Legal Issues

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.

Supreme Court of Texas, May 23, 1984

Factual Background and Issues Presented
The instant case arises from a contract dispute involving the construction of a restaurant.  The restaurant was to be constructed for 116,000, delays ensued, and Steak House (Owner) terminated Vances (Contractor) contract.  Owner thereafter withheld 20,000 of the original contract price, denied Contractor further access to the construction site, and employed others to make repairs and finish construction.  For purposes of the issues presented on appeal, though there were other parties at the trial level, it is enough to note that Contractor did not completely perform the contract, that he did substantially perform the contract, and that he perfected his appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas whereas the Owner did not perfect its appeal.  Contractor argued that he was entitled to damages because he substantially performed the contract and that the Atkinson rule placing the burden of proof on the contractor should be overturned so as to make the owner responsible for proving the costs of repairs for defects that might be used to offset or otherwise eliminate a potential damage award.

Two main issues were presented in this case.  The first issue presented was whether a contractor who brings a suit on a substantial performance theory, in which the owner also argues that there remain defects capable of being remedied, bears the burden of prove for establishing substantial performance, the contract price for the construction, and the costs for fixing remediable defects.  The Supreme Court of Texas held, affirming the Atkinson rule despite Contractors challenges, that Contractor did bear the burden of proof.  The second issue presented was whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to create material issues of fact such that the trial courts grant of a directed verdict against Vance.  The Supreme Court held that the directed verdict was improper because there were issues of fact that should have been submitted to the jury.

Rules
The Supreme Court of Texas stated that contractors can recover damages when there is substantial performance.  These damages are calculated by subtracting the costs of fixing remediable defects from the contract price.  At the same time, however, an owner is also entitled to damages and these damages are measured as either the costs associated with the completion of the construction contract or the costs attributable to fixing remediable defects.  This damage measure is adjusted when only part of the contract price has been paid by creating a credit against the unpaid portion of the contract.  The main argument centered not on the proper measure of damages rather, the fundamental question was whether the Supreme Court of Texas would reaffirm the Atkinson rule which placed the burden of proof with respect to the aforementioned elements of the substantial performance cause of action and damages on the contractor.  The Atkinson rule stands for the proposition that, as substantial performance is an equitable doctrine, the burden of proof must be placed on the contractor because it would be inequitable to allow a contractor a full recovery when the contract has not been fully performed.

With respect to the directed verdict, the Supreme Court of Texas stated that issues of fact must be given to the jury, that damage measures in substantial performance cases are extraordinarily fact-specific, and that a directed verdict may only be granted when there are no material facts capable of being disputed.

Analysis
The Supreme Court of Texas began its analysis by discussing why the Atkinson rule was consistent with sound public policy.  As an equitable doctrine, substantial performance was created in order to allow contractors to recover damages for construction that has been substantially performed.  The public policy benefit is that damages should be equitable attributed to actual costs and work done.  Vance, citing both other jurisdictions and legal experts, asked for the Atkinson rule to be overruled and to place the burden of proof for the costs associated with fixing the remediable defects on the owner.  The Supreme Court of Texas refused because they felt that such a ruling might lead to strange results in which a substantially performing contractor could thereby recover the full contract price if an owner failed to meet the requisite burden of proof.  Additionally, because the substantial performance doctrine had evolved to benefit a contractor in an equitable fashion rather than to punish an owner, the court reaffirmed Atkinson and placed the burden of proof on the contractor.  With respect to the directed verdict, the court reviewed and discussed various evidence regarding repairs from the trial transcript and held that there were issues of fact that should have been submitted to the jury.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Texas reaffirmed the Atkinson rule and placed the burden of proof on contractors when contractors seek damages pursuant to a substantial performance cause of action.  The court acknowledged that other jurisdictions have approached the issue differently, but felt that this approach was most consistent with equitable principles.

Plagiarism and copyright laws in the United States are very concrete in their convictions.  Both terms describe a form of theft and misrepresentation of oneself.   Plagiarism is more prevalent in academic settings, but copyright violations can be seen in every facet of everyday life.  There are consequences to be faced for disregarding the law as it pertains to either offense.  This paper will carefully examine both offenses for similarities and differences.

In a recent television news program, one of the United States senators was reported as having plagiarized several of his writings.  While the media seemed to take great interest in the story insofar as poking fun at the senator, the offense committed was anything but humorous.  Another news program depicted the issues of copyright infringement with regard to musical downloads over the internet at no cost to the consumer.  The musicians who produced the music were enraged since they were not only losing a profitable gain.  The issues surrounding plagiarism and copyright law in the United States is very clear and concise with regard to what is permissible and what is criminal.
   
