is titled ‘Systems and methods for utilizing wireless communications to suggest connections for a user’ and explains how logged smartphone data can be used to make friend recommendations. The algorithm incorporates other information as well, like the amount of time between two wireless communications (uploading and receiving a photo) or the signal strength at the time of the data exchange.  With those seemingly impersonal bits of information, Facebook is able to recognize and identify when two people are walking together or facing each other.

Another of the patents is titled ‘Associating cameras with users and objects in a social networking system’ and highlights how data from photos uploaded to the site can be used to connect people. The ‘data’ that is compared isn’t just 1s and 0s… The patent details how the information used to identify the photographer could be as simple as a file name or as complex as a dust particle on a camera lens that appears in the same place in multiple photos (which suggest they were taken by the same camera, like a photographic fingerprint).

Even if the processes Facebook patented are lawful, what are the implications for non-users that get identified by the algorithm?  Imagine this:

You’re a privacy hound who doesn’t use social media sites because you like to control the use of your data simply because you don’t like mega corporations.  Let’s say you’re also a photographer, and you post photos to a website.  If a fan of yours shared a photo on Facebook and labeled you as the photographer, would Facebook have a legal right to identify other pictures you’d taken with the same camera even if you weren’t the person uploading them to the website? What could a non-user do to fight this system?  Explain your answers.  If you need more information first, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:  

http://in.pcmag.com/facebook/118580/news/facebook-can-track-you-using-the-dust-and-scratches-on-your

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[yourdayincourtblog]

Cat Gets Fat Stacks From Lawsuit

Internet celebrity Grumpy Cat should be doing anything but frowning after receiving over $700,000 in a lawsuit.

The frowny feline known as Grumpy Cat’s rise to popularity began in 2012 when her down and dismissive attitude won over the hearts of the meme market. Grumpy Cat’s stardom prompted her owner to monetize on that success, so she started Grumpy Cat Limited. The potential for profits from the sourpuss generated licensing deals with numerous companies.  One of those companies was Grenade (a beverage company).

Unfortunately, a licensing deal between the two companies to allow for the creation of iced coffees called “Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino” did not end well.  Grenade may have thought they weren’t doing anything wrong when they produced a line of “Grumpy Cat Roasted Coffee” products.

And that is where the real grump begins.

Drawn into a dispute, Grumpy Cat (the company, not the cat) brought Grenade to federal court in a copyright lawsuit.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed the roasted coffee featuring Grumpy Cat and Grumppuccino t-shirts which Grenade was also making and selling was not part of their licensing agreement.  The company claimed in court they had only licensed the use of Grumpy Cat for the ‘Grumpuccino Iced Coffees’.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed that by using Grumpy cat to sell another coffee line and t-shirts, Grenade was stealing from them.  

Grenade then turned around on Grumpy Cat Limited and filed a countersuit. They stated the crabby cat wasn't promoting the iced coffee the way the licensing agreement had said she would.  Basically, Grenade claimed the grump’s slump of a movie career was a violation by Grumpy Cat Limited of stipulations in the licensing agreement.  To support the claim of contract violation, the company’s attorney pointed out an instance where the owner failed to mention the Grumpuccino Iced Coffee in a live appearance on Fox News (as promised), and the minor amount of social media posts about the chilled beverage from accounts controlled by Grumpy Cat Limited.

These claims though fell on deaf ears as the jury threw out the countersuit and decided in favor of Grumpy Cat Limited, awarding the cat (or at least her company) more than $700,000. Following this decision, the favorable feline can now hold her head high while hanging her frown low.

Questions to Consider:

1.a) The 7th amendment of the constitution guarantees the right of trial by jury in serious criminal cases and certain civil ones like this.  Both sides, in this case, are entitled to request a jury trial to decide the verdict.  Grumpy Cat is a known icon on the internet and is bound to have some sort of diverse fanbase.  Do you believe a person’s status affect juries in court, and if so, how?

1.b) Have you seen or heard of any cases where someone's high or low status affected the outcome of a trial? Share details, or if you haven’t heard of a case like that occurring, explain why you think that is.

1.c.) Do you think Grumpy Cat's status was a factor in the outcome of her court case, and if so what can courts do to ensure an unbiased outcome is achieved in an otherwise fair trial?

2.a ) Grumpy Cat Limited’s initial lawsuit was over Grenade’s infringement of copyright. What are some specific copyright laws that protect brands from being misused by other companies?

2.b) What is the difference between licensing a product and enforcing a copyright or trademark?

3.a) After being sued by Grumpy Cat Limited, Grenade launched a countersuit against the company in an attempt to defend themselves. They claimed that Grumpy Cat Limited didn’t deliver on the duties they promised to fulfill in the agreement (like the lack of social media posts, and the Fox News shout-out that didn‘t happen). If Grenade was claiming they used Grumpy Cat on the other coffee and t-shirts to make up for the value that Grumpy’s company wasn’t delivering on despite being contractually obligated to do so, should they have at least had a chance to win in court?

3.b) Imagine that (A) Grenade’s extra use of Grumpy’s image was stealing even though (B) they weren’t getting what they paid for in the original agreement, and the Grenade knew that their actions could be classified as stealing.  If those were the facts, why might Grenade have still countersued Grumpy Cat Limited, and what would the possible benefits be?

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-grumpy-cat-lawsuit-20180124-story.html

[projectrealnv]

California Volunteers share Food With The Homeless, Get Arrested By Police

On January 14th of 2018, 12 people from a volunteer group were arrested for handing out food to the homeless.

