Legal Issues

Situation A
In this situation the employee, having requested a paid leave only from his manager, who has agreed to pay him while on leave, leaves his position. His replacement however allows him to get back to work after his leave is over, but refuses to pay his dues while on leave. In this light, the essay seeks to establish in what ways the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is applied to the situation.

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 applies to the situation described above in the following ways
The act addresses the qualification of an employee for a leave. A leave can be simply defined as days off from work. In this case one may be paid by the company or not. The provisions concerning the paid leave are under the title 1,generalrequirements for leave, section 102 part d. I will discuss the above situation with reference to both sections in a view to establish how the act applies to the above situation.

Subject to section 103, an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period because of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter. From this point of view employee A does qualify for the leave which is duly given to him.
 
If an employer provides a paid leave for fewer than 12 workweeks, the additional weeks of leave necessary to attain the 12 workweeks of leave required under this title may be provided without compensation. In this case then employee A is entitled to payment for the eleven weeks that he was on leave. The remaining one week to attain the twelve should not be included as part of the leave and should instead be counted as part of his normal working days if he will started working by then.

The act applies to the situation above in two ways. One is in the way employee A qualifies for the leave and also in the issue pertaining to his payments. In the second part of question one, it seeks to establish if a violation occurs according to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. From my considerations, a violation did occur. This is in the sense that the employee does qualify to go on leave given that his spouse had given birth. This is according to the act as states that an employee should be accorded a leave of leave of up to twelve weeks annually if their spouse gives birth. The act also provides for payment while on such leave. The employee should have been paid for the twelve weeks he could have been away. In this case he is away for a week short of the twelve. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 states that if an employer provides paid leave for fewer than 12 workweeks, the additional weeks of leave necessary to attain the 12 workweeks of leave required under this title may be provided without compensation.

The new manager allows the employee to go back to his old job and also be paid at the current rates. This seems sensible in the light that all employees on the leave should resume their positions at their work places after the leave of work is over. The new manager however refutes claims for payment from the employee for the eleven weeks he was away. This is a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 which provides that the employee should have been paid for the aforesaid period.

Situation B
In the second situation an employee was overlooked for promotion due to his age despite his impeccable record. The promotion was later awarded his colleague almost half his age who had moderate performance. The essay seeks to analyze the situation according to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 states that it shall be unlawful for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of such individuals age, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of such individuals age. (Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 1967)

Employee B has been with the company for forty two years and hence this gives him a considerable edge to do his work efficiently. Therefore, no wonder that he has been rated as an above average worker. When a promotion opportunity arose he should have been the first candidate to be considered for it. However this is not the case as his junior colleague, almost half his age, is awarded the promotion. In the deductions his seniors violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

Section 4 of the act, which addresses the issues of the prohibition of age discrimination, clearly states in part a that It shall be unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals age. Promotion is an example of privileges of employment and in this case the employee is denied the privilege due to old age.

The second part of the question seeks to evaluate if a violation occurs in denying the employee the promotion due to his old age. The employee has been rated as an above average employee implying that he is skilled regarding his roles. However the promotion goes to his junior almost half his age, who is not as industrious as his colleague. From my deductions, a violation of the act occurs as it provides that an employee should not be denied of any privilege due to his age.

Situation C
The Americans with Disabilities Acts of 1990 general rule provides that no covered entity shall discriminate a qualified individual on the basis of the disability in regard to the job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. In this regard then the employee was discriminated against in that he was denied the employment opportunity.

Furthermore, part five on discrimination states that it is unlawful to not make reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity. In this regard, the company should have made the necessary adjustments in the elevator to allow for the employees movements.

Part B of the same section states that it is otherwise unlawful to deny employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant.

I can therefore conclude that a violation of the act occurs. The company should not have denied him an employment opportunity. Rather they should have made the right adjustments to accommodate the employee in the building.

REPORT
1. Sole proprietorship
This is a type of business which is operated by one individual. The owner can therefore use his trade name allowing him to open bank accounts with his legal name. All aspects of the management fall on him thereby allowing him to enjoy all profits and accruing all debts. All assets in the business are thereby his. He is also entitled to pay his debts using his personal property. This type of business has its advantages and disadvantages over other types of businesses. They are highlighted below.

Advantages. They are easy to start up as they require fewer regulations in comparison to other types of businesses, the owner has the full control over the business decisions. The owner enjoys all the profits
Disadvantages. The owner will have a hard time raising capital since it has to make up for all the businesss funds. Unlimited liability implies he is responsible for the businesss debts because he has control over the business.

Liability a considerable disadvantage of sole proprietorship is that the owner has unlimited liability. This means that his personal property can be used to settle debts if creditors feel that his business is not in a position to.

Income taxes profits made by the business are treated as income to the business owner, and all income is reported on your individual tax return, and is taxed in the year it is received.

Continuity of organization the operations of the business are subject to the owners interests. If for one reason he feels that he is unable to continue running the business due to illness, insanity, disability, commitments, inadequate funds or even his own death the business ceases to operate unlike in partnership where his partners would have continued operating.

Control the sole proprietor holds the total control over the business. Decision making is usually fast as he is the only one involved. The owner does what he feels is best for his business.

Profit retention being the only person running the business, the sole proprietor has control over all the profits made by the business. He can therefore expand his business if he so wishes.

Location the choice of location of the business falls on the sole proprietor. He locates his business where he feels he will access more customers and duly moves to new location if he deems it right. No documents have to be filled whatsoever while moving to a new location. However moving to a new state would require his business so that tax rules can be used on while taxing his profits.

Convenience the sole proprietorship is a very convenient type of business. This is due to the fact that all decisions are made in favor of the owner and he does not have to meet with anyone nor make reports. He only does what he feels is right for him, unlike in partnership where a dormant partner does not partake in decision making thus curtailing his convenience.

2. General partnership
This is an association of people with a common motive mostly to start a business. Their agreement should be in writing. The individuals are also personally liable for any debts the business may incur. Likewise, profits are shared among the partners. In partnerships each member can transact on behalf of the others as each member has an equal right to manage the business. Upon death, insanity, disability or withdrawal of a member the partnership should be dissolved.  New members are admitted with full consent of all members (Steven, 2003).

Advantages. The decision making usually takes into consideration several opinions, thereby making a better one than in sole proprietorships. Partners can contribute more capital than in sole proprietorships thereby it can expand the business faster than in the later. The unavailability of one member does not halt the operation of the business as the others can cover for him. Loses are shared.

Disadvantages The decision making presupposes that many opinions are considered before arriving at the final decision. Profits are shared. A single bad transaction made by one member on behalf of the others could end up bringing loses to all the other members. Unconscious partners usually end sharing in the partners despite their little input. The incapability, death of a member means that the business has to be dissolved.

Liability  like in sole proprietorships partners have limited liability over their personal property and thence it can be used to settle debts if creditors feel that the business is not in a position to clear their debts. The property is thus liquidated to clear the debt.

Income taxes taxation in partnerships is done on each members income. After the profits are shared amongst the members, it is then that taxation takes place as with the case with sole proprietorships. The amount of tax paid depends on the amount of profits as its a percentage of the total income made.

Longevity Upon death, insanity, disability or withdrawal of a member the partnership should be dissolved. (Steven, 2003).

Control  the management of the partnership falls on all the members. Decision making in a general partnership is an all inclusive affair as all members are entitled to it. It is however important to note that each member can transact on behalf of the partnership.

Profit return In a general partnership profit are shared amongst the members in a ratio that is predetermined, mostly governed by the amount of capital each member contributed during the formation of the business. The profits are first divided into two parts. One is meant to expand the business. This portion is decided by the members. This part is referred to as the profit that is returned to the business. The remaining part is then divided amongst the members depending on a suitable ratio. In sole proprietorships the owner enjoys all the profits while in partnerships the members share the returns (Steven, 2003).

Convenience a businessperson operating in a partnership is most likely to have his duties allocated according to his availability, thereby working in his convenience. However, if a partner joins an already formed business, he is most likely to have his duties already allocated to him thereby curtailing his convenience.

3. Limited partnership
This is a business set up almost similar to a general partnership except that the business and the partners are different legal entities implying that the members have limited liability. In that case then personal cannot be liquidated to settle business debts.

Advantages  the greatest advantage of this kind of partnership over a common type of partnership is that the members have limited liability over their personal property unlike in general companies. (Deborah, 2001)
Disadvantages the disadvantages of a limited partnership are largely those of a general partnership as stated earlier in the report.

Liability in a limited partnership the members personal property cannot be used to meet the claims by the business creditors. In that case other methods have to be sought to meet the claims other than the members individual property. The business and its owners are different legal entities implying that they have limited liability over their personal property.