Plagiarism is a form of theft and misrepresentation.  Plagiarism occurs when someone copies the work of another and attempts to pass it off as a personal creation.  The act of plagiarism can occur in writing by improperly giving credit to a source for the information being reported, or it can be something as simple as a misrepresentation of statistical figures (Hricko  Howell, 2006).  Colleges and universities across the United States have developed specialized programs to combat the instance of plagiarism.  Some academic institutions use websites that allow assignments to be uploaded and screened for plagiarism.  If plagiarism is discovered to have occurred, each institution addresses the violation as to its policy and procedures.
   
Copyright infringement is a more serious offense as it is on a federal level of statute violations.  A copyright violation can occur by simply photocopying an item that is copyrighted without the expressed permission of the owner (Stim, 2009).  One has to wonder if the copying of a state issued driver permit would constitute a copyright violation.  Copyright infringement can result in civil and criminal charges depending on the severity of the offense.
   
The University of Maryland (UM) is quite clear with consideration to its academic dishonesty policy.  Academic dishonesty, according to the UM, is the failure of one to maintain academic integrity (University of Maryland University College, 2006).  The offense can transpire on or off academic grounds and be made by a student, member of staff, or faculty.  The best way to avoid plagiarism is to cite all work and information collected during the research phase of development.  Several acts are prime examples of academic dishonesty.  Mistakes can happen.  Accidental oversights in referencing have been known to take place, but it is ultimately the individuals responsibility to check their work for errors. The University of Maryland suggests that plagiarism can be viewed as an act of cheating, lying, bribery, helping another student on an exam, doing someone elses work for them, having prior knowledge to exam questions, and using a proxy for examination purposes.
   
When an act of academic dishonesty, plagiarism, is suspected to have materialized, a tribunal of sorts is put into action (Kitchin  Fuller, 2005).  The suspected offender is notified of the charge.  Within seven days, the offender must respond to the allegation, or their silence will be taken as an admission of guilt.  The Central Records division at the UM is also notified within ten days of the suspected offense.  The suspected offender is notified in writing of the investigation being conducted by the Central Records office within ten days.  Any sanction notifications are also included in the correspondence.  The offender is afforded the opportunity to request a formal hearing within twenty days of notification, whereby a decision on the matter will ultimately be rendered within an additional twenty days.  If the suspected offender does not respond to the notice from Central Records, then the silence will be taken as an admission of guilt to the alleged offense.  If the suspected offender is in disagreement with the decision rendered by the academic institution, then they are allotted the opportunity to appeal within a thirty day period.  The appeal process involves a review of the evidence on file, processing current institutional policy, and then rendering a decision within forty days.  The entire process is lengthy and drawn out, but it can all be prevented if the necessary precautions are taken to avoid an allegation of plagiarism (Posner, 2007).
   
Copyright laws have a special set of provision in reference to what the copyright owner can and cannot do with their copyrighted materials.  A copyright owner can reproduce their product.  The individual may prepare the work for sale or reproduction at their discretion.  The copyright owner can distribute their product at will and at their decided cost.  Their work can be produced publically.  This means that it can be acted out in a theatre, musical, or other choreographed event (Stim, 2009).  The copyright owner also has the right to publically display their item of special interest.  Copyright laws do not protect every individual work.  According to Tysver, unprotected works are, unfixed works, titles, short phrases, ideas, and useful articles (2008).  The United States Copyright Office indicates that after March 1st, 1989, a copyright is not required to protect products, but it does recommend doing so in the event that copyright infringement occurs.
Grievances and procedures against one accused of copyright violations are relatively tranquil.  When an individual feels that their copyright protections have been desecrated, an attorney is the most viable choice to handle the matter.   These matters generally come about on a higher scale.  Authors, musicians, entertainers, and pharmaceutical companies have been known to pursue civil action for copyright infringements.  Someone may have reproduced copies of popular movies or discs and profiting from the sales without expressed permission.  Pharmaceutical companies may sue another pharmaceutical company for the formulation of a copyright protected medication on the market for consumers.  Copyright laws are designed to protect the work and creations of the original designer, or mastermind (Stim, 2009).  If the infringement demonstrates deliberate and direct knowledge of copyright violations, then the suspected offender may succumb to criminal charges as well.
   