To provide some backstory to this situation, a community group called “Break The Ban” were distributing food and other items to the homeless population at a park in California. According to the police officers that arrived, they were violating a ban on sharing food in city-owned public areas, which was recently passed by the City of El Cajon in 2017. The reason for this ban was to stop the spread of Hepatitis A. the police cited some of the volunteers to jail but did not take them. But, for the two volunteers they arrested are scheduled to appear in court. The group was outraged by the act and is planning to fight the citations and the food-sharing ban.

There was another case in which this incident has occurred. According to Forbes, in Fort Lauderdale, police arrested a 90-year old man and two ministers in 2014 for trying to share their food with the homeless. In October of 2014, the city enacted an ordinance that bans sharing food in public parks, unless they have a permit from the city. As a result of this situation, the organization arrested (Food Not Bombs) sued the city of Fort Lauderdale on the basis of the ordinance violated their right to free speech and free association, and the ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague.” At first, a federal district court dismissed the case since food sharing events were outside the scope of the First Amendment since it did not convey a “particularized message.”

But, under that line of reasoning, that sounds like the First Amendment is confined to expressions conveying a particularized message. So, as a result, the case was ruled that Food Not Bombs does have a First Amendment right to share food. The case was sent back down to the lower courts to determine if the city’s ordinance was in violation of those rights. The city of Lauderdale has not responded to the request yet.

Explain your answers and for more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-el-cajon-california-arrests_us_5a5de4f4e4b0fcbc3a1355f4?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

And / or

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/08/27/federal-court-first-amendment-protects-sharing-food-with-homeless-people/#fe8283b4884

Questions (answer them all!):

1. How does the First Amendment apply to these news stories?

2. Why do you feel the ordinance being issued to prevent the spread of Hepatitis A was or was not justified? 

3. Are there laws in your community restricting feeding the homeless, if so what are they, how do you feel about there being or not being laws about this activity in your community, and what can you do to support/change those local laws/policies?

4. (High School Students only) Even if you disagree with the policy in this case, imagine that there are some activities that people volunteer for or donate to that are meant to ‘make the world a better place’, but which should be managed or limited by local laws. How should local governments and law makers decide if an activity requires them to get involved in those activities (ex: Should sheltering homeless animals and feeding the homeless face the same kinds of restriction)?

Contributed by - J. Pennington

[projectrealnv]

Law Firm Claims Rival Sucked Up Business By Copying And Hijacking Their Website

We are taught not to copy a person’s work since it can get us in trouble. According to an article by Above The Law, a law firm is suiting another firm on the basis of copying and hijacking their website.

In Illinois, Motta & Motta is suing Dolci & Weiland over the alleged hijacking and plagiarism. The suit claims that Dolci capitalized on Motta’s reputation by using website hashtags and headers to mislead search engines into believing Motta’s website is Dolci’s website. According to the suit allegations, Dolci & Weiland’s website mirrored Motta’s copyrighted design and content and even copied (verbatim) articles and blogs on Motta’s website.

In school, we are taught many basic principles such as reading, writing, mathematics, but we also introduced into many ethical values as well, such as responsibility, quality, leadership, respect, and honesty. One way these ethical values are exercised is through integrity and not committing plagiarism. This article brings up some interesting points relating to privacy, defamation, and fraud and how Dolci’s law firm was acting unlawfully. Instead of Dolci taking the time to create their website and content, they are now facing a lengthy legal process that is going to cost them a lot of money!

Questions:

1.In what situations is it against the law to impersonate someone online?

2. When would impersonating a person online be a form of fraud, or why would it not be a fraud? 

3. The law firm that claimed to be victimized specifically mentioned hashtags in their complaint.  Hashtags are basically hyperlinks: text that results in being connected to related information.  If the law firm sued only over the plagiarism of the hashtags on their website, why do you think they would or would not have a good chance of winning their case in court?  Be specific by using other lawsuits or trademark and copyright news articles as examples when creating your response.*  

----------------- *Hint #1: Are companies guaranteed websites with their names? *Hint #2: What are some examples of trademarks, copyrights, and the differences between the two?

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/08/law-firm-claims-rival-sucked-up-business-by-copying-and-hijacking-their-website/

Contributed by - J. Pennington

[projectrealnv]

WHAT?!  IS?!  MEAT?! Missouri Label Law Says it Comes From An Animal; Some Disagree

When it comes to meat products, this is a major market within the United States. Besides Lady Gaga wearing a slab of red meats, Americans on average eat over 100 pounds of meat per year. But, what does meat have to do with law?

On August 29th, 2018, a Missouri law was passed to require that only products that come from slaughterhouses, once-breathing animals can be marketed as meat. Specifically, the law labels meat as something that is harvest from production livestock or poultry. The law is intended to inform the public on what exactly is in the product.

For instance, in cases in which plant-based products (soy, eggplant, etc.) are made into burgers, they cannot be labeled as such since they did not come from a slaughterhouse and were not “once-breathing animals.”

A similar bill is currently being reviewed within the Senate. The US Department of Agriculture is considering to establish beef and meat labeling requirements and to exclude products not derived directly from animals raised and slaughtered from the definition of “beef” and “meat”.

The reason for this law, on a federal level, is to better inform consumers and there are no labeling requirements currently for labeling beef or meat. The major concern is from a non-profit corporation from Montana called the “United States Cattlemen’s Association” and are concerned with the ‘synthetic products’ being introduced into the market and being marketed as ‘beef’.  

The controversy over this case comes from people who consider plant-based products as ‘meaty’ or ‘soy roast beef’. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit say that this categorizing infringes on the First Amendment rights and prevents the clear and accurate labeling of plant-based and clean meat products. The plaintiffs claim that this is a way for them to stifle plant-based meats in grocery stores.

