Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
The trial judge denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The question in this case is that did the defendant in this circumstances, and evidence had a duty to provide the security against any criminal act as the one that happened? So we
Held: 1. The Petition Clause does not provide absolute immunity to defendants charged with expressing libelous and damaging falsehoods in petitions to Government officials. Although the value in the right of petition as an important aspect of self-government is beyond question, it does not follow that the Framers of the First Amendment believed that the Petition Clause provided absolute immunity from damages for libel. In 1845 this Court, after reviewing the common law, held in White v. Nicholls, 3 How. 266, that a petition to a Government official was actionable if prompted by "express malice," which was defined as "falsehood and the absence of probable cause," and nothing has been presented to suggest that that holding should be altered.
- The court must decide if the advertisement constituted an offer, and if the mistake is genuine and can be grounds to avoid the contract due to a unilateral mistake of fact. What is the court’s reasoning? (Might include reliance on precedent, statutory interpretation and legislative history & societal considerations) - The court first looked at whether an advertisement can be considered an offer. The court differentiates between advertisements that are in fact invitations for individuals to negotiate an offer, and advertisements that ask for a specific action without further communication and leave nothing for negotiation. The first category of advertisements is not considered offers, while the latter is not.
Ethical statements, Ayer said, cannot be verified analytically or synthetically so the truth of such phrases is unknowable and the language used is non-cognitive. Instead, ethical propositions can be no more that the expression of an emotion which will always be personal or subjective. For example to say “Abortion is good” is to express a subjective opinion about the moral issue of Abortion. For Ayer such statements can be no more than an expression of subjective emotion – leading some to label this approach to ethical language as the “boo hooray” theory. But does this strictly subjective understanding of ethical language and statements accurately reflect what is going on when we use such language?
United States, 1932. It states basically that a person cannot be tried for lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence in subsequent trials. A person can be tried on lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence if the crimes are tried together in one trial. This does not constitute double jeopardy because the defendant is not tried twice using the same evidence. The Blockburger test, in the Court's words is this, "The test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does
In Ainsworth, the appellant alleged a breach of procedural fairness by the respondent and sought administrative law remedies. The court discharged the order nisi for writ of certiorari based on the fact that the report does not carry any legal effect; and discharge mandamus on the ground that granting such writ will not be beneficial to the appellant. Although certiorari and mandamus are inapplicable, the court exercised its inherent power to grant declaratory relief. The appellant was granted declaration relief due to its adverse practical effect on the reputation of the
The Court argued that the constitutional right to privacy was limited to matters relating to “marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing education.” The publication of records of official acts, such as arrests, did not fall under the rubric of privacy rights. Reputation alone is not constitutionally protected interest. The three justices (minority opinion) disagreed with the findings of the majority. The dissenting opinion reasoned that the decision justified that intrusive action defamed and stigmatized the respondent as a criminal. Justice Brennan, writing for the minority, reasoned an illegitimate and improper enforcement of law that assaulted the constitution (Chicago Kent College of
Exclusionary Rule Search and seizures are protected under the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Officer that go beyond the law and obtain evidence without a warrant are in breach of a person’s fourth amendment right. The evidence that is obtained is not admissible in court and fall under the exclusionary rule. This paper will discuss the benefits of the exclusionary rule, as well as alternative remedies to the rule. Reason for the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was created to protect innocent people from being harassed from law enforcement.
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our