Control as is the case with the general partnerships, the control and management of the limited partnership is a duty in which all members have equal rights to. All decision making should include all members.

Longevity like in the general partnership the death, incapacity, insanity, disability, death or withdrawal of a member causes dissolution of the partnership.

Location the location of the business, like any other management issue of the business is subject to the discussion and agreement by the partners. It is then that each member signs into being a partner to form a business at the specified location. Upon moving the business all members have to give their consent as stipulated in the agreement and duly sign documents for the business to move to other states. Moving to new states would require proper documentation to enable them be taxed in accordance to the tax rules in the new state. (Deborah, 2001)

Convenience the convenience of the business to each member is curtailed as such events such as meetings have to take place even when all members do not agree on the time. In cases where the partners are many the setting up of meetings are usually a problem and some members end up being inconvenienced by the meetings (Deborah, 2001)

Profit retention like in the general partnerships the amount of profits to be ploughed back into the business is usually subject to agreement between the members. Many companies take it at 50-50. Fifty percent of the profit is shared amongst the members while the rest is used for expanding the business. (Deborah, 2001)

4. C-corporation
The income of a C-corporation is taxed, whereas the income of an S-corporation (with a few exceptions) is not taxed under the Federal income tax laws. The income, or loss, is applied,  HYPERLINK httpen.wikipedia.orgwikiPro_rata o Pro rata Pro rata, to each shareholder and appears on their tax return as Schedule E (incomeloss).Unlike companies treated as S-corporations, a company may qualify as a C-corporation without regard to any limit on the number of shareholders, foreign or domestic. The default rule is -- any corporation not properly filed as an S-corporation will be treated as a C-corporation for the tax purposes. This is the difference between the two. It is a disadvantage to c-corporations that they have to pay tax twice due to double taxation. All other aspects of a C-corporation are similar to those of s-corporations.
Income taxes the profits of a C-corporation are first taxed before the remainder of the profits is divided amongst the members. This is called double taxation as the members may be later required to pay tax on their incomes.

Control most C- corporations may have up to a hundred members and with such a huge number a board of directors is elected to run the corporation on behalf of the others. They are however accountable to them.
Convenience in an organization with large numbers of members a board of directors is elected to oversee the running of the organization in a day to day capacity. The other members are thus convenience as they have little or nothing whatsoever to do regarding the management of the corporation.

Liability S-corporations are separate legal entities from their shareholders and, under state laws, generally provide their shareholders with the same liability protection afforded to the shareholders of C corporations. For Federal income tax purposes, however, taxation of S corporations resembles that of partnerships.

Profit retention the corporations income or losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns. This implies that the shareholders can agree on an amount of the profit to be retained in their general meeting.

Longevity the death, disability or incapacity of a member does not collapse the whole organization. Instead the other members can choose to replace him or not depending on the number of members they require in the organization.

5. S-corporation
S-corporations are those that elect to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credit through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes. Shareholders of S-corporations report the flow-through of income and losses on their personal tax returns and are assessed tax at their individual income tax rates. This allows S corporations to avoid double taxation on the corporate income. S-corporations are responsible for taxes on certain built-in gains and the passive income. This is a huge advantage as compared to a s-corporation. With the large numbers of members they can raise a huge amount of capital for expansion as well as sharing loses. However profit is shared by a huge number of people.

Taxation S-Corporations do not pay any income taxes. Instead, the corporations income or losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns. This concept is called single taxation if the corporation is taxed as a  C Corporation, it will face double taxation, meaning both the corporations profits, and the shareholders Dividend dividends, will be taxed.

Liability S-corporations are separate legal entities from their shareholders and, under state laws, generally provide their shareholders with the same liability protection afforded to the shareholders of C-corporations. For Federal income tax purposes, however, taxation of S corporations resembles that of partnerships.

Profit retention the corporations income or losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns. This implies that the shareholders can agree on an amount of the profit to be retained in their general meeting.

Control most C-corporations may have up to a hundred members and with such a huge number a board of directors is elected to run the corporation on behalf of the others. They are however accountable to them.
Longevity the death, disability or incapacity of a member does not collapse the whole organization. Instead the other members can choose to replace him or not depending on the number of members they require in the organization.

Convenience in an organization with large numbers of members a board of directors is elected to oversee the running of the organization in a day to day capacity. The other members are thus convenience as they have little or nothing whatsoever to do regarding the management of the corporation.

6. Limited liability company
A Limited Liability Company or a company with the limited liability is a flexible form of a business enterprise that blends elements of partnership and corporate structures. It is a legal form of a business  Company company that provides   Limited liability limited liability to its owners. The company has a large number of members who can easily raise large amounts of capital. They also share profits and choose the company heads from themselves. However profits are also shared. These are the main advantages and disadvantages of LLCs. The primary characteristic an LLC shares with a corporation is o Limited liability limited liability, and the primary characteristic it shares with a partnership is the availability of  Flow-through entity pass-through Taxation in the United States income taxation. It is often more flexible than a corporation and it is well-suited for companies with a single owner.

Liability limited liability does not imply owners are always fully protected from personal liabilities. Courts can and do   Pierce the corporate veil pierce the corporate veil of LLCs when some type of   Fraud fraud or misrepresentation is involved. However, LLCs in most states are treated as entities separate from their members, meaning they have limited liability.

Taxation using a default tax classification, profits are taxed personally at the member level, not at the LLC level.  Flow-through entity Pass-through taxation is used to tax their profits, unless the LLC elects to be taxed as a C corporation.

Control the company is managed by a board of directors with a company head who are then accountable to the other members.

Longevity the company does not collapse on the death or departure of one member. Instead the other members can choose to or not to replace them.

Convenience the company being ran by a company president and directors means that an ordinary member does not take any part in the managing of the company. This means that his burden in the management of the company is minimal.

Location the location of such as organization is usually where it began from. However if the company finds it important to expand to other states, the company president has to fill documents to register the company in the new state so it can be taxed in accordance to the laws of the new state. This has to be endorsed by the members in their annual general meetings.

MEMORANDUM
The memo requires me to recommend a specific form of business that should be used in this situation. The owner should form a C-corporation. The discussions below are my justifications for the above proposition.
The owner requires capital to expand and open a new branch in the adjoining state. In this case he should consider selling stock in the company. This way he is going to continue having control over the business. He can also employ family members as officers in the company with him being the president.

The owner is also very conscious about losses and his personal property. A C-corporation has its members having limited liability over their personal property. This is because they are considered different legal entities from the business. In this case the owner will not be worried about losing his personal property to his creditors.

The amount of taxes paid by C-corporations is less, compared to other forms of corporations like S-corporation. This is because they use single taxation while S-corporations use double taxation. In single taxation, the company tax is not taxed. Rather it is first divided amongst the members who are then taxed individually.

A C-corporation does not collapse on a members death or departure. The owner is worried about the continuity of the business in the event of his death. In this case, his family members, who would then be officers in the company, would elect a new company head and the business would continue operating.
Having his trusted family members as officers in the company would ease his management duties. He would appoint each of them at different positions who would then be accountable to him as the company boss. This way he would have someone in charge of every sector like hiring of labor, legal affairs, finance. This would convenience him as it would ease his burden.

The war on drugs in the American nation has proved to be an expensive battle. This is because of the amount of national resources used in arresting, convicting and accommodating in prisons those involved in the drug business. The fight against the use or possession of marijuana is leading in the drug war expenditure due to the fact that it is the most commonly used illegal drug in the nation. However, available scientific evidence show that the use of marijuana is to a bigger extent safer compared to some legalized drugs like cigarettes and alcohol (Yager, Linn,  Leake).

Still, the failure of the government to legalize the use of marijuana in the society has been identified as a revenue loss for the government. No government can collect tax on what it terms as illegal. This means that the government loses tax and at the same time spends in trying to eliminate the use of illegal drugs in the society (Messerli). Many claim that legalizing marijuana will lead to its increased used among the youths of the society. However, it should be understood that available statistics show that despite the many concerted efforts by the government to fight illegal drug use, the rate of use is on the rise.

This paper gives a discussion in support of the thesis that marijuana should be legalized in our nation. The author in particular gives the advantages that could be realized through legalization of marijuana.

Legalization of marijuana and its economic importance
The market value of marijuana has been approximated to be 8.50 per 0.5 grams (Manderson 56). It means that, in an unregulated market like the one we have now, marijuana sellers are making an approximated 6.70. Therefore, it is evident that imposing a tax on marijuana could give the government a substantial amount of revenue (Messerli).

