Used Cars

1.     Theft of personal property

2.     Theft of intellectual property

3.     Tamper with property

4.     False advertisement

5.     Tax evasion

6.     Jury tampering

7.     Drugs smuggling

8.     Bribery

9.     No seatbelt

10.  Reckless driving

11.  Assault of a=officer

12.  Hit and run

13.  Driving on wrong side of road

14.  Over speed limit

15.  Broken property

16.  Lied under oath

17.  Breaking and entering

18.  No license plates

19.  False evidence

20.  Assault

21.  Gun possession

22.  Man slaughter

23.  Sexual assault

24.  Criminal activity in news station

25.  Paid off jury

26.  Driving with no instructor

27.  Theft

28.  Driving in construction zone

29.  Inside information

30.  Compromised video

31.  Stole paper from the truck

32.  Disturbing the peace

33.  Destruction of private property

34.  Drug smuggling

35.  False advertisement

36.  False representation

37.  Jay walking

38.  Perjury

39.  Concealed weapons

 Tampering

Week 10: Lawyer Jokes

The Honest Lawyer

Q; When do you know a lawyer is telling the truth?

A: When his lips are shut.

Deathbed Lawyer

Q: Why was the lawyer skimming the Bible right before he died?

A: He was looking for loopholes!

Bad Lawyer

Q: What do you call a lawyer who has gone bad?

A: Senator.

Bratz Brawl

Bratz Brawl

The court battle that has been going on for the past 9 years has been between the popular Mattel known for Barbie and MGA the rival Bratz dolls. The legal issue is about who owns the intellectual property right to the Bratz franchise. The girls fashion doll that was worth $400 Million per year at the heights of its popularity. The original concept of the Bratz doll was from designer Carter Bryant. Bryant was working as an employee of Mattel at the time but soon after moved to MGA. Mattel soon then sued MGA claiming copyright infringement and theft of trade secrets. "From Mattel's perspective, it was very important for them to send a message," http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/barbie-v-bratz-never-ending-court-battle

In 2008 a federal jury found the Bryant developed the idea and concept while being employed for Mattel. They awarded Mattel $100 million dollars. The verdict was quickly appealed and overturned and made to retrial. On the retrial the jury decided to in favor of MGA and rejected Mattel arguments. MGA counter claimed that Mattel did not develop the concept, but instead used employees with fake business cards to spy on MGA’s unreleased concepts and marketing plans, thereby stealing its trade secrets. The judge awarded $85 million dollars to MGA. Each side has spent over $100 milion dollars in legal fees at this point. We will do whatever it takes, to protect our intellectual property. "You can bet that anyone working for Mattel that's thinking of freelancing and coming up with a product of their own is going to think twice about how they do it," http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/barbie-v-bratz-never-ending-court-battle

On Aug 4, 2011 the court denied Mattel’s motion for a new trial. It found that the recorded supported the jury’s verdict that MGA used viable efforts to protect its trade secrets. It ordered Mattel to pay an additional $139.9 million in attorney fees and costs. Now most recently Mattel asked a federal court of appeals to reverse the $310 million in damages and attorney fees. So the battle of the Brats brawl continues! The dispute holds an important lesson about the significance of well-drafted employment agreements. If Mr. Bryant’s employment contract had been more precise, the case might not have ballooned to such proportions or included claims for trade secret misappropriation. The two obvious problems with the agreement were failures to include 1) an express assignment of ideas; and 2) clear language defining the scope of “at any time during my employment.” Practically speaking, Mattel could have ensured all the employee agreements assigning rights were identical and created and communicated clear guidelines for employees, to reduce confusion as to where Mattel's ownership rights stopped and where the employees' began. As illustrated by this case, for businesses that thrive on their IP assets, carefully drafted employment agreements can make the difference between millions gained or lost.

 http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2011/04/article_0006.html

10 Questions

10 Questions

Any other issues that I should be concerned about in recording or producing my own CD?

What are the main deal points in a music producer's agreement?

What are the main deal points in a recording studio agreement?

What are the main deal points in a recording agreement?

