In order to provide legal application to your client, we have to counter check how current the regulations and that means there have to be relevant. For today’s regulations there have to read Saturday, august third, and the CFR on Lewis was validated on July 26th while on Westlaw was validated on July 27th. As a legal representative agent, it is advisor able to counter check if there have been any other regulation that since the last validation in the database. That is by checking if there is any red flag signal and clicking on the link label in the Lewis. On the Lewis link, there are no changes that have been recorded since the previous validation while on the Westlaw there was no signal since date august 4th. In case that there is any issuing that had been done before, we have to determine the changes made have any impact on the existing regulation. All the data is verifiable in the United States department of the treasury. What we will do is to search using relevant statute that is the Haw River Valley, North Carolina. The system is designed well such that it can help you locate any possible federal problem.
In such an instance where my firm is requested to bill our clients on the Lewis and Westlaw charges towards the client, we are left with no option other than to advise the client on another method on how to acquire this information through the office of the attorney. In the office of the attorney, any person can acquire this information on label of tobacco and alcohol drink. After all this procedure, our client is therefore by constitutional acknowledgement right to legal his drink using Haw River Valley. We have gone through the legal procedure of verifying if that branding is used any in the United States and none has been found. This label can be used on both wines because it has been verified using both Lewis system and Westlaw system and found valid for use.
Assignment 3
The scenario concerning the protection from giving out information to researchers is treated with at most care. The law protects individual works by giving out patent rights to their original work. The case is tricky but in accordance to the law it is a crime to use the data of a person without saluting the person who originally invented it or researched it. A. The competitor has right to know about the rival company but not the right to collect a copy from NIH unless with the authority of the agency and the rival agency since the goal is to improve the human health hence better performance in other tasks. As a researcher if the policies of the drug company you are seeking assistance suggest that their information should be confidential then the researchers should use it for the purpose they want only and not disclosing to other parties. B. If in any case the government release the grant to other parties than the company has the right to sue the government by seeking a court order of stoppage of grant released. In addition the grant federal information the agency have is original so they can stop it by proving to be the owners and charge exorbitantly to discourage others from using it. Close competitors may not access the whole information this would be to their advantage.
Assignment# 4
Law is a rule that has to be abided by, failure to which one is subject to prosecution. In business individual affirm themselves in business laws for example the law of contract, negotiable goods and the law of torts. The case concerning the Albert Kendall’s fish plant as reviewed by the department of wildlife which ensures that farmer who rear fish and other species follow the due process is on the limelight. The Hypoville department found out the act of fraud. The farmer had given contracting reports about the size of fish he rears. The license had described that the farmer broke the law by having a license which does not conquer with the size of the fish recommended. The flow of incidences concerning the case that resulted to the provocation of the licence given to Albert Kendall’s fish plant reached a point that the law was being followed since the department immediately provoked the license. Basically the law and the wildlife department had enacted such a law since rearing excess fish would endanger the fish due to congestion. As for the government it would miss out on tax collection in relation to the license fee. Thought Kendall’s fish farm was prosecuted it was later discharged b hut had consequences since the board had written to him that he may not be given the 2003 operating license yet the department had withdrawn the previous charges due to various technicalities. The procedural requirement in this case has been followed and satisfied. This is because the fish farm was operating illegally contrary to the details detailed in the license, so the wildlife department was right in provoking the license. In addition to the wildlife department was justified in denying the fish plant the license even after writing a statement to the ALJ. The paper hearing is essential since it would act as evidence in court if prosecution of the case would proceed. The procedures in provoking or awarding the license should follow the law, the wildlife department was justified in provoking the licenses and further denying the fish plants the 2003 license. Example of cases involving fraud includes R Mungony (2004) in concerns three companies accused of different counts of defrauding a company as indicated in crimes act.
Assignment 5
Possession of an illegal weapon is against the state law and it attracts a charge of a minimum of ten years and a maximum of twenty years without any parole. The constitution refers the right to possess a weapon that is a gun as a fundamental right, which is yet to be amend ended. It simply means that the administration is not justified to prosecute the businessperson for possession of the arm because it would infringe her fundamental right to possess a weapon for her self-defense and security of her business and properties.
The owner of the small oyster bar and restaurant is a business person with a good reputation and has not been accession of any criminal offense in any court. The allegation towards she should be considered unconstitutional and the case should be dropped because it lacks any criminal background or intentions. The constitution entitles the respondent's full right to refuse any search without a warrant that would identify the main purpose of search. The respondent was justified to operate her business within a single room since there was limited space for expansion. It therefore implies that the restaurant inspector had no power to demand to know or demand to check the drawers.
NRS 202.360 (1) state that one is not allowed by the constitution to possess any firearm if he or she has been charged of a felony offense and as stated earlier the respondent has not been convicted of any crime. This therefore classifies the respondent as innocent and do not fall into any of the categories that deprive a person the right to possess a firearm. The respondent has the right to self- defense in the sense that her business is subject to a variety of customers. It is also the meeting spot for those many people with different intention therefore the idea of having a firearm for her security purposes is within the law.
The respondent was not found with any evidence that indicate her intention to use the weapon in any criminal act therefore the restaurant inspectors was not in the best position's term the respondent as a criminal. The fact that the respondent allow the inspector to go ahead with the search was prove enough she had no any bad intention with the weapon. Her weapon specifically meant to ensure her security is guaranteed due to the nature of her business.
The court should drop the case since it lacks solid evidence to prove that the client was to use the weapon to commit a crime. Dropping the case would allow the restaurant inspector and other relevant authority enough time to collect relevant evidence to justify their allegations. The owners of the restaurant had full right to decline her draw to be searched because it contains confidential business document and money. Revealing the amount of cash in her drawer to a stranger would put her business at risk of attack.
Finally, the court should give much attention to the respondent in order to ensure that justice is served in the rightful manner. The evidence presented should not be considered because they are against the fundamental right of possessing a weapon.
References
Jefferson, M. (2007). Criminal law (8th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Padfield, N. (2006). Criminal law (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