A person who has violated either the plagiarism statutes or a copyright law may realize the severity of their offense too little too late.  The allegation alone creates an unspoken stigma against ones character.  The ability to trust the individual becomes a matter for debate.  They are scrutinized as cheaters, liars, and thieves.  Someone accused of academic plagiarism may find them suspended or expelled from the academic institution.  They may find it almost impossible to be granted entry into another academic setting in lieu of the offense.  If criminal action is pursued, their lives could be forever changed.  The lives of their families could end up devastated, and their freedom could come with a price.  Financial ruin is another aspect to be considered since civil procedures commonly allow for restitution to the one who was victimized (Tysver, 2008).  From a psychological standpoint, an offender may find that depression, anxiety, or even suicidal thoughts may emerge.
   
Plagiarism allows for civil procedures in a court of law.  Copyright infringement permits both criminal and civil proceedings to occur.  If plagiarism occurs under a copyright law, then the individual could be charged with a misdemeanor offense.  The fine could range between one hundred dollars and fifty-thousand dollars.  Another disadvantage is that the individual could be forced to serve up to one year in jail (Tysver, 2008).  Findings of guilt for academic plagiarism may also constitute penalties if the student received any government grants or aid for attendance.  The individual may be dismissed from participation in the federal grant or student loan program and be mandated to repay all monies loaned immediately.
   
Academic plagiarism and copyright violations are acts of dishonesty, thievery, and misrepresentation.  To knowingly take the work of someone else and use it for personal gain or gratification is repulsive.  Each person has the ability to use restraint and personal intellect to avoid such happenings.  To violate either of these statutes is a gross violation of the hard work and conscious efforts made by a hard-working individual.  The penalties for both offenses should be elevated.  Criminal penalties should be imposed in every state for academic plagiarism given the technological age in which students now live.  Fines imposed through civil proceedings are nice scratches on the surface, but the reality of the offense is not truly embedded.  Individuals should begin holding themselves personally accountable for every action and thought that they produce.  Ignorance is no defense in any court of law.  With all the new technologies, inventions, and programs that make it easier and faster to complete tasks, it would only seem necessary that innovations be incorporated to prevent acts like plagiarism and copyright infringement.  It only takes a moment to double check a piece of work, but it could take a lifetime to recover from being labeled a thief, a liar, and a cheat.

In the United States, the judicial system is enforced in two levels namely the federal courts and the state courts. These two levels are further subdivided into trial courts, courts of appeal and superior or highest courts. The main difference between the two levels was the types of cases that they need to resolve or hear.
The president of the United States appoints the federal judges. Each of the federal judges would retain the position until they die or retire. The federal courts focused their concern on cases that concerns constitutional laws and federal issues. States have federal trial courts known as District courts. In Washington, the jurisdiction of District Courts is very limited to civil and criminal cases that involves the United States government, people with different citizenship (both state and national citizenship), and issues involving the U.S. Constitution.

Washington has two District Courts, the Eastern District Court and the Western District Court. The decision made by the judge of a District Court requires other federal judges to follow the decision in that district. This denotes that the decisions made by the Eastern District Court of Washington do not necessitate the federal judges of the Western District to adhere to that decision.

If the party is not contented with the decision made by the District Court, the party could send the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals. This is another federal court more commonly referred to as Circuit Courts. The decisions made in Circuit Courts are binding to all other states under that circuit. This means that the cases made in the Eastern District Court and the Western District Courts could both appeal to the same Court of Appeals. Washington belongs to the Ninth Circuit. Thus, the other states under the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals like Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, Guam and Nevada would follow the same decision. The Court of Appeals of the Ninth District is composed of 39 judges.

The US Supreme Court is considered as the highest court in the United States.  There are eight associate justices and one chief justice. Nonetheless, the cases it handles are limited to those that involve foreign or different governments andor citizens (states or country). The Supreme Courts decision is followed by all the other federal courts.

The Federal Courts also has specialized courts, which are made by the Congress. In Washington, there are three specialized courts namely US Tax Courts, Federal Circuit Court and US Bankruptcy Court. Tax Court is concerned with federal taxes. Federal Circuit Court focuses in foreign trade. Bankruptcy Court handles those that concern the Bankruptcy Code.

In the state level, the lowest would be the District, Municipal and Police Courts. The District Courts are concerned with criminal and civil cases. The District Courts could only sentence a year in jail andor a fine of 5,000.00 at most.  The District Courts usually have small claims department that settles minor civil case or those that are not more than 4,000.00. The Municipal and Police Courts are concerned with violations of municipal and city ordinances.

If the case was not settled in the lower courts, it could be filed to the Superior Courts. Moreover, cases that exceeds 50,000.00 are also brought to superior courts. In each county, there is one superior court, which is tantamount to 29 judicial districts in Washington. The Superior Court also has a division known as Juvenile Court. It handles case of those who commit an offense when still under 18 years old. It is a common custom among Superior Courts to follow precedent decisions made in that court.