A similar lawsuit was filed in Florida. A state law required milk product to be labeled as “skim milk” only if it had the same level of Vitamin A as whole milk. Dairy farmers begged to differ and sued, saying that their product was skim milk and should be deemed as such. Ultimately, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in the dairy farmer’s favor since the farm’s “use of the words ‘skim milk’ to describe its skim milk is not inherently misleading.”

Overall, this case is currently being debated and it is now your turn to voice your opinion!

Questions:

What does the US Department of Agriculture do?

How do you feel the First Amendment does or does not apply to this case?

Should plant-based products be allowed to use the word ‘meat’ in their name, and why do you feel that way? 

Explain your answers and for more details you can read the article this piece was sourced from here: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/29/642937901/whats-meat-anyway-missouri-label-law-says-it-comes-from-an-animal-some-disagree?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180829

Here’s an optional additional starting place as you develop your responses (Note: Consider the source! Who’s writing it, and do they have a story they want you to believe, or are they presenting all the facts?):

http://www.uscattlemen.org/Templates/pdfs_USCA/2018-PDFs/2-9-18USCA-AMS-Petition-re-definition-of-beef-and-meat.pdf

Contributed by - J. Pennington

[projectrealnv]

3 Assassinations, International Intrigue, & Your Right to Remain Silent…

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you. You have the right to an attorney….”  Those words – which you may recognize from shows or movies – are the words used to inform someone who is being arrested if their Miranda Rights.   They’re not just for entertainment though – they are very real rights every American is entitled to, but they have only been read to suspects since 1966.  That process came about as a result of a Supreme Court decision, but their origins date back much earlier. In fact, the process of reading a suspect their Miranda Rights is rooted in a historical event that took place in 1919.

That year, a triple murder of foreign diplomats occurred in Washington D.C. (a diplomat is someone who acts as the representative of a foreign government). The three victims all worked for the Chinese Educational Mission before being assassinated. When there were no leads or clear motives, the police focused in on the only suspect they had.

On the day of the assassinations, a young Chinese student named Ziang Sung Wan had been seen at the house where the killings had occurred. The police went to his home in New York and after searching it without a warrant, pressured Wan (who was suffering from a flu at the time) into going back to Washington D.C.  with them.  Upon their arrival, the authorities isolated Ziang in a hotel room and held him without formally placing him under formal arrest.  After extended periods of isolation and interrogation that lasted more than 9 days, they eventually pressured him into making a confession.

During trial for the murders, Wan took back his confession, saying that he only confessed to make the detectives’ interrogation come to an end. The judge refused to acknowledge Wan’s statement despite the conditions that were used to obtain his confession.  Eventually, Wan was found guilty of first degree-murder.  At the time, the penalty for a guilty first-degree murder conviction was death-by-hanging.

Wan’s case was one of many at the time that had stirred debate among judges and lawyers in the country over which police conduct and interrogation methods were lawful, and which of those methods and behaviors were unlawful.  At the same time, Ziang’s attorneys were filing appeals and pursuing their client’s acquittal relentlessly, knowing that his life was on the line.  Eventually Ziang’s lawyers managed to get his case heard by the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS).

As a result of the raging national debate in the law community over police tactics and the constitutional questions raised by Ziang’s case, one justice was tasked with drafting up a decision that would lay the groundwork for the Miranda Rights we know today.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote the court’s decision, in which the court interpreted the Fifth Amendment as permitting only volunteer confessions as being admissible as evidence in federal court proceedings, and that a confession could be coerced involuntarily even if an explicit threat had not made.

If that’s too wordy, think about it like this: The police didn’t tell Ziang “If you don’t confess we’re going to break your legs”.  Because they held him for 9 days though - while he was sick, in uncomfortable conditions, and without telling him when they would stop -  they had basically forced him to confess to end the torment he was experiencing.

Unfortunately, because Wan had been tried in Washington D.C. (which is a federal jurisdiction) the new standard only applied to cases in federal courts. The ruling wouldn’t apply to states or local court proceedings for years.  The standard created by Justice Brandeis’ ruling also ended up being interpreted in a variety of ways for decades after it was first issued.  For years after the ruling, cases ended up before SCOTUS that would produce rulings which added more specificity to Justice Brandeis’ initial court opinion on Ziang’s case.

Eventually, in 1966 Chief Justice Earl Warren would mandate safeguards for suspects dealing with police in the opinion he issued for SCOTUS in the case of Miranda v. Arizona.  Those safeguards would eventually develop into the Miranda Rights most people are familiar with today. His writings leaned heavily on the court opinion issued in response to Wan’s case, making it clear the Ziang Sung Wan v. United States is the legal soil from which the Miranda Rights we know today grew from.

Thanks to the Wan and Miranda decisions, today suspects are informed that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them in the court of law, that they have the right to counsel, and that if they are unable to afford one, an attorney will be appointed for them.

1)    Now that you know some of the history behind Miranda Rights, do you have any feelings about your right to remain silent? What questions do you have about your right to remain silent?

2)      TV may lead you to think that the right to remain silent is only used by criminals who are done talking to police and want to leave the interview.  That’s not the case at all though.  What are some situations that could lead someone to exercise their right to remain silent?

3)      Suppose you found yourself needing to exercising your right to remain silent.  What would that look like?  Simply saying “I wouldn’t talk” isn’t enough: Tell us Why you might have decided to exercise your right, what you would do while exercising that right, how you would be treated while exercising the right, and the possible benefits and consequences of remaining silent.

When replying to any of the questions above, please provide detailed responses.  If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1919-murder-case-gave-americans-right-remain-silent-180968916/

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[projectrealnv]

ATM Stolen From Courthouse: Criminals Cash Out on The Law!