Are there different types of music royalties?

How are royalties calculated?

What are the penalties if I do sample?

Where can I get permission?

What does a written band agreement establish?

What are common types of music publishing contracts?

Lawyers

Lawyers

    

Marquis Aurbach Coffing

Park Run Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89145-8857

702-979-2405

Goldsmith & Guymon, P.C.

|2055 Village Center Circle, Las Vegas, NV 89134

702-570-8127

  

Lyons Law Firm

512 South 8th Street, Las Vegas NV 89101

702-545-6518

Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski A Professional Corporation

9950 West Cheyenne Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89129-7700

888-614-6103

Kunin & Carman

3551 E. Bonanza Road, Suite 110, Las Vegas, NV 89110

888-352-1434

    

Willick Law Group

3591 E. Bonanza Road, Suite 200, Las Vegas, NV 89110-2101

702-763-9006

John Peter Lee, Ltd.

830 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, NV 89101-6723

702-475-3437

    

Law Offices of Edward J. Achrem & Associates, Ltd.

512 S. Tonopah Drive, Suite 100, Las Vegas, NV 89106

702-410-8914

    

Kelleher & Kelleher, Certified Family Law Specialists

 807 S. Seventh Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101

702-802-0155

RIGHT Lawyers

600 South Tonopah Drive, Suite 300, Las Vegas, NV 89106

702-517-5382

EOC Week 6

Supreme court Prayer

The separation of church and state has been a big issue lately. Some people and groups feel offended and like second class citizens when certain governments and places start am meeting with a Christian prayer. A perfect example is with Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens.  One Jewish and an Atheist sound this really disturbing. They said it created and bad atmosphere and felt out casted based on their view on the God Question. Many theologians would quite convincingly argue that an assumption of “one God” is itself sectarian, but the court has set a different floor on that definition. Thirty-seven states have guidelines for chaplains and/or guest prayer-givers that at the very least strongly suggest (if not require) non-sectarian prayers, as do the guidelines of the U.S. House of Representatives, which note that the body consists of “members of many different faith traditions.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/11/11/prayer-case-at-the-supreme-court-debunking-some-myths/

Many of the prayers offer at the opening of town council meeting in Greece, NY were similarly worded. For years and years they were delivered only by a Christian clergy, they would ask attendances to stand and bow their heads. They frequently involved Jesus and the Holy Spirit. In 2011 the 2 sued over the prayers and lost in the federal court. In 2012 the won in the 2^nd amendment U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They ruled that the towns approach to public prayer added to the endorsement of Christianity.  After the ruling a layer for the town argued that the  2^nd circuit erred in the using of the endorsement to decide whether the town officials had violated the 1^st Amendment. “American are not bigots, and we can stand to hear a prayer delivered in a legislative forum by someone whose views we do not agree with,” said Hungar. “That is the tradition of this country and that is why it doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/07/supreme-court-prayer_n_4228715.html

I personally think that there should be a separation of church and state. I think in public places that prayer should not be allowed because not everyone has the same beliefs. It made me uncomfortable especially in when it is in public places. If I wanted to pray I would go to church.

EOC: Legal Issues involving the Internet

Legal Issues involving the Internet

There are a lot of problems and issues surrounding the Internet. One, Internet law is pretty new and they are a lot of questions and problems that haven’t been set yet. I am going to discuss Identity Theft, Online Gambling, and Privacy Laws

The first is issue which one of the biggest is Identify Theft. Identity theft is where a person gets information and poses as you to get money, credit, merchandise, and to use your identity to commit other crimes. To obtain the persons info that use cracking, or surveying.. Surveying is where the person guesses personal info about them. Simple questions like mother maiden name, pet names, or spouses to gain access on their username and passwords. There are better ways to protect your self, stronger passwords, cookies, look at your credit score periodically. The reason identity theft is hard because it can take a long time to figure out who stole your identity and they have to a full investigation to prove that someone stole your identity and it can take a lot of time to get your money your credit back, but surprisingly it is still safer to give out your credit card number on the internet then to give it to an unknown salesperson or waiter. 97% of all identity theft crimes are caused from offline instances, not online. For instance, two places that identity thieves get your information from are your mailbox, and your trash can. http://www.offthepagecreations.com/legal_issues_internet.php