An appeal could be made if the party is not satisfied with the Superior Courts decision. All cases could be appealed except for those that concerns death penalty. The States Court of Appeals has three appellate divisions. The decision in one appellate does not bind the decision on other appellate.  However, the decision is binding to the courts under the Court of Appeals.

Death penalty cases are brought to the highest states court. The Washington Supreme Court is considered as the highest court in Washington. Its most important function is to assure that the state has a consistent law. Not all appeals are accepted by the Supreme Court. The appeals must be of grave importance to be accepted. These might include cases that caused conflicts in the lower courts.

Cases that do not involve the US government, the US Constitution and controversies between parties of different citizenship, are decided in State Courts. For example, when the case involves the Voting Rights Act or when it involves foreign citizens, it should be heard on Federal Courts. Cases that concerns real estate falls under the jurisdiction of State Courts.

There sometimes occur events that allow for our personal lives to instantly overlap with our professional life.  As a paralegal, it is a constant mental note of the importance of keeping business separate from personal matters.  Working within the legal spectrum has afforded me many useful contacts and colleagues.  Unfortunately, the level of moral decency was more compromised than I could have ever imagined.
   
In June of 2009, my husband, Kevin, sustained a severe shoulder dislocation and separation injury while at work.  His employer claimed that he could not find the proper paperwork to fill-out an accident report.  Kevin informed the employer that he was leaving to seek medical attention for his injury to which the employer agreed.  Over the course of the next month and a half, Kevins shoulder continued to get worse rather than improving.  The attending physician referred him to an orthopedic specialist for advance treatment.  The employer at this point had still not filled out the accident report.  I conferred with one an attorney from my employment for reference to other avenues that could be pursued in order to make the employer comply with the law.  In August 2009, the orthopedic surgeon determined that Kevin could no longer work without surgery to replace his entire shoulder joint.  He added that there would be a long period of physical therapy involved and said there was no guarantee that he would ever regain full use of his arm.  This was devastating news to my husband as he is only twenty-eight years old.
   
I made an appointment for my husband to meet with my attorney friend to address the matters of the employer not filing an accident with the appropriate sources, failure to provide medical reimbursement, and compensable pay for temporary total disability under the workers compensation laws of our state.  The attorney demonstrated complete professionalism, and assured us that he was fully capable of handling the matter effectively and swiftly.  He filed the paperwork in reference to the workers compensation complaints with the Office of Judges for a hearing.  All releases were signed so the attorney could begin collecting documentation to substantiate the claim.  The case was set for a hearing in October 2009, which was expedited.  Two days prior to the hearing, the attorney phoned to inform Kevin that he was resigning from the case as he felt it would not be a winnable situation.  He further stated that the time it would take to win the case was not financially worth his efforts, and then he apologized and hung up.  I was enraged as this was completely unethical by any legal or moral standard.
   
While I have legal training, my area of expertise does not include areas of workers compensation.  We debated dropping the claim altogether, pursuing the claim without an attorney, and contacting our private insurance company.  At this juncture, my husbands salary had been interrupted, and he was not receiving any paychecks.  My employment was only part-time and we were beginning to see the urgency to do something, especially since we have four children under the age of nine.
   
I decided to take on this issue by myself.  While it may constitute a moral dilemma in the eyes of some in the legal community, I put all my educational experience into the public library and the internet (Elias  Levinkind, 2007).  I contacted our private insurance company and discussed the matter since there was some discrepancy about them being billed for an injury that is the financial responsibility of another.  Our insurance company agreed to pay for the surgery, medications, and treatment of my husband with the understanding that once the workers compensation case was finalized, we would work conjunctively with them to retrieve compensable funding from the employers insurance company (Thomason, Schmidle,  Burton, 2001).  We proceeded to the court hearing the following morning.  I did my best to have my husband prepared.  In this state, a spouse is not allowed to represent another spouse in matters of this nature.  The first claim was denied, but I appealed it immediately.  The case went before the panel of judges in November on appeal.  The panel of judges had ninety days to render a decision on the matter.  During this period, time was allotted to introduce any new evidence to support the original claim.  Kevin had undergone surgery to replace his shoulder, so I forwarded all medical records pertaining to the matter.  The orthopedic surgeon even included prognosis reports, recommendations, and summary notes indicating future obstacles, treatments, and problems.
   