Thieves in one Texas community attempted to steal courthouse ATMs three times in just one week!  During the third attempt, thieves used a stolen pickup truck to smash the back door of the courthouse, attached some sort of strap to the ATM and dragged the machine out of the building.

It is unknown if the suspects who stole the ATM on the third attempt were behind the previous two incidents, but the timing is certainly suspicious.  Whether they were the same people or different ones, the people behind each of those incidents will face serious consequences once they are caught!

If the thieves had taken the time to think about their actions or if they’d been fortunate enough to know some basic things about the law, they’d realize the risks that come with getting caught involved with these heists are ridiculous!    

Very few criminal charges result in a trial for the defendant.  That means the accused rarely has a chance of being acquitted (being declared ‘not guilty’ of the crime he or she has been charged with).   That’s because trials are expensive and don’t guarantee an outcome.  Most of the time, lawyers for both sides will negotiate a deal to avoid a trial and to guarantee they get the best outcome they could hope for if things did not go their way in court.  In criminal cases, a lot of time that can mean the person being charged still ends up going to prison, they just go for less time than they would if they had been found guilty in a trial.  

One of the tools a prosecutor has to motivate defense teams to negotiate is their ability to ‘stack charges’.  In the ATM story, you might think “Ok, the thieves will be charged with stealing the ATM”.  It’s not that simple though!

Consider all these things that we already know about the ATM theft incidents:

- The thieves stole a truck to use for the ATM theft

- The thieves used a stolen truck to commit the ATM theft

- The thieves were trespassing in the courthouse after hours

- The thieves broke into a property

- The thieves damaged a property

- The thieves broke into a courthouse, which may interfere with courthouse proceedings

- The thieves damaged a courthouse which may interfere with courthouse proceedings

- The thieves used a vehicle to intentionally damage a courthouse

- The thieves stole the court’s property

- The thieves stole an item worth thousands of dollars

- The thieves stole an ATM, which can also be considered a form of bank robbery

- The thieves may have spent the money in the ATM

Those aren’t just 12 facts about the case – they are 12 possible charges that could be filed against a person for one criminal incident. That means the person would be charged with 12 crimes from the one event!  That also means the defendant would face 12 different punishments if they were found guilty of each charge!

Don’t forget: Thieves had attempted to steal ATM’s from courthouses in the area 3 times that week!  If someone was convicted on all of the charges for just one of those incidents, an angry judge could sentence them to spend what would likely be the rest of their lives in prison.  If they were found guilty of all the crimes related to all 3 ATM incidents that week,  things might be even worse for them!

1)    What is the minimum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for one incident, if it happened in Nevada?

2)    What is the maximum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for one incident, if it happened in Nevada?

3)    What is the maximum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for all three ATM incidents, if they happened in Nevada?

4)    What federal laws were broken by the ATM thieves, and what is the maximum federal punishment they could receive?

5)    If the thieves were caught and found guilty of all charges related to the final robbery in Nevada’s state court, and then they were found guilty of all the possible federal charges in Federal Court, what is the maximum penalty they would face?

Explain your answers to any question you reply to in detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions. The article this piece was originally sourced from is available here if you’d like to get a few more details first:

http://abc7chicago.com/thieves-target-texas-courthouse-atm-for-3rd-time-in-a-week/3365855/

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[projectrealnv]

Seriously Stupid: Swatting a School Shooting Survivor

A quick note for the olds: Swatting is when emergency services are called by someone who hides their identity and falsely claims an incident that requires an immediate and armed response from law enforcement is taking place at an address.  Swatting is a way to harass – and possibly harm – an intended victim by fraudulently provoking a police raid at their location.

During Spring 2018 in Parkland, Florida, local police responded to a call that claimed Parkland shooting survivor and anti-gun activist David Hogg was being held hostage.  The caller claimed Hogg and his family were being held hostage by someone armed with an AR-15. Police showed up to his house “prepared for a shootout with an armed menace”.  Shortly after arriving at the scene, the responding officers discovered that not only had the caller been lying, but that Hogg was actually out of town at the time.

On social media Hogg downplayed the incident, describing it a poorly-thought-out prank.  Hogg had a reason for playing it cool though – after surviving the slaughter at his school on Valentine’s Day in 2018, he’s been a target for harassment from gun rights activist and conspiracy theorists.  By downplaying the swatting incident and acting like it’s no big deal, Hogg was communicating to swatters that they are wasting their time trying to provoke fear or anguish in him.

Despite how Hogg reacted to the incident publically, swatting is an extremely dangerous act that needs to be taken seriously.  It wastes police resources that might be needed somewhere where a real emergency is taking place, and the so-called prank can even result in death.

In December 2017, a 28 year old was killed by police that were responding to an emergency call.  In a call to 911, a swatter claimed that a man had killed his father and was holding the rest of his family hostage in their home.   When a young man opened the door at the house that was being ‘swatted’, police shot him thinking he was the gunman that had been reported.  He died shortly after that.  Given that the December 2017 swatting death was national news at the time, the person who attempted to swat David Hogg just a few month later knew there was a chance Hogg (or a member of his family) could have been inadvertently shot or injured by police.

Though the specific definition changes by jurisdiction, generally speaking ‘attempted murder’ is when someone has intent to carry out a murder or takes a substantial step towards committing a murder.  Considering the circumstances of the attempted swatting of David Hogg, do you believe the swatter – if he or she were ever identified – could be convicted of attempted murder?  Why or why not?  What other charges might a person face if they were identified as being a person behind a swatting call to police?

Explain your answers with detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/us/hogg-family-home-swatting-incident-trnd/index.html

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[projectrealnv]

D’oh! Nuts! Donut Champion Dunked Into A Jail Cell

Pictured: Artist’s interpretation of suspect being detained at the local jail…or not.