The second issue is Online Gambling. Gambling online falls into a legal grey area. It illegal in most of the U.S. the prosecution and conviction of individual gamblers is hard to find because they are gambling from home. It is illegal for a gambling Web site to operate within the U.S. so that is why most online casinos are located in other countries. There are about 70 countries that have legal online gambling. The reason online gambling is hard to regulate because the US has gambling laws that are different from other countries laws. Because a person is gambling online they could be under age, or breaking some of the US gambling laws but it hard to tell that because they are at home. Issues of jurisdiction and sovereignty make gambling laws even murkier. The U.S. Wire Wager Act makes it illegal to use an electronic wire method (which courts generally agree includes the Internet) to transmit bets to places where gambling is not allowed. So a casino set up in the Netherlands is breaking U.S. law if a player in the U.S. plays their games. However, the U.S. doesn't really have the legal authority to prosecute someone in another country. Since players are almost never prosecuted either, we're left with an illegal act that generally goes unpunished. Of course, if an off-shore casino decides to cheat a player out of winnings, and online gambling is illegal in that player's locality, the player will have a difficult time suing the casino.  http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/online-gambling2.htm

The last issue is Privacy laws. Privacy laws are very difficult to track and are up for huge debate. With everything being mobile and the Internet is everywhere. On our phones, at work, at home, in our cars, and our tablet. Our Internet information is everywhere. The debate is how do we keep our smartphones and keep our core rights to privacy? Should we allow huge companies to obtain information about us without breaking privacy laws? How do you regulate that? First, the key is to include privacy and security from the very start while designing products and components. This way we can use technology without technology using us. Second, we already use firewalls and other approaches to limit who can reach our desktop computers. We could engineer similar technical intermediaries for our new devices. Third, privacy tools should be as simple to use as products themselves. Finally, it is rare for technology to entirely solve the challenges technology creates, so we need new privacy laws that are savvy and wise. There is much work to do, but we can build an awesome future without trading away our human need for privacy. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/09/08/privacy-and-the-internet-of-things/laws-can-ensure-privacy-in-the-internet-of-things. I think is hard to regulate. On personal experience I do like that some things have info on me because it is easy to look up things, but on the other hand how much personal info are they allowed to get with our breaking laws. I think this topic is going to be up for debate for a awhile and some of the laws regarding this topic will always be changing.

EOC week 4: Copyright laws

EOC week 4: Copyright laws

Copyright laws is a legal device that gives a creator protection of a literary, artistic, musical or any other creative work sole rights of ownership and legal rights to publish and sell that work. Copy right owners have the right  to control the reproduction of their work. This includes the right to receive payment for their wok. They also may sell those rights to others. If people or companies violate this law its considered infringement and could be taken to court. Initial Ownership.—Copyright in a work protected under his title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.pdf .  The IRS is using computer software that hasn’t yet been paid for. According to a audit says that the tax agency is violating copyright laws. To use someone copyright you have to pay for the use of the copyright. The person that developed this software is in ownership of it and must be paid or compensated accordingly, “Until the IRS implements an effective program to manage software licenses, the IRS is incurring increased risks in managing software licenses. These risks include: 1) not complying with licensing agreements that could result in embarrassment, legal problems, and financial liability; 2) not using licenses in the most  cost effective manner; and 3) not effectively using licensing data to reduce software purchase and software maintenance costs,”  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/20/audit-irs-may-be-breaking-software-copyright-laws/#ixzz2ifETUP1m. There a lot of in and outs of copyright laws and it seems like it can get a little difficult to understand, but the main components are that the copyright laws protects the original expression as soon as it is turn into a tangible form. Copyright laws would now protect that expression. It protects the original work weather or not a notice of the copyright exists on the copy of work. Copyright laws give their creator of the work the right to protect their work from unauthorized use by others. IT may not be duplicated, preformed, or distributed without the consent of the owner. There are, however, several fundamental items that are not eligible for copyright protection: ideas, facts, titles, names, procedures, and works not fixed in tangible form. Copyright only protects the form in which these ideas or facts are expressed, not the ideas or facts themselves. https://www.cu.edu/irm/stds/copyright/quicksum.html