Still, with the legalization of marijuana, the entrepreneurs involved in the business of selling will also increase their production. The market price could relatively fall to a reasonable one once legalized. This cannot happen for now due to the fact that the dealers have to sell it at a price that can afford them premium cost if caught. On the other side, consumption will also increase. All these will be due to the fact that possession and use of the drug will not be subject to legal measures. This means that the government will create a chain of reliable revenue source from a substance that could otherwise eliminate organized criminal groups (Messerli).

Marijuana and the cost on war on drugs
Statistical evidence has it that the rate of use of illegal drugs among the youths has been on the increase over the passed few decades (Gerber 17). This is despite the many efforts by both the federal and state government to eliminate their use in the community. Still clear from these statistics is the fact that the U.S. government is spending billions of dollars in the war against use of illegal drugs among its citizens. Such costs are not only in the sensitizing programs but more in the arrest and conviction of those found in possession of the drugs. Marijuana has been identified as the most common used illegal drug in the American nation (Yager, Linn, and Bake). This means that the biggest population in the American prisons on drug use is convicted of marijuana.

True to the evidence so far available, legal drugs such as tobacco are more dangerous compared to marijuana.  Therefore, first the government should consider the fact that its increased expenditure in the fight is yielding no substantial fruits. In fact, it is increase the cost of housing criminals in jail. Second the government should evaluate the safety of marijuana use compared to other legal drugs like cigarettes and alcohol (Moffate). This makes the legalization of marijuana more logical than investing more tax players money in housing non-dangerous citizens in jail for possessing marijuana.

Legalizing marijuana and the society
There have been many claims by opponents of marijuana legalization that it will increase its abuse among the youth. This is a misconception that must be reversed for the good of our community. It is common knowledge to all members of the society that alcohol and cigarettes are harmful to our health. Even with all this knowledge, how many in the society die of cigarette or alcohol related illness Marijuana has indeed been confirmed to have less harmful side effects compared to these legal drugs (Gerber, 26). It should therefore be legalized not only due to being safer but also as a respect for freedom in the society.

Another thing, failure to legalize marijuana has the impact of increase its secretive abuse by members of the society (Messerli). It is evidently clear that many parents are usually shocked by new that their children were caught by the police in possession of marijuana. This means that many use it without the knowledge of anybody who can offer them guidance. Since by legalizing marijuana many will start using them openly, it will be easier to guide and counsel our young youth on the harm of using it, thus greatly reducing risk of abuse of the drugs.

Marijuana and its medical value
Marijuana has been identified to have a medical value. It is in fact used for relieving the nausea common in people suffering from cancer. Due to its effect of lowering eye pressure, marijuana finds much use in the treatment of glaucoma (Yager, Linn, and Leak). Other medical applications of marijuana are in helping in relieving stress for people with AIDS and multiple sclerosis. Marijuana has been historically used to relieve the mind and thus relax the human. It abuse however could be harmful. Nevertheless, legalizing and creating awareness on the need for using marijuana for medicinal reasons could greatly improve our health.

Apart from these medical applications, it has been established that marijuana has no much side effects to the human body. Indeed, it is evidently clear that the only pronounced risk is the fact that marijuana smoke has more tar and carbon monoxide compared to cigarettes (Manderson 61). However, given the fact that it is rarely useable like cigarettes, it has been established that even the heaviest marijuana smoker will cannot exceed the smoke and carbon monoxide consumption of an average cigarette smoker. This makes marijuana less harmful compared to cigarettes.

Conclusion
From the on going debate on whether or not to legalize marijuana, it is quite clear that marijuana should be legalized. First is due to the fact that is spending so much of non-effective measures of prohibiting marijuana use. Still, the government is losing a lot of revenue in the underground dealings of the drug. It is therefore for the good of our economy and the society in general that marijuana should be legalized.

Causes of Events in the Case
Six business schools (Harvard, Dartmouth, Duke, Carnegie Mellon, MIT, and Stanford) have dismissed the application of several examinees after learning that these individuals were able to access the highly restricted pages containing the test results by following a hackers instruction on how to twist the security of the application software created by Apply Yourself, Inc.- the firm that designed the software being used by the six business schools to facilitate their admission tests and results. The undeniably huge amount of discomfort caused by having to wait for the official release of the results has disposed certain examinees to access the test-results, thinking that their doing so will not have any moral and legal consequence to the institutions. These unauthorized accesses have been traced by the software firm, resulting to the dismissal of applications made by those examinees.

Ethical Issues in the Case
 The ethical questions to be asked include (a) is it morally wrong for the examinees to disobey the institutions instructions to wait for the official release of results And (b) what grounds for the ethical judgment of the dismissal to be morally right

Consequences of the Actors Behaviors in the Case
 The incident may inspire doubt whether they (schools and software firms) can handle security threats adequately, and thus, lead to credibility issues upon proving that the system has serious flaws. These are negative consequences that can extend to damage the credibility of the academic institutions in general as the schools involved are the most respected ones in the industry as arguably, well-regarded institutions generate higher expectations from people. This picture may encourage other daring attempts to security. While the subjects have been rendered painful sanction for what took place, this cannot stop the creativity of human mind to seek ways by which the hacking can be done better next time. On the other hand, the incident also provides a blatant criticism to the flaws existing security measures being adopted by the firm who manufactured the software as well as the six academic institutions. This criticism has opened doors to the possibilities of security enhancements, thereby preventing possible future worse security attacks. Further to that, the sanctions received serve as warning signals to individuals who may desire to do the same, thereby lessening the chances of occurrence of the same incident.

Analysis Potential Solutions to the Case
As what we have seen, morality and legality are obviously not always in agreement on what should be permissible and not permissible. There are many gray areas of moral and legal conflicts, and these are seemed to be provided for by the very design of our laws and our society, extending to what seems to be the elite of the ethical systems followed within our society. It is important to note though that the main reason the law and other policies exist is because we would want to live a life and a society that we believe is morally right.

Any attempts to render judgment on right or wrong questions entail looking at the issue from the moral standpoint. Human beings, as moral agents, have the capacity to decide on moral things on their own and the price we have to pay for that is admitting that we are responsible for our own moral choices. A lapse in judgment entails imprudence or deciding with insufficient information to begin with. In the Harvard case, it was the lapse in integrity that took place as there was a deliberate and conscious effort to violate the academic institutions policy. It is impossible to think how an examinee would not be aware of the agreements he or she has with the school where the application is made. It is natural to think that when an individual submits an application, he or she knows will be informed about the manner by which they will inform about the results. It seems from here that the curious applicants were trying to twist the policy to satisfy their self-interests.  (5) This is indeed an aggressive behavior but whether the behavior will be useful in a business context is questionable because a business, for me, has to be well-grounded on sound ethical considerations.

In business, one deals with individual employees and the society as a whole and an action even if done within a business context necessarily would have an impact to the society as a whole. In my view, for it to thrive, it should be socially friendly and one that exercises its corporate responsibility. Any system is not perfect and even the most features-packed software can have its won flaws. But to take advantage of the imperfection is an opportunistic way to have gains. Not only that, the fallibility of the system cannot decide on moral issues, but humans can. Therefore, it is useless to blame the flaws of the system. (3) The subjects who committed the unauthorized access could have considered the aspect of a social responsibility they have formed upon giving consent to the policies of the schools to work and bound them. Policies exist to bring a certain sense of order and avoid the possibility of chaos. When the student made hisher application to the school, he or she automatically becomes subject to the rules implemented by the campus, as far as his admission applications are concerned. When one violates the policy, it inspires others lack of confidence towards the policy and an attitude of resilience towards that policy. People will start to challenge it and the results may be a disorder. (2) Utilitarians never like the possibility of disorder, especially if it does not bring any greater good. Saying that the incident actually triggered efforts to make the security better is easily undermined by the idea that we are still not sure whether in the end, the efforts to enhance security measures can prove to be essentially beneficial as human creativity will always find a way to work on a solution. Kant does not agree that such violation is universalyzable and passes the categorical imperatives. An action seems to pass Kants categories if and only if it is the best solution that can be adopted to resolve the issues. The issue I think is not really about painstakingly waiting but rather, its about knowing the results (the painstaking wait is a consequent of the desire to know the results anyway). In this case, we have an alternative way of resolving our issue of knowing whether we passed or not and that is to wait for the official release of the results. (1)

Legally speaking, examinees are told to wait for two reasons following the system is necessary for everything to be orderly and because that is supposedly the only way by which examinees could know the results. Apparently, agreement to wait and the schools instructions still holds true, regardless of whether another opportunity to retrieve the information exists or not. (3) The hackers instructions provided an alternative way of knowing the results but the moral significance of the action lies on the examinees social responsibility that entails dismissing a course of action that could possibly end other individuals in the society. The harm committed here is the formation of distrust as far as the capacity of handling security is concerned.  (4) Moral considerations render that the access is not permissible. Violating the rule may result to a degree of disorder as for sure, word of mouth goes out and that will encourage people to try hacking the results, if no sanctions were imposed.