A North Carolina man was arrested for stealing and breaking into a Dunkin’ Donuts. According to police he is being charged with felonies including breaking and entering and larceny (meaning the theft of someone’s property). It wasn’t specified if any donuts were taken during the theft.

In 2014, the same man won a donut eating contest while being wanted on suspicion of multiple break-ins. After competing in the donut event, Bradley Hardison (the suspect) prompted closer watch by investigators which led to him being convicted. Ironically, he won the contest at the police department’s “National Night Out Against Crime” event.

Hardison was held on a $7,000 bond for his latest charges of breaking and entering and larceny.

What punishments could Hardison face for the breaking and entering charge? What punishments could he face for the larceny charge? Keep in mind that they are both felonies.

Explain your answers with detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bradley-hardison-elizabeth-city-donut-eating-winner-charged-arrested-dunkin-donuts/

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[projectrealnv]

Cat Get Fat Stacks From Lawsuit

Internet celebrity Grumpy Cat should be doing anything but frowning after receiving over $700,000 in a lawsuit.

The frowny feline known as Grumpy Cat’s rise to popularity began in 2012 when her down and dismissive attitude won over the hearts of the meme market. Grumpy Cat’s stardom prompted her owner to monetize on that success, so she started Grumpy Cat Limited. The potential for profits from the sourpuss generated licensing deals with numerous companies.  One of those companies was Grenade (a beverage company).

Unfortunately, a licensing deal between the two companies to allow for the creation of iced coffees called “Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino” did not end well.  Grenade may have thought they weren’t doing anything wrong when they produced a line of “Grumpy Cat Roasted Coffee” products.

And that is where the real grump begins.

Drawn into a dispute, Grumpy Cat (the company, not the cat) brought Grenade to federal court in a copyright lawsuit.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed the roasted coffee featuring Grumpy Cat and Grumppuccino t-shirts which Grenade was also making and selling was not part of their licensing agreement.  The company claimed in court they had only licensed the use of Grumpy Cat for the ‘Grumpuccino Iced Coffees’.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed that by using Grumpy cat to sell another coffee line and t-shirts, Grenade was stealing from them.  

Grenade then turned around on Grumpy Cat Limited and filed a countersuit. They stated the crabby cat wasn’t promoting the iced coffee the way the licensing agreement had said she would.  Basically, Grenade claimed the grump’s slump of a movie career was a violation by Grumpy Cat Limited of stipulations in the licensing agreement.  To support the claim of contract violation, the company’s attorney pointed out an instance where the owner failed to mention the Grumpuccino Iced Coffee in a live appearance on Fox News (as promised), and the minor amount of social media posts about the chilled beverage from accounts controlled by Grumpy Cat Limited.

These claims though fell on deaf ears as the jury threw out the countersuit and decided in favor of Grumpy Cat Limited, awarding the cat (or at least her company) more than $700,000. Following this decision, the favorable feline can now hold her head high while hanging her frown low.

Questions to Consider:

1.a) The 7th amendment of the constitution guarantees the right of trial by jury in serious criminal cases and certain civil ones like this.  Both sides, in this case, are entitled to request a jury trial to decide the verdict.  Grumpy Cat is a known icon on the internet and is bound to have some sort of diverse fanbase.  Do you believe a person’s status affect juries in court, and if so, how?

1.b) Have you seen or heard of any cases where someone’s high or low status affected the outcome of a trial? Share details, or if you haven’t heard of a case like that occurring, explain why you think that is.

1.c.) Do you think Grumpy Cat’s status was a factor in the outcome of her court case, and if so what can courts do to ensure an unbiased outcome is achieved in an otherwise fair trial?

2.a ) Grumpy Cat Limited’s initial lawsuit was over Grenade’s infringement of copyright. What are some specific copyright laws that protect brands from being misused by other companies?

2.b) What is the difference between licensing a product and enforcing a copyright or trademark?

3.a) After being sued by Grumpy Cat Limited, Grenade launched a countersuit against the company in an attempt to defend themselves. They claimed that Grumpy Cat Limited didn’t deliver on the duties they promised to fulfill in the agreement (like the lack of social media posts, and the Fox News shout-out that didn‘t happen). If Grenade was claiming they used Grumpy Cat on the other coffee and t-shirts to make up for the value that Grumpy’s company wasn’t delivering on despite being contractually obligated to do so, should they have at least had a chance to win in court?

3.b) Imagine that (A) Grenade’s extra use of Grumpy’s image was stealing even though (B) they weren’t getting what they paid for in the original agreement, and the Grenade knew that their actions could be classified as stealing.  If those were the facts, why might Grenade have still countersued Grumpy Cat Limited, and what would the possible benefits be?

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-grumpy-cat-lawsuit-20180124-story.html

[yourdayincourtblog]

Righting the Wrongs in Florida Rights Restoration

The right to vote is a given liberty to all U.S citizens. This said anything given can be taken away. A felony conviction can cause a citizen to lose this precious right. In Florida, felons who have served their time have struggled to obtain their voting rights back. After taking their fight to Federal Court, things may have gotten better for people who’ve paid their debt to society.

Before the federal lawsuit, Florida’s felons would have to go before an Executive Clemency Board and request that their voting rights be restored.  Despite being a voter-elected position, Florida’s Governor is one of the people who have a seat on the state’s Executive Clemency Board.