EOC: Erin Brockovich

Week 3 EOC: Erin Brockovich

“In July 1996, PG&E agreed to pay $333 million to about 650 people who blamed cancer and other diseases on polluted water leaking from a gas pumping station.”  This was the end settlement that to residents of Hinkley, CA. It all started when some people that lived in the city were getting sick and having health problems. A company Called PG&E had a plant near by and had a underground leak that went into the towns drinking water. This water was tainted with chromium. There was 140 times the amount of chromium in the water then was allowed by government standards. "There was a realization that chromium contamination by PG&E very well could have been the cause of the medical problems of so many people: Hysterectomies, ovarian cancer, bladder problems, throat problems." Erin Brockovich who was working as a legal clerk did some more research and investigation to the connection to of the chromium in the water and the resident’s health issues. She played a instrumental role in the case against PG&E. PG&E first offered to pay a settlement of $160 million, but was later decided that they would have to pay $333 million for damages. Nearly double! “Many of these people truly suffered and money doesn't make that go away, But I hope it gives them a sense that they stood up for something; and I hope they can use the money to help with their medical conditions or to make their lives easier."  I think this case is good. Obviously not in the fact that people were harmed and got sick form what the thought was clean drinking water, but that Erin Brockovich stood up for the small town and didn’t take a first couple o settlement payments. She fought until what she thought was well deserving of the crime that was commented. PG&E is completely liable and I’m glad that they had to pay the residents a huge settlement. I’m glad that another big company didn’t get away from what they did by just throwing their money and power around.

Works cited:

1- http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-02-06-pge-settlement-brockovich_x.htm

2- http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/04/local/me-erin4

3-http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20130709/hinkley-erin-brockovich-feels-duped-by-pge

EOC WEEK 2

EOC. Week 2 -Supreme Court

Abortion

Abortion’s is back on the Supreme Court Docket. There are 2 cases that are back on the Supreme Court docket right now. The one that interested me is McCullen v. Coakley. This involves the clash and differences between freedom of speech and the right to have an abortion without obstruction. This case has a buffer zone law, which prohibits protesters to be within 35 feet of abortion clinics. And it will discuss about the difference between free speech rights with the antiabortion to the right for women who seek abortion services without feeling harassed and any type of physical threat. They are saying that there is a thin line between freedom of speech before in turns into harassment.“Do you have the right to speak with a bullhorn right up to someone’s face?”  “At some point, speech becomes intimidation and harassment.

I think this is a hard and interesting case. I am pro choice but I also believe in freedom of speech.  I understand that people are against it, but I also think that it is every women’s choice to decided what she thinks is good for own body and what would be the best choice for her and the unborn child n the future. I could see how it would be intimidating to go a make such a hard life decision with angry protestors yelling at you who may not even understand what they are going through.

Works cited:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/abortions_back_on_the_supreme_court_docket_20131008

EOC: My Voice

I’m working as a professional dancer here in Las Vegas. I started training at a very young age and developed my skills in all sorts of dance including jazz, lyrical, modern, tap, and hip hop. After graduating I had the pleasure of getting a scholarship to dance out in L.A. so I made the decision to foresee college and head straight towards a dancing career. After a few years assisting choreographers I had the chance to preform with Toni Braxton. After that she decided to have a residency here in Las Vegas. I decided to go with. And that was a great decision because since then I had the opportunity to work with a lot of huge productions on the strip and work with a lot of talented and creative people.  I have been lucky enough to have a dancer career here for the past several years. Now that I am getting a little older or I like to say wiser, I decided that I want to continue my career in the theater and stage. That’s what brought me here to the art Institute. I want to am I’m going to learn the art of Audio. By doing so I will have all the tools to make a wonderful career In the field of live productions. It’s been my passion since I was little and I am excited to see where in brings me in the future.