Week 10 EOC: Lawyer Jokes

Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100?
A: Your Honor.

Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50
A: Senator.

Q: What's the difference between a vacuum cleaner and a lawyer on a motorcycle?
A: The vacuum cleaner has the dirt bag on the inside.

Q: What' the difference between a lawyer and a boxing referee?
A: A boxing referee doesn't get paid more for a longer fight.

Q: What do you call a lawyer gone bad.
A: Senator.

A lawyer boarded an airplane in New Orleans with a box of frozen crabs and asked a blonde stewardess to take care of them for him.

She took the box and promised to put it in the crew's refrigerator. He advised her that he was holding her personally responsible for them staying frozen, mentioning in a very haughty manner that he was a lawyer, and proceeded to rant at her about what would happen if she let them thaw out.

Needless to say, she was annoyed by his behavior. Shortly before landing in New York, she used the intercom to announce to the entire cabin, "Would the lawyer who gave me the crabs in New Orleans, please raise your hand."

Not one hand went up . . . . so she took them home and ate them.

Taking his seat in his chambers, the judge faced the opposing lawyers.

"So," he said, "I have been presented, by both of you, with a bribe."

Both lawyers squirmed uncomfortably. "You, attorney Leon, gave me $15,000. And you, attorney Campos, gave me $10,000."

The judge reached into his pocket and pulled out a check. He handed it to Leon. "Now then, I'm returning $5,000, and we're going to decide this case solely on its merits!"

The District Attorney was approaching the Suwanee River when he noticed a sign, "Caribbean Cruise--$99.00". He stopped and bought a ticket, whereupon the salesman hit him on the head, wrapped him in a rug and threw him in the river.
The Public Defender noticed the same sign. He too bought a ticket, got hit on the head, wrapped in a rug and tossed in the river.
The Public Defender awoke and called out to the State's Attorney, "Do they serve drinks on this cruise?"
The District Attorney replied, "They didn't last year!"

NASA was interviewing professionals to be sent to Mars. Only one could go and couldn’t return to Earth.
The first applicant, an engineer, was asked how much he wanted to be paid for going. “A million dollars,” he answered, “because I want to donate it to M.I.T.”
The next applicant, a doctor, was asked the same question. He asked for $2 million. “I want to give a million to my family,” he explained, “and leave the other million for the advancement of medical research.”
The last applicant was a lawyer. When asked how much money he wanted, he whispered in the interviewer’s ear, “Three million dollars.”
“Why so much more than the others?” asked the interviewer.
The lawyer replied, “If you give me $3 million, I’ll give you $1 million, I’ll keep $1 million, and we’ll send the engineer to Mars.”

A lawyer was filling out a job application when he came to the question, "Have you ever been arrested?" He answered, "No."
The next question, intended for applicants who had answered, "Yes," was "Why?" The lawyer answered it, "Never got caught."

A rabbi, a Hindu, and a lawyer are in a car. They run out of gas, and are forced to stop at a farmer's house. The farmer says that there are only 2 extra beds, and one person will have to sleep in the barn.
The Hindu says, "I'm humble, I'll sleep in the barn," so he goes out to the barn. In a few minutes, the farmer hears a knock on the door. It's the Hindu and he says, "There is a cow in the barn. It's against my beliefs to sleep with a cow."
So the rabbi says, "I'm humble, I'll sleep in the barn." A few minutes later, the farmer hears another knock on the door and it's the rabbi. He says that it is against his beliefs to sleep where there is a pig and there is a pig in the barn.
So the lawyer is forced to sleep in the barn. A few minutes later, there is a knock on the door. It's the pig and the cow.

A very successful lawyer parked his brand-new Lexus in front of the office, ready to show it off to his colleagues. As he got out, a truck came along, too close to the curb, and completely tore off the driver's door of the Lexus. The counselor immediately grabbed his cell phone, dialed 911, and it wasn't more than 5 minutes before a policeman pulled up.
Before the cop had a chance to ask any questions, the lawyer started screaming hysterically. His Lexus, which he had just picked up the day before, was now completely ruined and would never be the same, no matter how the body shop tried to make it new again.
After the lawyer finally wound down from his rant, the cop shook his head in disgust and disbelief. "I can't believe how materialistic you lawyers are," he said. "You are so focused on your possessions that you don't notice anything else."
"How can you say such a thing?" asked the lawyer.
The cop replied, "Didn't you know that your left arm is missing from the elbow down? It must have been torn off when the truck hit you."
"My God!" screamed the lawyer, "Where is my Rolex?"