In February 2010, we received notice via certified mail that the Office of Judges had rendered in Kevins favor.  We won the appeal.  The office of judges cited that the originally denied claim was done so in grave error.  The order further stated that the employer and his insurance company were compensable for any and all damages related to the injury (2001).  This order was backdated to June 2009 when Kevin was hurt on the job.
   
The moral dilemma here involves the unethical value put on a client by the colleague that I was affiliated with.  In some ways, it was a bad idea to seek legal counsel from a friend due to the probability of conflicts of interest.  I felt equally in a moral dilemma in trying to figure out all the legal ins and outs of the workers compensation laws without actually being an attorney.  The thin line between business relationships and personal relationships is very gray.  The fact that the case was not financially valuable enough to the attorney left us feeling unworthy of justice.

Environmental protection has become a major concern for both governments and individuals over the years. Pressure has been mounted on several fronts, aiming at ensuring that industries comply with the various regulations related to this issue. Alumina Inc., a manufacturer of aluminum, is one of those corporations that have found themselves under the scrutiny of both Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and private individuals, regarding its compliance with environmental regulations. This corporation is located near Lake Dira, which is in Erehwon state. This state has specific regulations regarding the discharge of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). About five years ago, Alumina Inc. had been accused of violating these regulations. Alumina Inc. reportedly rectified this something that was confirmed by the audit report by the EPA. Although no complaints have been filed against Alumina for over five years, Kelly Bates held that her daughter suffered from Leukemia as a result of PAH discharged by Alumina into the lake, whose water she consumed. This study seeks to create a plan identifying the various torts and risks by Alumina Inc. It further seeks to propose preventive and corrective measures that would eliminate those risks.

Common Torts and Regulatory Risks
Every company has a duty, both legal and ethical, of ensuring that its acts and operations do not result in harm of persons residing within its environs (Jennings, 2008). As aforementioned, Alumina Inc. had once been found to have violated the regulations of the EPA. This failure to comply by Alumina Inc. is constitutive of a tort. It acted in negligence of its duty to ensure the protection of the local environment as well as residents. The effects of this negligence were deeply felt within the corporation circles when it was required to conduct clean-up exercises. Although the case put forth by Kelly Bates comes five years after the first accusation, it formed the basis for her accusations. The company is legally required, through the established EPA laws and regulations, to comply at all times. Although the company was found to have been compliant with the requirements of the EPA, this case painted it in bad picture, something that was likely to affect it for a number of years. In order to protect the company from liabilities arising from such accusations, it is important that the management conduct regular evaluations of the companys compliance and file reports on the same. It would be in the companys best interest, if such reports were publicized in the local media. This would not only assure the residents and the EPA of the companys compliance, but also provide the company with a ground of defense in case similar accusations arose in the future.

The Freedom of Information Act provides that individuals could request information or records from any federal agency, except records considered protected disclosure. This Act poses a regulatory threat to Alumina Inc. because there is some information whose public release would case great harm to the companys competitive strategy. This is because such a move would mean that the company has more to hide, which would possibly arouse suspicion, creating irreparable damage to the company. Luckily, there are clauses providing for exemptions of such a request where it would possibly compromise a companys trade secrets. The company should make proper use of its public relations department in order to establish a proper relationship with residents. Moreover, this department would come in handy in as far as damage control is concerned. This can be done through the release of public statements assuring the public of the companys commitment to environmental protection.

The accusation by Bates is also a major risk which can easily ruin the companys business opportunities. This is because few companies would like to be publicly associated with a company that does not comply with environmental protection regulations, especially now that this has become a global issue. It would have been helpful for the company to keep the public informed regarding its compliance as well as improvements in terms of regulations over the five years following its accusation.

It is recommended that an independent committee be established, with a specific role of evaluating the discharge of PAH in Lake Dira are kept at acceptable levels. This would provide for an efficient way of dealing with violations of the various Acts, especially the Clean Water Act. Concerned parties would also have a clear picture of what is expected of the various actors in the area, and their role in environmental protection. This committee should set up a response team and provide it with all the necessary equipment to tackle the threats of excessive discharge in the lake.

Conclusion
In order to prevent similar situations in the future, the management of Alumina Inc. should have constantly kept vigil respecting the threats and regulatory risks surrounding the operations of the company. While providing relevant information to the public, the management should be careful not to compromise its own competitive strategies. Constant monitoring and evaluation of the compliance has been established as an important tool for protecting the company from further negative publicity.

Various preventive and corrective measures have been proposed. These included among others, the establishment of an independent committee, whose responsibility would be to ensure the protection of the environment. This committee would function besides the Environmental Protection Agency. It would also ensure various that Lake Dira is safe for use by both human and animal species.