Governor Scott had been the head panel member of the Board by nine people with past felonies.   They decided to sue for their rights back, and used one incident in particular to make their case:

At one point, Scott had restored the voting rights of a white man who had cast an illegal ballot in 2010 (an election during which he had voted for Scott - or so he claimed during the hearing which the Governor was present at).  Around the same time, Scott had denied five other requests, with four of those requests coming from African-Americans. With Scott being a touted-Republican and most of Florida’s African Americans being registered Democrats, the Governor’s judgment and use of power were brought into question by the lawsuit.

Politics aren’t supposed to play into the decision to restore voter rights. Florida’s intended design of the system was one where the Clemency Board reviews applicants eligible for restoration based if they pass the criteria. Eligibility is available five years after completion of a sentence with full payment of restitution. Soon after the Office of Executive Clemency inspect the applicant and decide from a range of factors the possible acceptance of restoration.

U.S District Judge Mark Walker’s questioned Scott’s “unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights”. The Judge’s decision in Federal Court ruled Florida’s right restoration system in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.  Now as a result of the lawsuit, Governor Scott is the state’s first to have restrictions placed on his role in restoring felons’ rights to vote.  

In defense of Florida’s practices, Scott’s communication director stated: “The discretion of the clemency board over the restoration of felons’ rights in Florida has been in place for decade[s] and overseen by multiple governors.”

Florida’s restoration system will now undergo changes as a result of Judge Walker’s ruling, and the nine people involved in the lawsuit will once again be able to attempt to restore their voting rights.

Questions to Consider:

Nine people who filed this case to report issues with the process of rights restorations in Florida. They didn’t believe in the justice of that system, and the judge ended up ruling in their favor.  In his decision, the judge cited Florida’s state government for violating  the 1st and 14th amendments which lead to his final decision.

1.a) In what ways could Florida have violated these amendments? Do you agree or disagree with the Judge’s claim that these violations occurred?

1. b) The nine people were also burdened with the financial cost of paying for their case. Are they eligible for any kind of compensation for the expenses they took on, now that the case seems to have been decided in their favor? Tell us what laws support your answer.

1.c) The federal court had to intervene to establish balance for the restoration process in Florida because of the potential bias a governor may have.  With this restriction in place, how much authority does Florida have when it comes to returning right to their citizens, and is that too much or too little authority for the state to have?

2.a) A 2016 survey led statisticians to estimate that 1.68 million Floridians had lost their voting rights. These statistics differ around the country.  How many people in Nevada have lost their voting rights this year so far, and what about in the past 10 years?

2.b) How would someone in Nevada get their voting rights restored and how is that process different than the one in Florida?

3) As you’ve just learned, a citizens lose certain rights after being convicted of a felony. Once they’ve served their sentences, many of these people try to reform their lives to become better than they were before. Even though they’ve ‘served their time’, some will continue to experience ongoing punishment when some of their rights remain revoked (until they take additional steps to have some of those rights restored).   Does restricting felons’ rights after they’ve served out their sentences do enough to help them learn from their mistake, or does the policy of not instantly restoring their rights (like the right to vote) after they’ve been released from prison go too far? Explain your reasoning!

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_strikes_down_floridas_voting_restoration_process_for_felons/

[projectrealnv]

Righting the Wrongs in Florida Rights Restoration

The right to vote is a given liberty to all U.S citizens. This said anything given can be taken away. A felony conviction can cause a citizen to lose this precious right. In Florida, felons who have served their time have struggled to obtain their voting rights back. After taking their fight to Federal Court, things may have gotten better for people who’ve paid their debt to society.

Before the federal lawsuit, Florida’s felons would have to go before an Executive Clemency Board and request that their voting rights be restored.  Despite being a voter-elected position, Florida’s Governor is one of the people who have a seat on the state’s Executive Clemency Board.

Governor Scott had been the head panel member of the Board by nine people with past felonies.   They decided to sue for their rights back, and used one incident in particular to make their case:

At one point, Scott had restored the voting rights of a white man who had cast an illegal ballot in 2010 (an election during which he had voted for Scott - or so he claimed during the hearing which the Governor was present at).  Around the same time, Scott had denied five other requests, with four of those requests coming from African-Americans. With Scott being a touted-Republican and most of Florida’s African Americans being registered Democrats, the Governor’s judgment and use of power were brought into question by the lawsuit.

Politics aren’t supposed to play into the decision to restore voter rights. Florida’s intended design of the system was one where the Clemency Board reviews applicants eligible for restoration based if they pass the criteria. Eligibility is available five years after completion of a sentence with full payment of restitution. Soon after the Office of Executive Clemency inspect the applicant and decide from a range of factors the possible acceptance of restoration.

 U.S District Judge Mark Walker’s questioned Scott’s “unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights”. The Judge’s decision in Federal Court ruled Florida’s right restoration system in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.  Now as a result of the lawsuit, Governor Scott is the state’s first to have restrictions placed on his role in restoring felons’ rights to vote.  

In defense of Florida’s practices, Scott’s communication director stated:“The discretion of the clemency board over the restoration of felons’ rights in Florida has been in place for decade[s] and overseen by multiple governors.”

Florida’s restoration system will now undergo changes as a result of Judge Walker’s ruling, and the nine people involved in the lawsuit will once again be able to attempt to restore their voting rights.

Questions to Consider:

Nine people who filed this case to report issues with the process of rights restorations in Florida. They didn't believe in the justice of that system, and the judge ended up ruling in their favor.  In his decision, the judge cited Florida's state government for violating  the 1st and 14th amendments which lead to his final decision.

1.a) In what ways could Florida have violated these amendments? Do you agree or disagree with the Judge’s claim that these violations occurred?

1. b) The nine people were also burdened with the financial cost of paying for their case. Are they eligible for any kind of compensation for the expenses they took on, now that the case seems to have been decided in their favor? Tell us what laws support your answer.