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a liar?
A: The pronunciation.

Week 9 EOC: Wall Street Journal Opinion

There are several states that have “medical” marijuana legal but with the move of two states that now make it legal to possess small amounts for personal, i.e. recreational, use, there is a move by the President that could start a reform to the drug law. Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is what states the legality of drugs.  It states in the Congressional Findings and Declarations that “many of the drugs included within this subchapter have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.” (FDA) The line after that states that “the illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.” (FDA) This act declared marijuana dangerous and needed to be banned. Even if individual states make possessing marijuana for personal use legal but Federal Law still states that it is illegal, then Federal Law will trump the state law. They stated that they will intervene if “it discovers that marijuana is flowing to children or being trafficked to states where it is still illegal, though under federal law it is still illegal in all states.” (WSJ) If families decide to grow their own in those states that make it legal but then sell it to individuals or groups that live in a state where it is illegal, that is when the federal law will kick in; however, with the President deciding not to enforce the law, not just the small amount but even the large, for-profit growers.  If the President decides to not enforce the law and states make it illegal, the next question is what happens to drug policies in the workplace? Will companies that have a drug-free environment now have to change their policy?

Works Cited

FDA. (n.d.). Controlled Substances Act. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm

WSJ. (n.d.). The Beltway Choom Gang. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323324904579044771286022400.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

Week 8 EOC: Questions

Is secretly recording to prove harassment legal?

Infringes on copyright, what is my recourse?

In music, is it more important to copyright, trademark or register on ASCAP?

How would an artist go about keeping a contract?

I recorded some music while at the school; does it mean that the school owns the copyright?

At what point in starting a business and having staff, am I required to officially have them listed as an 

employee and start paying FICA and the like?

What are the legal requirements to having independent contractors as opposed to employees?

When do copyrights/trademarks become official and cover you in case of infringement?

What percent of a song would need to be modified in order for it to be no longer covered by the original copyright/registration?

What do copyright laws protect when it comes to “ideas” for audio for music?

Week 7 EOC: Progress towards finding a lawyer

My initial thought was to immediately use my cousin back in Wisconsin for this project.   He has his since opened his own law firm after graduation.  Even though he, in theory, should be easier to get ahold of, he doesn’t specialize in intellectual property. He focuses more on landlord tenant, worker’s compensation and general litigation.  I did find on VegasInc.com a list of the top lawyers of 2012. It not only listed the lawyers’ names but also what they specialize in.  This was helpful since I wanted to try and find lawyers who could be of more assistance when it comes to intellectual property, business and employment (employees and management).  With this new source of lawyers I should be able to find someone who would be willing to help me answer questions. 

Week 6 EOC: Illicit Trade

Knockoffs are everywhere. You almost can't avoid it. Whether you are at a shopping center or shopping online, everything from hand bangs to watches to shoes, you can find some form of knockoff.  For a lot of these products they aren't covered under copyrights and companies don't hold patents on them due to the expense of it as well as originality.  The people selling these fake versions of these products sell them at a fraction of the price of the real deal.  Even though they aren't the real thing, it is still in high demand.  Everyone wants to be seen with the best things and unless someone is really good at spotting fakes, no one would know and the general public would have a different opinion of you just.  If people who could financially afford the real deal were buying the knockoffs just because it was cheaper, now you are hurting the bottom line of the manufacturers of the real thing.  it could also hurt the company’s reputation if the fakes started to make the company look bad with bad products that don’t last or are of poor quality.  On top of hurting the reputation of the company, it affects the company financially.  Yes it is unethical and unmoral but these people who sell the knockoffs don’t care.  They do it for the money.  It is something that countries from all over the world are trying to fight but it is almost a losing battle as it has created a lot of jobs in manufacturing these fake products.  So if you take away the knockoff companies, then you take away all of those jobs and the unemployment rate around the world goes up which could create all sorts of issues in other areas of crime.  How do we try to deal with this?  Well, we can keep trying to fight and take down storefronts with raids but as long as the manufacturing is still going on, the products will still find a way into the market.