This article contains some information concerning the case of one of the Toronto Law firm by the name of Koskie Minsky which was during that time presenting Heather Robertson. The case is between this law firm and the claims administrator that was appointed by the court by the name of Cole and Partners. Among the other key players that are mentioned in the case are the freelance artists and writers who are receiving advice that there is some further listing of the publications of their works which has been reproduced in form electronic database that is available in court. In other words, this article is about a case of people who are filing claims to be paid because of violation of their copyrighted materials. In this case the plaintiffs are the freelance artists and writers and the defendant are a number of media companies. (Canada NewsWire)

There are times when people just copy materials from other people without consulting them. This is what is referred to as using copyrighted material without authorization of the owner. This is the subject that is discussed by the author in this article. Other than presenting the information about the reason why the case is to be taken to court, the author is also as asking all those freelance writers who may feel that their materials have been used without their jurisdiction to take action. It happens that some people or rather some companies have a habit of using other peoples materials for their financial gains. Some of these materials are then used to create documentaries and other interesting stories which are known to later sell very well. One of the main reason as to why such documentaries may sell well is the fact that there are some information in them from the freelance writers or other people which have been linked together. It is therefore obvious that the original holders of this information should be contacted. Because the material is more likely to be used for commercial purposes, the original holder of the information should be compensated.  (Canada NewsWire)
From the way the author has presented the information in this article, it is clear that he does not encourage people to use other peoples material for their personal gain. This is the reason as to why he is even giving us a figure of the amount of money that the media houses are being asked to pay for using copyrighted materials without permission. In addition, the author is also ready to assist all the other people who feel that their material has been used without their consent to get their justice. This is also the main reason as to why those freelance writers are not required to have any evidence of their material that has been used without their consent. (Canada NewsWire)

In my view, I understand that in the world, there are a good number of very good writers and other good artists. These people struggle very much in life because they do not have the funds to develop their talents. The worst thing happens when such people come from the developing countries. Their ideas and their work are stolen by large cartels which are known to sell these works and generate a lot of income. These people have no power and they have no strength and therefore, there is no way of dealing with these large cartels. It would be advisable to help these people where possible. In this case, I would say that this law firm is doing a good work by assisting these freelance artists and writers as they do not have any other organization to protect them. In addition, those companies that are found using copyrighted materials without the authority of the owner should be imposed great fines so that this can discourage all the other companies that may be engaging in that type of activity.

Facts of the Case
The infant plaintiffs in the case of Pelman v McDonalds Corp. have developed obesity and related heath disorders such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease and elevated cholesterol intake. They aver that their ailments occurred because of frequently consuming the defendants products. The defendant failed to display nutritional information and refused to supply the same even on request. Consumers were not informed of the ingredients in the products or the level of the additives used to enhance the meals. The defendant did not warn consumers of the likely risks of consuming their product nor did they warn them that some products were addictive. An advert the defendant ran purported that consuming their products on a regular basis would lead to a healthier lifestyle.

Issues
The plaintiff accuses the defendant of four counts of violating the Consumer Protection Act. Count I alleges that the defendant failed to reveal the ingredients contained in the products andor warn consumers of the health consequences of eating foods with high levels of fat, salt  and cholesterol. They actively marketed their products as ideal food for healthier lifestyles without mentioning the health risks. Count II alleges that the defendant deliberately misled the public by asserting that eating McDonalds food everyday will lead to a healthier lifestyle. Count III alleges that the defendant devised advertising campaigns targeting minors with the knowledge that eating such foods leads to obesity and related health disorders. Count IV alleges that the defendant concealed information that some of their products had addictive properties and that prolonged consumption increased chances of the plaintiff developing health disorders.

The plaintiff also list four grounds of negligence that the defendant is liable. Count I alleges the defendant was negligent to inform consumers of the dangers in consuming their products  despite information revealing that foods with high cholesterol, fat and salt levels lead to obesity and related health disorders. Count II alleges that the defendant was negligent in withholding results that revealed their products had addictive properties and that consumption over prolonged periods increased the risk of obesity and heart disease. Count III holds the defendant negligent for running a campaign ad that alleged consuming their products on a daily basis led to a healthier lifestyle when they knew the claim to be false. Count IV accuses the defendant of negligence in failing to provide nutritional information about their products to assist consumers in making an informed choice.

The legal issues raised are whether McDonalds are liable for products liability and are in violation of the Consumer Protection Act. In their defense, they can argue that the plaintiff should reasonably have known that consuming large quantities of fast foods would lead to obesity and related health disorders. They can also claim that that the results of their tests concerning addictiveness were inconclusive which is why they did not release the findings to the public. McDonalds defense can argue that there was no proximate cause to the onset of obesity and other ailments as the plaintiffs did not eat all their meals at their outlets (Elsroth v. Johnson  Johnson, 1988)

Rules
To succeed in a claim for product liability, the plaintiff must prove that manufacturer has a liability touching either on the design, the finished products workmanship or that there was a failure to warn. The plaintiff must further establish that a duty to the plaintiff existed and that there was a breach of that duty. Such breach must have been the direct cause of the injuries suffered by the complainant.

Application
With regard to a breach of duty due to failure to display the ingredients or nutritional value of the food, the plaintiffs claims appear unjustified. It is impracticable to label everything that comes out of a kitchen due to the difficulty of establishing the correct measurement after cooking. As for the inherent dangers in the food, there was no evidence that the food from McDonalds was riskier than that produced from other fast-food outlets (Olliver v. Heavenly Bagels, Inc., 2001). The plaintiff should prove that the dangers in the food were unique and that the risk was unknown to other people.

While the Consumer Protection Act forbids deceptive advertising, the defendants advert does not encourage the consumers to over consume their products (Trevino v. Jamesway Corp., 1989). Had the advert proclaimed that every meal should be a McDonalds one, then the defendant would be liable for obesity and health claims provided the defendant ate all their meals from McDonalds.

Conclusion
The case against McDonalds should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to raise sufficient proof that the defendant breached their duty to the plaintiff by serving food without nutritional information. Secondly, the plaintiffs failed to prove thet their ailments were directly caused by eating food from the defendants outlets. Common sense should have informed the plaintiff of the possible risks of over consuming fast foods rich in cholesterol, fat and salt. Finally, the plaintiffs have a responsibility to take care of their health and should not abdicate this duty to the defendant. Such care would have ensured that the plaintiff ate healthy foods and exercised regularly.

In todays society, the need for safety stems out as a result of the increasing incidents of criminality in our neighborhoods and streets. Some of the citizenry, feeling that their persons, family or property is under threat from these lawless elements, resort to various means to protect themselves, including purchasing firearms.  But what does one do when the government steps in, placing severe restrictions on firearm purchasing, basically making it near impossible for one to buy a gun, even if it is meant for ones protection

District of Columbia vs. Heller
In more than seven decades, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments as to the core and essence of the Second Amendment of the American fundamental law and the relation to gun regulation and control statutes (United States Supreme Court Media). In the line of fire was the District of Columbias more than three decades old gun ban policy, being challenged that the ban was infringing on the ambit of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which reads
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (Fox News, 2008).

Lawyers representing the District, that had banned its residents from bearing hand guns since 1976 for reasons of public safety, argued that the amendment allows the members of the militia and not the ordinary citizens are allowed to bear and keep arms. In the decision of the United States Court of Appeals in Parker vs. Columbia, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment did provide for citizens to bear arms and possess them, purging provisions from the Code of the District of Columbia and ruling these provisions as constitutionally infirm. In late 2007, the Federal Supreme Court granted a motion for certiorari in the motion for Parker, limiting the question to be resolved to the contested provisions in the D.C. law that allegedly impinge on the ambit of the Second Amendment regarding the rights of individuals to possess arms, though they are not members of any militia group and keep their firearms in their own homes for the owners protection. In Parker, also known as District vs. Heller, it is the first time in nearly seven decades that the Supreme Court of the United States will consider the nature of the rights enshrined in the Amendment that is imparted, and it is expected that the resolution of the case will have important repercussions on judicial and congressional considerations in the future (T.J. Halstead, 2008).