1.c) The federal court had to intervene to establish balance for the restoration process in Florida because of the potential bias a governor may have.  With this restriction in place, how much authority does Florida have when it comes to returning right to their citizens, and is that too much or too little authority for the state to have?

2.a) A 2016 survey led statisticians to estimate that 1.68 million Floridians had lost their voting rights. These statistics differ around the country.  How many people in Nevada have lost their voting rights this year so far, and what about in the past 10 years?

2.b) How would someone in Nevada get their voting rights restored and how is that process different than the one in Florida?

3) As you’ve just learned, a citizens lose certain rights after being convicted of a felony. Once they’ve served their sentences, many of these people try to reform their lives to become better than they were before. Even though they’ve ‘served their time’, some will continue to experience ongoing punishment when some of their rights remain revoked (until they take additional steps to have some of those rights restored).   Does restricting felons’ rights after they’ve served out their sentences do enough to help them learn from their mistake, or does the policy of not instantly restoring their rights (like the right to vote) after they’ve been released from prison go too far? Explain your reasoning!

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_strikes_down_floridas_voting_restoration_process_for_felons/

[projectrealnv]

Welcome to Volcano Land

Hawaii is known for a number of landscapes like beautiful beaches and volcanoes (including three active ones!) With one currently erupting there is a great chance that lava could reach the ocean. When it reaches the sea, the lava cools down and hardens creating more land called lava extensions.

This geological event leads us to a pretty interesting legal question: Since it was created by a natural event, who exactly owns this new land? Before we look for an answer, let’s get some background on where this debate began:

In 1955 a volcano called Kilauea erupted and created over 7.9 acres of new land. A local family purchased previously-existing land next to where the lava extension had formed. The new owners assumed that they had full rights to the recently created parts, and not just the initial land they purchased.   They even paid property taxes and planted trees on it! 

Following an eruption in the same area in 1960, the issue of who the land really belonged to ended up being taken to court.   Hawaii’s State Supreme Court ended up ordering the land owners to leave the lava-extension, and then issued the land-rights for the lava extension to the state.

The court ruled that the land created by the volcanic activity was for the “use and enjoyment of all the people”; instead of only allowing one family or person to use the land as they please, everyone gets to use it!.

Since the court ruling established that land created by lava belongs to the state, that meant that all of the land created by Kilauea’s eruption in 1955 belongs to the state of Hawaii. As a result, it was not just the one family and their bit of land that was affected by the court case’s outcome.

 Essay Question Time!

Explain your answers, don’t just reply with yes or no! Essay Question 1:

Do you feel like the court ruled the right way?  Should a person who lives near lava-created land have the first chance to purchase it from the state before the government can decide to do something else with the new property?  Would your opinion change if person wanting to purchase the lava-extended land lived in a house 20 feet away?  Would it matter how long they’d been there – say….20 years?  

Essay Question 2: In consideration of the questions brought up in number 1 above, tell us – Is a court ruling good enough, or should specific-laws be created to manage lava extensions in Hawaii?  If the court ruling seems good enough to you, tell us why there shouldn’t be laws that are more specific.  If the court ruling isn’t good enough, tell us what laws you would create and why you would shape them that way.

Essay Question 3: What about the government though?  Hawaii’s State Supreme Court ruled the land was created for the “use and enjoyment of all the people”.  Based on the wording of the court ruling, should the government be allowed to sell the new land to a business or individual, or should it be forced to use the land for a park, community center, or something along those lines?  Tell us what you think and why you feel that way.    

 You can find more info about Hawaiian volcanic eruptions creating land and the ownership debate that follows here:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywen3y/who-owns-the-new-land-created-by-a-volcano-in-hawaii-kilauea-big-island

 Contributed by - J. Plummer

[yourdayincourtblog]

Terror & Tyranny at the Theme Park: Family Assaulted at Six Flags

Amusement parks go above and beyond to entertain their guests during Halloween each year.  In Fright Fest at Six Flags, everyone is up for a good scare. The extra scares are appreciated, but the fall season also seems to bring an increase in bad behavior by some park attendees.  What nobody wants is to come home injured or assaulted, but unfortunately, that fear became a reality for one innocent family.

The family - an elderly couple and their 12 year old son - was attempting to ride one of the thrill rides at the park. While waiting in line, a group of friends cut in front of the family.  Skipping over the fact that the group had cut in front of them, the woman asked the group to at least stop using unpleasant language around her child.

That is when an attack began.

The 12 year old boy was physically seized upon by the group that had cut in front of his family. The mother and father attempted to intervene, but were quickly overwhelmed by the sizable group.  The family continued to be assaulted with punches, kicks, and stomps by their attackers until they submitted to the violence and fell to the ground.

Security at Six Flags broke up the attack quickly after a passersby reported the incident.  The attackers spread out in an attempt to escape, but fortunately most of them were prevented from getting away after security cornered them in the parking lot.  

Local police reported to the scene, and a total of nine suspects were arrested & charged.   Later on, the city’s police chief commented that more suspects may have gotten away.  With this concern in mind, the police urged anyone with evidence to submit it to them. As the police chief explained “We know there’s a video out there. People had their phones out, but we have not gotten any additional video yet.”

Following the incident the family was rushed off and received care for their injuries, though eventually all three of them were discharged.  

You can learn more and read the original story here:  https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/frightening-fest-family-attacked-beaten-by-teenagers-at-six-flags/ Questions & Conversation Part 1: Amusement parks have a lot of discretion in deciding what they allow to occur on their property.  They have a duty to protect those who come, which is why they deal with high safety standards and inspections for their rides.   The parks also allow a wide range of people to come in and enjoy themselves though.  