Week 5 EOC: Apple-Samsung Patent Battle

Apple and Samsung are two of the top technology companies as far as cell phones and tablets go.  Apple has tried to ban older models of Samsung phones from being sold in the US and Samsung has done the same to Apple; both of which were denied.  They have both broken copyright laws.  They are both fighting each other to try and win but what will this do to not only technology but the way technology patents work? Mark Lemley, a Stanford University law professor and leading tech law scholar, shared that "it could fundamentally change the way the patent system works in the (technology) industries." (Mintz, 2013)  They aren’t fighting this battle alone.  Nokia is backing Apple while Google, HTC and SAP back Samsung.  In Apple’s case in San Jose, the jury found that Samsung had 26 products that violated 6 of Apple’s patents; however, they ruled that Samsung could still sell those products since Apple didn’t link any proof of harm it may have suffered.  Apple is appealing that decision.  If the next ruling sides in favor of Apple, “Apple would gain leverage in a second suit brought in San Jose federal court, involving a set of newer Samsung phones.” (Jones, 2013) What is going to happen? How will this change the face of patents and technology? Will Apple and Samsung end up having to “negotiate a settlement in their long-running patent dispute?” (Gross, 2013) Matthew Levy, patent counsel at the Computer and Communications Industry Association, stated that “It’s possible that both sides could end up getting little or nothing except huge legal bills.” (Gross, 2013) This not only could change how patents are regulated but also international trade.

Works Cited

Gross, G. (2013, August 8). Governments. Retrieved August 9, 2013, from Macworld: http://www.macworld.com/article/2046201/apple-and-samsung-patent-war-returns-friday.html

Jones, A. (2013, August 8). Technology. Retrieved August 9, 2013, from Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323838204579001070722801840.html

Mintz, H. (2013, August 8). Crime and Courts. Retrieved August 9, 2013, from San Jose Mercury News: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_23806439/apple-samsungs-next-big-showdown-could-reshape-patent

Week 4 EOC: Edward Snowden

The Snowden case, yes, is about a NSA employee leaking classified information.  What is the core of the issue though? It is the fact that he breached his contract with the NSA. He did so by leaking the information. According to the textbook, Introduction to Business Law, the definition of a material breach is “a violation of a contract that defeats an essential purpose of the agreement.” (Beatty, 215)  The agreement was that Snowden, when hired, would not share secrets that he would learn while working at the NSA to anyone.  When he decided to leak the information, he immediately breached his contract.  His leaking of the secrets may not have physically damaged the NSA but what it has done is create a damage that could possibly affect the security of the nation. This would be considered direct damages, which “represent harm that flowed directly from the contract's breach.” (Beatty, 197)  Now the NSA wouldn’t be trying to get money from Snowden but what they could do is make it so he has been returned to the US and ends up locked up with no contact to the outside world or even other inmates at the location he would end up being locked up at. I think he should be brought back to the US so he can be tried for his crime, breeching his contract with the NSA.  Yes he shared secrets but that isn’t the legal issue.  Kremlin foreign-policy aide Yuri Ushakov, stated in the Wall Street Journal that “this situation is too insignificant to affect political relations.” (Sonne) So if this issue isn’t a deal breaker when it comes to the relations between the US and Russia, then it solely needs to be dealt with on a legal basis where he has to deal with the legal ramifications of his actions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323681904578641610474568782.html?mod=WSJ_World_LEFTSecondNews