At the time that the issue came for deliberations before the High Court, The District of Columbia enacted laws that considered possession of handguns by private citizens as an illegal act, when the firearm is unregistered and banning the registration of handguns, but allows the Chief of Police to issue permits with a duration of one year, and mandates that residents to store the firearms that are legal in their homes, unloaded, disassembled or have the trigger locked or restrained by a similar device (Supreme Court of the United States, 2007). The questions raised before the High Bench were whether the following clauses in the District of Columbia Code- D.C Code 7-2502.02(a) (4), 22-4504 (a), and 7-2507.02-infringed upon the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, regarding the right of Americans who are not members of state militias, but desire to keep handguns and other types of guns in their homes for their own use (Cornell University Law School).

Case History
In the history of the case, the District of Columbia crafted three of the strictest gun control laws in the United States in 1976. The statutes specifically ban the ownership of hand firearms within the District, though the laws do allow the residents within the District to own shotguns and rifles that are disassembled or tied by a trigger locking device (Cornell). A group of individuals challenged the law, collectively known as the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, was challenged by six residents in the District in 2003  saying in that the ban effectively infringes on their rights to possess and carry firearms within the District (Tom Head, 2010).

As earlier stated, Dick Heller, a special police officer detailed in the District of Columbia, undertook legal action  against the statutes that were enacted in the District and filed the actions in the United States District Court of Columbia, stating that the imposition of the ban on the possession of guns infringed on their rights to keep guns as enshrined in the Second Amendment rights in the Constitution. Represented by their counsel Robert Levy, the case was built and funded  by Levy with the express purpose in getting a decision from the Supreme Court. In the opinion of the District Court, the Court ruled that the ban applied to private citizens and allows the possession of guns only for members of the militia and as a result, allowed the motion of the District to rule against the plaintiffs in the case. Being denied judicial relief in their fight against the ban in the District Court, Heller with the other plaintiffs elevated their case to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in Parker vs. District of Columbia, 478 f. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Cornell University Law School).

In the discussion of the case before the Appeals court, the first action of the appellate court was the determination After the motion of Heller was raised to the United States Supreme Court, of the legal standing of the plaintiffs in the case at hand. In order that the plaintiffs to legally satisfy this requirement, the aggrieved parties must prove to the court that the laws which are the under the contention of the parties are indeed victims of the law. In short, the plaintiffs must prove that the law that was enacted by the District, the ban on handgun ownership, impinged on the full exercise of the rights of the plaintiffs with regards to the Second Amendment. In the case of the plaintiffs, the parties, particularly Heller, must prove that the state, in this case the District of Columbia, created an injury when they denied the application of Heller for a permit to own a firearm (Cornell).

In contesting the ban, Heller sought to acquire a permit for him to legally keep his firearm at home, but was denied by the city authorities. This was filed on two grounds, using the Second as the basis of the actions, restraining the  city from enforcing the ban on the possession of unlicensed firearms at home, and the use of trigger locks as this clause prevents the use of the functional firearm at home. The district court affirmed the ban, but the Circuit court reversed the decision of the lower court, ruling that the protection of the Second Amendment on the right of the citizen to possess firearms also fell within the ambit of the contested amendment. The Court also ruled that the total ban on handgun possession and the imposition of the requirement that guns kept at home be rendered non functional even when the use of the firearm is for self defense purposes, infringed on the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs (Cornell).  

Scope of the Second Amendment and definitions
As earlier mentioned, the Second Amendment in the American fundamental law states that the keeping of firearms is a right that is granted to the American public and that right shall not be infringed or trodden down upon. Despite the short conveyance in the Constitution, the context of the right as essayed in the Second Amendment has been greatly debated in political, academic and legal arenas for many decades. In the study of the parameters of the Second, there are two contrasting models that can be used in the analysis of the Second. One of the models is the right of the person, or the  individual right model , which maintains that the wording and the historical background of the particular constitutional provision is definitive in its assertion that the right is a clear cut manifestation of the Framers thinking that the bearing of arms, and the right to keep those arms, is intended to benefit the citizens themselves, and not for the states in the Union. The other is the right of the states to organize militias, and the protection of that right, or the  collective right model  (Halstead, 2008).

Another but less known interpretation of the Second Amendment states that individuals do possess the right to own firearms, but is connected to the membership of the individual to  his service in the militia forces of the state. This is the  sophisticated collective rights model  interpretation. The major arguments in the affirmation of and the opposition to the right of the person to own firearms depends on the wording of the Amendment itself. In the context of the  individual right model , the interpretation rests heavily on the operating clause of the Amendment, which states that the  right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . In the belief of the supporters of this model, the right affirms the position that the people are guaranteed, and not the rights of the states. In support of this policy, the context that the basis is the Tenth Amendment (Halstead, 2008), which reads
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people (American Law and Legal Information, 2010).

Enacted in 1791, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution outlines the general provisions of the concept of Federalism in the Republican type of government. In the Amendment, the American fundamental law gives the parameters of the authority that can be utilized by the different branches of the American government. The Amendment reserves to the disposition of the states all the powers that are not endowed to the Federal government by the Constitution, except the powers that the law states that the States cannot exercise. To cite an example, the Federal Constitution does not give the United States Congress the power to regulate or legislate on local matters such as health, morality and the safety of residents of the states in the Union. These rights are reserved to the application of the states, collectively known as the Police Powers of the states (American, 2010).

The 10th, in the belief of the practitioners of the individual right model, sets a clear distinction between the states and the people, the terminology making the clear cut difference  between the two sets of parties in the Amendment, and that the Framers of the Constitution put a definitive stance on the term  state . In this frame, it can be argued that they knew what or who they were inferring the right to. The argument here is that in the wording of the Second Amendment, the right conferred did not infer an individual right, the Second would have simply stated that the right to bear and posses arms is for the states and not to the individual.  For the supporters of the collective right interpretation, they oppose that assertion with the dependent clause of the 2nd, that with the insertion of the phrase  well-organized militia , that qualification will apply to the rest of the 2nd, as the right limits the rights of the people to bear and possess arms and imputing on the states the authority to regulate the conduct by which the arms are stored, and that the person who keeps and bears such items are members of the state militia (Halstead, 2008).

In the determination of the legal standing of the plaintiffs in the case, the appellate court refused to grant recognition  to the other five plaintiffs in the case, granting recognition to Heller who was the one that actually sought to acquire a permit to keep a firearm at home and was rejected by the city authorities. Heller, a security officer who does bear a gun while on duty guarding the administrative offices at the Federal court building, sought to acquire a permit to keep a gun at home for purposes of self defense (Linda Greenhouse, 2007). In the passage of time, the concept that the ownership of firearms is only for the membership of militia in the states is now applied into the members of the National Guard, and that the developments in the art of warfare has all but voided the need for the citizens to carry firearms. In the arguments of the supporters of the individual rights ideology, they aver that the militia as conceived by the Founders were comprised of every male that could serve in the militia, each of them had to have their own firearms (Halstead, 2008).

To buttress their notion, they infer the United States Public Law (10 U.S.C 311) that in part defines the different classes of militias that apart from the National Guard, there exists in society an  unorganized militia , made up of all males 17-45 years of age that are deemed fit to serve in the National Guard or the seaborne militia but are not formal and integral members of the two branches. Also, they aver that the theory cannot just be overridden or declared as academic given the rise of the technology in warfare or the changing mores of the society (Halstead, 2008).

The Second Amendment in the United States Supreme Court
United States vs. Miller
As earlier stated, the case of District vs. Heller was the first time that the Court had to deal with a case dealing with the interpretation of the Second Amendment in nearly seven decades, since the Court decided in the 1939 case of United States vs. Miller that only implied that the right under the Second Amendment can only be applied within the context of the membership in the state militias (Greenhouse, 2007). In deciding in Miller, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a provision in the National Firearms Act that mandated that sawed off shotguns be registered. In the discussion of the Second, the Court took note of the term  militia , understanding it to mean that it was commonly used to refer to males that are physically able that can act in concert for the purpose of defending the citizenry, that the members of the militia were civilians first and soldiers second (Halstead, 2008).

The Court crafted the rationale that a weapon that is in the possession of an individual must have a definable relationship to the maintenance or the efficiency of a well-organized militia force. It is noteworthy that in the discourse of Miller, the defendant in the case did not offer any pieces of evidence that will support his conviction. In the Supreme Court ruling, the Court states that there being no evidence that the possession or the use of a shotgun with a barrel less than one and a half feet in length at the time can have a reasonable relationship with the practice of a well-organized militia, the Court cannot declare that the ambit of the 2nd protects the individual from the restrictions that will allow the user to possess and own such a type of firearm (Halstead, 2008).