1.A) Is the process to enter an amusement park too easy?  

1.B) Should Six Flags be held financially or criminally responsible for the family’s injuries? What makes them responsible or not responsible?   1.C.i) If you think Six Flags is responsible, what can they do to prevent attacks like these in the future?   1.C.ii) If you don’t believe they’re responsible, what laws absolve them of that responsibility?  

Part 2:  Research your response! 

2) The family of the incident experienced emotional and physical damage from the attack.  What consequences will the assailants that were caught face?

Part 3:  According to the park, attacks like these are uncommon, “This is rare.” was the official line from park representatives, yet still the park was prepared for possible incidents like these, having doubled security patrols during holiday seasons.  Meanwhile, even with the double patrols, not all of the assailants were detained. 

Consider the fact that some of the suspects were able to get away and that police are hoping cell phone footage will help identify the remaining suspects.  That means the park didn’t have sufficient security camera coverage to identify all of the assailants.  With that in mind….

3.A) Should the family place blame on Six Flags for negligence based on the failure of it’s video security?

3.B) Should seasonal events like this continue when the parks know they pose a risk of an increase in violent or otherwise troubling incidents?

3.C) Some of the attackers in the incident were minors.  Assuming their parents weren’t with them in the park, should the park be held responsible for allowing large groups of minors to be there without proper supervision?

3.D) What rules should be made for youth at parks, and should there be laws establishing standards for these rules (explain your answer - why or why not)?

3.E) Should security keep a closer eye on young adults at parks? What would lead them to be to strike out like this in such a large force?

  - Submitted by J. Floyd

[projectrealnv]

Red is the New Black

Fashion designers often have a unique distinction on their products- a look or style that they are known for- and Christian Louboutin is no exception. For over 25 years Louboutin has made the bottoms of his fancy dress shoes an unmistakable vivid red and now there is question of whether or not he can trademark the color. His company had even trademarked “the color red (Pantone 18 1663TP) applied to the sole of a shoe” (like the shoes in the picture above).

In 2012, his company filed a lawsuit against Dutch company Van Haren that had started selling high heels with red soles similar to his. Louboutin filed the lawsuit claiming that the shoes “infringed on his brand’s trademark for footwear”,   (meaning the red soles on fancy dress shoes).

The other company (Van Hare) was forced to stop selling their red-soled shoes after Louboutin sued them for trademark infringement.  However the brand’s lawyers weren’t having it, and fought the case until it reached the European Court of Justice (meaning the case was heard by several lower courts first).

Under European Union law, shapes typically cannot be trademarked (so the design of a shoe might not be able to be legally protected, but a specific logo of a company still could be).  According to a court official, Louboutin’s red soles are part of a shape (and not something like a logo).  Because of the rules about shapes, his request for trademark protection could be refused.

Fashion designers fighting over colors in court might seem very European, but America has seen its share of legal battles over colors too!  For example, in 2014 the United States Federal Court decided that AT&T was no longer allowed to use certain shades of pink after a lawsuit with T-Mobile.

AT&T had come out with a new service called Aio wireless that used a shade of plum in all of its advertising.  While it wasn’t the exact same color as T-Mobile’s better-known magenta, it was close enough for a lawsuit to be filed  by T-Mobile (and won).

CONSIDER THIS: No matter how the court case turned out, should Louboutin be able to trademark soles of shoes with a specific shade of red?   Maybe you don’t care about fashion, but what if Nike made a sweet pair of red-soled running kicks: Should Louboutin be able to sue Nike if they did that – why or why not?

IN DEPTH: At what point under law should a design become eligible to be trademarked? What if a color does become eligible to be trademarked, who should get the rights to the color in cases like Louboutin vs. Van Haren?

Let us know what you think in the comments and you can read more about the issue in The New York Times here:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/business/christian-louboutin-shoes-red-trademark.html  - Contributed by J. Plummer

[projectrealnv]

Real Heroes #BlackPantherChallenge

Finally kids can see a movie where the main superhero looks like them (without having to sneak into an R-rated vampire flick or sitting through a Razzie-winning Catwoman). People are so excited, that over 100 GoFundMe pages have been created to send young children (primarily of color) from low income families to see Marvel’s Black Panther… These movie-ticket drives are happening across the nation in droves.

GoFundMe accounts have multiplied into the hundreds with politicians, entertainers and the director of the Black Panther movie contributing.

The original drive was originated by New Yorker Frederick Joseph, who found that that the feature film Wonder Woman empowered girls, thought the Black Panther movie would do the same for students primarily of color. He started the original #BlackPantherChallenge early last month and so far has raised $430k to send over 30,000 children to the movie.  

Cities supporting the GoFundMe drives for the #BlackPantherChallenge range from Detroit, Michigan to San Diego, California.

This is an exciting topic, that’s left us with a number of questions we would love to get student feedback on: Wonder Woman empowered young women when it was released, and it had been a long time since there was such a successful superhero movie featuring a lead female superhero.  Given those conditions, where were the fundraisers to take young women to see Wonder Woman? Certainly there are organizations like The Girl Scouts that could have been recipients of the challenge?

While that’s a question worth debate, there are some less spirited conversations we’d like to listen in on as well:

Do superheroes inspire you to do things like organize a trip to the theater for a large group of children?  Are the many #BlackPantherChallenge campaigns inspiring you to do something to improve your community? If they are, tell us what you plan to do!   Take a look at the original article that inspired this post, then let us know your thoughts!  Here’s the link: https://www.today.com/parents/man-wants-send-kids-black-panther-great-reason-t121104 As always, emails to prsouth@projectrealnv.org may be rewarded with prizes for students in Nevada (keep an eye out for our next essay contest as well!)