Week 3 EOC: Rolling Stone Magazine

For those who are runners, family and friends of runners or just those who enjoy supporting those who participate in races, the Boston bombing will stand out in history for a long time. For those who were injured and the family of those who were killed, there is no monetary value on the effect of the bombing in their lives.  You can’t take it back; you can’t go back in time.  It is cemented in history forever.  When the event is something that changes your life, do you want to be seeing one of the individuals who supposedly caused this on the cover of Rolling Stone?  The act itself will bring out one of two beliefs in people, the first being that it is terrorism and should be punished and the second is that he was following his faith and cleansing the world of wrong.  In the whole process of having a trial, the court will have a jury.  According to Amendment 6, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” (Beatty, A14),  How can you have an impartial jury if everyone will have already supported one side or another, sometimes without even knowing about the case itself?  I don’t think you can.  There will always be personal opinions and the challenge will be to find people who can effectively put aside those personal opinions and be able to solely look that the facts presented.  With what the article presented, the author also had to get deep into the family structure to get a bigger picture.  This article painted a pretty negative picture of his family and how he was raised.  How can we know that what she wrote was true or wasn’t trying to purposefully hurt the family’s character?  Defamation is defined as “false statements that harm someone's reputation.” (Beatty, 78)  With that, did she try to get too deep into the personal life of the family just to be able to write the story?  Intrusion is defined as “someone's private life is a tort if a reasonable person would find it offensive. Peeping through someone's windows or wiretapping his telephone are obvious examples of intrusion.” (Beatty, 85)  She didn’t peep though windows or wiretap but she did have a lot of detail on the family and info that you would only know if you knew the family personally.  

Beatty, J. F., & Samuelson, S. S. (2012). Introduction to Business Law, 4th Ed. South-Western College Pub

Week 1 EOC: My Voice

There are so many different directions audio production professionals can go in the workforce, depending on what they want to work on.  What exactly is an audio production professional? Before we go into what it means to be an Audio Production Professional, I think we should define what it means to be a professional.

Almost every career field attaches the word "professional" to their titles, but what does that really mean? Should everyone be able to use it as an adjective about themselves? Merriam-Webster dictionary defines professional as "characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession" or "exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace."  With that definition in mind, lets actually look at being an Audio Production Professional.

Being an Audio Production Professional is more than just being able to make what ever project you are working on sound good.  It is also about being able to work with your customer and ensuring they are not only receiving amazing end products but that they are also being treated with respect and listening to what they want.  Being able to incorporate what they want into what will actually sound good takes some skill but being able to deal with them while they are being hard to deal with or making requests that are completely absurd and giving them high quality product is even better. 

So you might be wondering what this has to do with me.  Well as the definition states, that is how I act in the workplace.  I make sure that I am taking care of the customer first.  They may know what kind of sound they want but not exactly how to make it sound goo when it comes to mixing.  I can take what they describe and transcribe it into the sound they are looking for.  When they have problems, I make sure they are still be treated the same way as when there are no issues and that is with complete respect.  I have been given a chance to be able to help others get their voice heard.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional

Week 2 EOC: Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground is referred to as the “shoot first” laws that “change the legal definition of self-defense for citizens who feel they are being confronted with deadly force or imminent danger.” (Chuck) Instead of trying to retreat from danger, now this states that citizens have the right to use deadly force in self-defense. 

There are three parts to the Florida Stand Your Ground law:

1.       Presumed to have reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when using defensive force if an intruder has broken into his or her home or vehicle and is justified in using force

2.       A person does not have a duty to retreat if he or she believes death or bodily harm is imminent

3.       Provides immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force

The Stand Your Ground law is actually based in the Castle Doctrine, which is from the 17^th century and was an English common law that was brought to the states.  That common law states that if someone breaks into that individual’s home, he/she is not obligated to try and retreat before defending him/herself with force.  

Even though this is steeped with history, it doesn’t excuse from the regular self-defense law which generally “requires citizens show they’re in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death that is imminent.” (Chuck)

After the Zimmerman case came out, law makers in Florida started to examine the statute.  According to what the jury was given, Zimmerman had “no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force” if he believed death or bodily harm was imminent.  The Broward County State Attorney Michael Satz said, “I think putting in the statute that you do not have the duty to retreat is a mistake. I think life is precious and before you do that you should do everything in your power not to do that and to retreat if you possibly can.” (Brown)

The question becomes do we need laws that defend the defendant or should we focus on those who were injured or killed? The protesters want the defendant to be tried for the action, not that he was trying to defend himself.  If the courts were to prosecute Zimmerman for his actions, then he would still be facing jail time but possibly a lesser sentence.

Works Cited

Brown, Tom. Reuters. 15 July 3013. 19 July 2013 <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/19/us-usa-florida-shooting-lawmakers-idUSBRE96I05020130719>.

Churck, Elizabeth. US News. 18 July 2013. 19 July 2013 <http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/18/19522874-florida-had-first-stand-your-ground-law-other-states-followed-in-rapid-succession>.