The decision of the Court in Miller is quite complex, in that the decision affirms the right of the individual to bear and keep a gun to the fact that the person be a member of the militia, but does not exhaust the logical repercussions of its findings, leaving vulnerable the question of the limits at what point does regulation or banning the ownership of firearms tends to infringe on the tenets of the 2nd. After the Miller decision, cases discussed in the years after the decision generally departed from the tenets set down in Miller. After this, the succeeding rulings with regards to the courts treatment of the 2nd for the rest of the 20th century generally carried a blanket modicum  that the 2nd only allowed a collective right to own guns and not to the individual right to keep and bear arms (Halstead, 2008).

Cases vs. United States
The progressing departure from the tenets of Miller came to a head in the 1942 decision of the Court in Cases vs. United States. In the Cases issue, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that a strict application of the provisions in Miller could restrain the government from monitoring the possession of high powered weapons such as machine guns that serve military purposes. Using the inference of Miller, the Court that decided in Cases ruled that the Founders could not have meant for the citizenry to come into possession of such high powered weaponry such as machine guns or other such high powered guns to be kept in their arsenals at home. In the decision, the Court formulated a new set of tests to the application of the 2nd, that of the individual having possession of the banned weapon as a member of the militia. The defendant in the case failed in that test, with the Court ruling that the owner of the weapon merely had the weapon as a result of caprice without intention to contribute to the efficiency of the militia (Halstead, 2008).

The Cases decision reaffirmed the constitutionality of the Federal law that bans the possession of such weaponry that can be perceived as a weapon that can be used in the militia but the weapon was not utilized for that purpose. To further strengthen the position of the Cases court, the High Bench used two decisions in United States vs. Cruikshank and Presser vs. Illinois . In both cases, the doctrine that the 2nd did not confer a right to individuals to keep and bear arms was again sounded off by the Court. In their assertion, the 2nd , as well as the United States Constitution, does not confer the right to bear arms on individuals, and that the only function of the 2nd was to bar the Federal government, and that agency only, from impinging on the rights in the Second (Halstead, 2008).

After the motion of Heller was raised to the United States Supreme Court, the debate on one of the most stringent gun control laws will begin to determine whether the Supreme Court will rule on the assertion that individuals can keep the guns that they have even if they are not members of the militia or as discussed earlier, the National Guard. The High Bench will see if the Second Amendment will support the argument of those like Heller who wish to be able to possess firearms in their homes. If the High Court rules in favor of the Constitutional provision and states that the 2nd allows gun possession for individuals, this could begin a rash of legal challenges to laws that control the restrictions on gun possession across the United States. In the opinion of Northwestern University constitutional law professor Martin Redish, the decision of the Supreme Court can either add fuel t the efforts to quash existing gun control laws or strengthen the actions on restricting ownership of firearms (Emma Schwartz, 2008).

In the chronology of the United States, there has been the opinion that the 2nd conveys a collective right of assembling citizens together as an action of the states, such as the National Guard. In the judicial arena, nine Federal Circuit courts have ruled in favor of the position, and the Supreme Court indirectly ruled in favor of the position in the 1939 United States v. Miller case, though the case concerned an issue of possession of  sawed off shotguns. But in the more recent times, there is a growing opinion that the 2nd does grant a right for individuals to own firearms. After a 2001 decision in the Federal appellate court upheld a individual right issue before it, the Department of Justice, headed then by Attorney General John Ashcroft, shifted the administrations policy in advocating for an individual right. The general reasoning is that most of the rights in the Constitution, particularly in the Bill of Rights grant individual freedoms, then the tenets of the 2nd should not differ from the others (Schwartz, 2008).

In favor of the right to bear arms
The United States Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 decision ruled on the case of the District of Columbia that the D.C ban on the possession of handguns as unconstitutional, stating that the ban was violative of the rights of the citizens to own guns and keep them in their homes for purposes of self defense. The ruling effectively purged the more than 30 year ban on handguns as an infringement on the rights of individuals to own firearms, exceeding even the expectations that were hoped for by officials of the Bush administration, but at the same time leaving most of the gun control laws in the country virtually unscathed.  But in deciding against the ban, the Court had not definitively essayed on the qualifications on the tenets of the Second Amendment since the 1791 enactment. Justice Antonin Scalia, ponente for the majority decision, avers in the decision that the individual right to bear arms is supported by the chronological narrative, both in the times before and after the adoption of the 2nd. The High Court ruled that the United States Constitution does not allow a total banning ownership of handguns that are kept and used for purposes of self defense at home, and also quashed the requirement that guns be equipped with trigger locks or be disassembled, but allowed the registration of firearms in the District (Fox News, 2008).

In the decision of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller (07-920) decided on June 26, 2008, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment does protect the right of an individual to possess a gun even though that person is not affiliated with a militia in any of its branches, and allows the use of the gun for legally acceptable purposes such as for the purpose of defending oneself or the members of his family at home. In their ruling, the prefatory clause of the Amendment does state a purpose, but does not expand on the operative provision of the Amendment. The context and background of the operative clause of the Amendment sets in no vague terms that the individual has the right to bear arms. (Cornell).

But in writing the decision, Scalia was careful not to provide a sweeping purge of all gun control statutes in the United States. Scalia noted that nowhere in the decision is the permission given to the criminals and mentally challenged to be able to own firearms. These firearms may be banned if they are considered as uncommon and dangerous, a qualification that the handgun does not satisfy (Head, 2010).

In the run up to the decision of the Court in Heller, some of the Justices already held that the 2nd did afford the right to individuals to keep and bear arms. Among the  Justices that stated that they were in favor of ruling for the matter were Chief Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas (Halstead, 2008). Writing for the minority, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the majority in the Court would have the minority believe that the Framers gave the necessary tools to local officials to monitor civilian use of weapons. Joining Stevens in opposing the ruling were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter (Fox, 2008).

Conclusion
Even as the Court accepted the oral manifestations in Heller as support for the interpretation of the 2nd as an affirmation of the individual model, the Court also found merit in the application of the District of the ban on handguns, that the citizenry did not have a right to possess guns as individuals apart from the context of being members of a militia. To resolve the impasse, the Court can use the collective model of interpreting the  2nd, that would validate the arguments against the laws being discussed, given that no individual laws are infringed in the process. Or the Court could also adopt the tenets of the sophisticated collective model, as the rights sought in Heller, that of possessing the arms would be utilized in the context of the militia (Halstead, 2008).

In the recommendations of the Cato Institute in response to the Heller decision, the American Congress should be compelled to obey the provisions as laid out in the decision. Also, Congress should work for the revocation of the government ban on the purchase of handguns across  state lines, and repeal the age requirements on the buyers and the possessions of handguns. But the first victory in Heller must come with guidelines on the types and  persons that are allowed to be owned and to own handguns, respectively. In the opinion of the Institute, the case of Heller presents a most opportune time to finally resolve the case of gun ownership in the United States (Cato Institute).

Sexual harassment is the act of discriminating people on the basis of their gender through unacceptable sexual approaches. This kind of issues can be found in different areas of the work environment, in different organizations. Sexual harassment also covers verbal and physical acts that are sexual. Requesting for sexual favors during the service of duty is also considered to be sexual harassment. These conditions are applicable when the complainant submits or rejects sexual advances due to the conditions of the offenders job, salary or career. In addition, the conditions are applicable when offender uses his job position to create employment or career development to another person on the basis of achieving sexual favors. Persons are also guilty of this offense when they interfere with the performance of other peoples work or create a work environment that intimidates, offends or is hostile to people so that they can get sexual favors from them (Paludi,  Paludi, 2003).

Sexual harassment happens when a soldier or a civilian worker is influenced, controlled, or affected by the acts of a supervisor or any person in a command position. Unacceptable physical contact, talks or gesture that are sexual in nature are considered to be sexual harassment. It may also occur though nonverbal communication of gender biased messages. Any information that has an irritating effect on the other person is not good and should be stopped. Gender discrimination is also covered in sexual harassment (Shrier, 1996).
The categories of sexual harassment are verbal, nonverbal and physical contact. Verbal sexual harassment includes making calls, talks, whistling or any other verbal communication which is sexual in nature directed to a civilian employee, soldier or family members of either the soldiers or the civilian employees (Hpfl  Czarniawska, 2002). Nonverbal sexual harassment includes acts such as staring at somebody in a sexual manner, or any other body languages that are suggestive in nature. It also includes printed materials such as pictures, cartoons that display sexual objects. The application of sexual screen savers on computers is also considered nonverbal sexual harassment. Physical contact sexual harassment includes the acts of touching another person in a sexual manner. Sexual assault and rape are the worst forms of sexual harassment. These offences are serious criminal acts which attract very severe punishments. People are requested to report such cases to the law enforcing bodies to ensure the culprits are punished (Berger  Searles, 1995).

The types of sexual harassment are Quid Pro Quo and Hostile environment. Quid Pro Quo means something for something. It involves asking sexual favors so as to perform certain tasks. It also covers threats if a person does not accept certain conditions. For example, when superiors demand for sexual favor so that they can promote an employee, and disciplining employees who fail to offer the sexual favors as asked by the superiors. Quid Pro Quo results in discrimination to a person based on sexual relationships. Hostile environment is a type of sexual harassment that happens when a soldier or a civilian is subjected to comments that are unwelcome and relating to sexual harassment.  It is a nonviolent sexual act that creates biases according to the gender of an individual. Such acts include jokes, unwelcome touching, comments, or pictures that relate to sexual harassment. Hostile environment is created in the work place when people suggest sexual statements that are irritating to others. Gender biased activities are also not acceptable and are considered to be sexual harassment (Berger  Searles, 1995).

Methods of dealing with sexual harassment
Soldiers and civilians are responsible to assist in solving problems related to sexual harassment. This can be accomplished through first, direct approach. This involves confronting the person harassing the other and telling himher that the behavior is not acceptable and that they are not pleased by their behavior (Hpfl  Czarniawska, 2002). Courtesy should be used when approaching the harasser so as to avoid conflicts. The procedure and points to deliver to the person involved should be written down so as to have an organized and presentable work. Secondly, indirect approach can also be applied. The person affected can write a letter or an email to the harasser so that they can express their feelings and also suggest the resolutions to them. The letter should state the legal as well as any other remedy that may be sought by the offended person in case the behavior continues (Hpfl  Czarniawska, 2002). Thirdly, the offended party can use a third party to deliver the message to the offender. This involves requesting assistance from another person so as to be directed on the way to stop the behavior of the offending party. The third party is sent to talk to the harasser. Third party can accompany the offended person so as to enable him deliver the message. He can also intervene on behalf of the victim. Fourthly, the victim can use chain of command. The victim reports the harasser to the supervisor or any other responsible person. Other people in the chain of command can be used to resolve the situation. These people have the authority to deal with such cases and can assist in preventing any other similar acts in future. Lastly, the victim can file a formal complaint. There are procedures for filing formal and informal complaints. The victim seeks redress from the court and the harasser is subjected to punishment. This method is used when other methods have failed or when the situation is severe. The court gives remedy to the offended party while the offender is punished so as to stop any future occurrence of a similar situation (Crouch, 2001).

Training
To eliminate sexual harassment within an organization, it has to begin by training the people about identification and prevention of behaviors that are unacceptable. The training should be aggressive and progressive so that the individuals participating in the program can understand the concepts well. Soldiers need to be trained on how to recognize and understand sexual harassment. They also ought to know methods of preventing it and the means of reporting such cases to the relevant authorities. The consequences of such activities are taught to the soldiers so as to equip them fully with all the required skills. Annual training of soldiers should be conducted to ensure they refresh their skills. It can also be done twice per year depending on the severity of the situation (Paludi,  Paludi, 2003).

The quality of training should be emphasized so as to ensure the effective delivery of the required skills in combating sexual harassment. Small groups composed of a mixture of both men and women are established so that they can discuss and interact during the training. Soldiers and civilians are given different scenarios so that they can visualize different situations. The training can also use role playing so that the trainees can understand the concepts well. Training should be appropriate so that different groups can be trained according to their lines of duty. The commander to each unit should assess the quality and contents of the training to ensure adequate skills are taught to their personnel (Shrier, 1996).

Civilian employees are trained on how to define sexual harassment and other gender discrimination activities that they may encounter during their duty of service. They are also taught about the sanctions used to punish people involved in sexual harassment. Methods of dealing with harassers are taught to enable the civilian employees handle the cases with professionalism. The techniques and procedures of filing formal and informal cases are trained to the civilian employees so that they can assist victims of sexual harassment. Adequate training is required of the civilian employees since they are in direct operation with the soldiers and the civilians. They ought to have skills to deal with all groups of people so that they can resolve any problems that are reported to them (Crouch, 2001).

Other officers who need training are junior officers, noncommissioned officers and civilian supervisors. This will enable them reinforce their skills in handling cases that have been brought to them. The training promotes healthy work environment so that the departments can accomplish their mandates. The officers are trained on how to handle and resolve complaints that they encounter. The officers should be responsible when processing formal and informal complaints from victims. They ought to have the skills to deal with the complaints in a professional manner so as to avoid poor handling of cases as well as improve on their communication with superiors (Stein, 1999).

Senior officials are trained on how to foster a healthy command environment. Such senior officials include noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, civilian, managers and other senior officers. They should be trained on how to use appropriate methods to determine a healthy command environment. This training is aimed at increasing the skills learnt during the junior level. They are trained on how to apply the laws relating to sexual harassment (Berger  Searles, 1995).

The training is done by professionals who are qualified enough to handle the topics of sexual harassment. The trainers should be people with good education backgrounds to ensure compliance with the regulations that have been stipulated by the law. They should have a wealth of experience in handling similar cases (Stein, 1999).

Conclusion
Sexual harassment in work environment and command climate has very complicated and serious impacts socially, legally, and ethically. Civilian employees as well as officers should have adequate skills to handle cases concerning sexual harassment. These skills are trained on a regular basis so as to avoid poor handling of complaints by the officers. The work environment should be conducive for all employees to work. The legal system has established measures to prevent cases of sexual harassment. There should be adequate remedies to the victims of sexual harassment since statistics show that there is an increase in the number of cases of sexual harassment recently. More sanctions should be implemented to reduce the cases of sexual harassment.

When you think about starting any business, the most important thing that you have to decide upon is the business structure you choose for your business. It is important to consider this because this will determine the amount of taxes we will be paying, the documentation that will be done, the obligations and liabilities we face and the way we finance our business operations.

In this situation where we are starting an online business for making and selling craft items through the internet but in many ways the process of formation of an online business is similar to the conventional business venture and the legal structure applicable for the conventional entity is also valid for an online company. Before deciding on a certain business structure we should first look at the business legal structures available to us so that we can analyze them to suit our situation.

The most common business structures that we can follow are
Sole proprietorship is a form of business structure where owner and his company are considered a single entity for tax and liability purposes (Adler  Franczyk, n.d.).

Partnership is a form of legal structure for business where two or more persons are wholly responsible for the obligations of the business. They share in the profits and losses of the business (Adler  Franczyk, n.d).
Limited Liability Company (LLC)is a form of legal structure where the owners of the company are only liable to the amount that they have invested in the business It is more of a hybrid form of partnership because it gives the owners some of the benefits of both partnership and corporation form of structure. (entrepreneur.com n.d.).

Corporation A corporation is a legal entity, separate from its owners (those who are responsible to run the operations of the business).The corporation pays taxes and is legally liable for its liabilities and obligations. The owners benefit from this form of business structure by avoiding personal liability, but the cost of setting up a corporation offsets many of its benefits.
             
 Based on the above analysis, we need to evaluate our decision, on the type of
               
Our business structure against the following criteria                          
Legal liability We should consider whether we can meet the liabilities and obligations that arise from the operations of the business. If we want to avoid any obligations occur from the potential losses of the business than the partnership and sole proprietorship is not the best option for us.

Cost of formation and ongoing administration There is a lot of high cost associated if we choose to incorporate, though the tax options and benefits we can avail if we decide to form a corporation are far greater than what will be available to us if we choose a partnership business structure. However, this tax benefit cant be enough to offset the high running cost of corporation .Moreover, the high costs of record keeping and paperwork associated with incorporation makes it an unviable option for us.

Future needs We also need to consider the long term issues related to our business. Because the partnership and sole proprietorship may offer greater benefits and rewards as compared to the other form of business structures, but it has risks like sustainability issues. We should be mindful of the fact that our business needs to survive when the owners are no longer available.

We need to consider whether we will be able to meet the financial needs of the business on our own, because if we decide to form a partnership business structure we two will be solely responsible to raise finance. A corporation is considerably in a better position to meet it financial and investment needs through issue of shares and etc.

Another question we need to ask ourselves is, What will be the fate our company when we both or either one of us is no longer around to run it (entrepreneur.com n.d.).
                 
4. Flexibility Partnership form of structure offers more flexibility as we will be in a better position analyze our personal needs.While corporate presents many complexities with regards to the decision making about the strategic needs of the business.

The above analysis suggests that general partnership type of business structure will be best suited for our internet business because it gives us the opportunity to take control of our business, reaping all the rewards to ourselves while being responsible for all the liabilities and obligations that arise from the business.

A variety of sentiments both positive and negative have been presented concerning the Legislative Bill 373which was sponsored by Omaha Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh. However, I feel obliged to express my support for the bill and the senator due to the numerous benefits that will accrue once it is enacted

First, everyone knows that firefighting is a dangerous task which is undertaken by our brothers and sisters who also have a right to live like us. In the delivery of their duties, they are exposed to toxic fumes which predispose them to respiratory diseases and blood borne diseases. Incase they fall ill during their tenure or within 90 days after they retire, I feel they are justified to assume that the disease originates from the nature of the job. Moreover, if the bill is enacted it will ensure that the paramedics and the firefighters can have legal rebuttable presumption for a new batch of diseases which are not covered by the law (Hammel, 2010). Still in support of the bill is the fact that it will not have a significant impact on the fiscal budget due to the fact that it allows for the reduction of the presumption period from 5 years to 90 days.

I also express support for the bill since it will cover the emergency service providers who are often exposed to blood borne diseases while in the line of duty. Others who deserve much attention are the EMT basic and the intermediate since they do put their body on the line. These are the people who are involved in pre-hospital emergency medical services. In some extreme cases, the personnel engage in mouth to mouth resuscitation with people whose medical history is unknown to them. Anyway, Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh you have my full support in this (Hammel, 2010).

The history of the American nation has been evidently marked with many landmarks legal interpretations of its constitution. The case of New York Times vs. Sullivan is one good example of landmark cases which greatly changed the political thinking of the American population. It is clear from the underlying proceedings of the Supreme Court on the case that the legal understanding of the first and fourth amendments of the civil right bill is not to allow any recovery for media reports unless the complainant can sufficiently prove acts of malice when making the defamatory report (FindLaw, 2010). This is what marked the many historical appreciations of the media freedom in our legal justice system. It is indeed a direct result of this 1964 ruling that the media gain freedom to sufficient cover the proceedings of civil rights movement thus aiding in the realization of the ultimate inclusion of the black Americans right to the civil rights in the American constitution.
This essay is written as a critical analysis of the New York Times vs. Sullivan and how it evidently changed political thinking in America. The author first gives an analytical discussion on the underlying facts presented in the case. A discussion on how the case set a precedent for public officials and how that is just another thing to consider for public figures getting into politics is also given

Summary of the New York Times vs. Sullivan case
The trial courts judgment
The case of New York Times vs. Sullivan involved a claim by New York Times in an advertisement that the arrest of Martin Luther king junior was a campaign to compromise his efforts in encouraging the blacks to vote (FindLaw, 2010). The advert claimed that the Montgomery police had been allegedly directed their acts against students who were involved in the civil rights demonstrations. The led to the filing of defamation case against New York Times by Sullivan, a commissioner in the police department at Montgomery (Shah  Anderson, 2007). It is however here to be made clear that the advert was not directly mentioning Sullivan but Sullivan claimed that it was targeting him since he was the chief supervision of the police department in Montgomery. the low court trial judge in Alabaman found the New York Times guilty of committing an actual malice defamatory statements against a public officer and ordered them to pay Sullivan damage worthy half a million US dollars.  

The Supreme Courts judgment and its reflection on the first and fourteenth amendment
It is however to be realized that the New York Times did not accept the lower court jurys judgment thus forcing to file an appeal with the supreme court in the quest realizing a fair and just judgment (Tysoe, 2008). At the Supreme Court, the judges clearly confirmed that the provisions of the first amendment of the civil rights bill did not allow a public officer to be granted damages for defamation unless he or she clearly proves that such statements were made will actual malice against them. Still citing the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, the court ruled out that the states is not obliged to award damages for defamation to a public offices based on falsified claims unless the officers sufficiently proves actual malice in the statements (Shah  Anderson, 2007).

It is also clear from the proceedings at the Supreme Court that an individual statement can never its protection under the American constitution even if it appears in the form of a paid advert. The judges claimed that it is not the purpose of the government to judge the truth and that a public officer must live to take critics from the public unless they can sufficiently proof malicious acts in the statements (Write  Lidsky, 2004). It was evidently claimed that any act of allowing Sullivan to be paid damages for insufficiently qualified claims of malice could act as a loophole for compromising any future critics to public officers. Still to be noted here is the fact that such any act could greatly compromise genuine critics for fear of intimidation, a move which could evidently compromise the just and fair provision of services by public officers to the general public. It is based on this reasons that the Supreme Court ruled against the lower courts ruling thus favoring New York Times.

How New York Times vs. Sullivan set a precedent for public officials
The first lesson is that it became evidently clear that a public official is subject to public criticism. It is quite clear from existing historical information that the realization of just and fair rules and regulations in the American nation has never been without social movements. Still clear is the fact that such realizations were heavily compromised with public office power interferences (Wright  Lidsky, 2004). The civil right movement of the twentieth century is no exception to this. It is based on this reasoning and by applying the principles of conclusion by sufficient reasoning that the 1964 interpretation of the American constitution served to protect the political elite andor public officials from imposing force to the public.

Another change that was brought by the impact of the New York Times vs. Sullivan case ruling is that the
 political elite in the community must be role models (Tysoe, 2008). It is found in the proceedings of the Supreme Court ruling that public officials should be open to critics from the public domain. This was made to emphasis the fact that such are the leaders who should lead the American nation to the next level of fairness and justice for all in the society. It was only by instilling the fact that the general public has a constitutional right to critique their leaders that political comments made by leaders are subject to self liability. This is what has made the political elite of the American nation respectful of the constitutional provisions thus sufficiently realizing greater levels of justice and fairness in the society (Melbourne University Law Review, 2001).

Still proved by the case is the fact that sufficiently prove of defamation by actual malice is the ultimate reason for claiming legal awarding of damages (Melbourne University Law Review, 2001). The proceedings at the Supreme Court clearly established that the constitutional protection of claimed statement can not be negated due to the fact that such have been expressed in the context of a paid advertisement. This clear makes public officials subject to proving of actual malice in their damage claim suits. It is to be clearly noted that most true expression which go to the media can be easily disputed by the source (FindLaw, 2010). However, the question of whether or not to get defamatory damages remains subject to the provision of substantial evidence proving actual malice in the presentation of the expressions.

How New York Times vs. Sullivan is just another thing to consider for public figures getting into politics
 The ruling in the case of the New York Times vs. Sullivan also instilled the lesson that no one in the American land is above the rule of law as provided in the constitution. Clear from the ruling of the lower court, it can be claimed that the jury sort less evidence to make the judgment in favor of Sullivan (Wright  Lidsky, 2004). This could be closely attributed to the fact that the government was out to control the progression of the Martin Luther King led civil rights movement. It is however clear from the Supreme Court judgment that despite such previous rulings on the case the constitutional provisions must be respected and applied equally to all in the society (Melbourne University Law Review, 2001). The provision for proving actual malice for compensation of defamation of an individuals reputation should equally respect all even the politically advantaged in the society.  It is this that made political influence on justice provisions mitigated thus respecting the rule of rule as reflected in the constitutional provision for independence of the judiciary.

Another lesson from the case is that of limiting claim for awarding damage due to purported defamatory speech (Tysoe, 2008). From the advertisement that led to the defamation claims by Sullivan, it is quite clear that it claimed to be the onset of a new pattern of modern freedom. According to the ruling of the Supreme Court, it is quite clear that the constitution sufficiently protects the human right to speech. It is due to this that it found no sufficient claim of defamation in Sullivans claims due to the fact that the students involve were being deprived of their constitutional right to speech (Shah  Anderson, 2007). It is based on this reasoning that the ruling changing our political approaches to reflective our constitutional right to speech.

The last lesson from the case ruling is that it made it clear that freedom of the press must be respected. It is to be noted here that the sole duties of the media is to provide news to the general public on occurrences around them. It is due to this reason that any act of compromise quality and accuracy of such news must be mitigated. Still to be understood here is the fact that the advertisement published by the New York Times was made for overseeing the fair and just execution of the underlying demands of the civil rights movement (Melbourne University Law Review, 2001). This is what made the ruling a greatly political influence blow in civil matters. Still realized from the ruling is the ultimate realizing of freedom of press. Indeed the New York Times vs. Sullivan led to the protection of the media against intimidation in covering the civil rights movement. It is thus clear that the ruling changed the perception the political and public officials had with regard to the media in the society.

Conclusion
In conclusion, it has been clearly established that the Supreme Court ruling in the case of the New York Times vs. Sullivan marked the dawn of respect for freedom to speech and the press by public officials. It is thus clear that such a case qualifies to be a landmark case in the history of the American nation. It is this court ruling which mitigated misuse of public office andor political power to impose legal awards for damages without sufficiently prove of actual malice.