Homework Help for Law

My Issue is… Gun Violence

Action 2: protest

What was this action? What did you do?

In this section, place any evidence you collected of your action.

Reflection on the Action

Reflect on this action in a paragraph of at least 5-7 sentences.

Based on the evidence and results of your action, what conclusions can you draw about your issue?

Action 2: Increase funding for mental health resources

What was this action? What did you do?

In this section, place any evidence you collected of your action.

Reflection on the Action. Reflect on this action in a paragraph of at least 5-7 sentences. Based on the evidence and results of your action, what conclusions can you draw about your issue?

My Issue is... Gun Violence

Action 2:

What was this action? What did you do?

In this section, place any evidence you collected of your action.

Reflection on the Action

Reflect on this action in a paragraph of at least 5-7 sentences.

• Based on the evidence and results of your action, what conclusions can you draw about your issue?

My Issue is... Gun Violence

Action 3:

What was this action? What did you do?

In this section, place any evidence you collected of your action.

Reflection on the Action

Reflect on this action in a paragraph of at least 5-7 sentences.

• Based on the evidence and results of your action, what conclusions can you draw about your issue?

Paul, from California, sues Danny, from Florida, for negligence for a car accident in the proper federal court seeking $100,000 in damages.  The case moves to the discovery phase. Can Paul seek information regarding Danny's car insurance?

Select one:

a. Yes, as part of initial disclosures.

b. Yes, because Paul is seeking discovery of information relevant and proportional to the claim.

c. No, because car insurance information is private.

d. Both A and B

e. None of the above

Paula and Dan were in a car accident. Paula sues Dan for negligence in the proper federal court. After the close of discovery, Paula brings a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) and Dan files an opposition. In support of her motion, Paula provides affidavits from ten eye witnesses to the car accident, all of whom state under oath that they saw Dan run a red light, which caused the car accident. Dan provides one affidavit from his wife, the passenger in his car who had drunk three glasses of wine an hour earlier, who states under oath that the light was green and Dan did not run a red light. Which of the following is correct?

Select one:

a. Because there is a disputed fact, the case must proceed to trial.

b. Because Paula has ten eye-witnesses and Dan only has one, Paula’s MSJ should be granted.

c. Dan’s one eye-witness is his wife, who might lie for her husband, and who also may have been intoxicated at the relevant time; therefore, the wife’s testimony should be disregarded as unreliable and Paula’s MSJ should be granted.

d. Both B and C

Assume Plaintiff from California sues two defendants, Defendant 1 from New York and Defendant 2 from Texas, for negligence arising from a car accident that took place in New York. Plaintiff is seeking $75,000 jointly from the defendants. Plaintiff files her case in state court. The defendants file a removal to federal court, and the plaintiff seeks a remand back to state court. How should the court rule on plaintiff’s remand?

Select one:

a. The court should not remand the case because there is diversity of citizenship.

b. The court should not remand the case because it has proper subject matter jurisdiction.

c. The court should remand the case because the claim does not raise a federal question.

d. The court should remand the case because it does not have proper subject matter jurisdiction.

e. None of the above

A man was given 6 more years after yelling at a judge during sentencing for home invasion.

Do you agree with the Judge's decision to add 6 more years to the sentence due to the man's outburst in court? Explain why or why not.

Watch that quick clip please

Do you agree with the Judge's decision to add 6 more years to the sentence due to the man's outburst in court? Explain why or why not.

Tom attended at a Toronto Blue Jays game where he consumed some alcohol. Following that he went to a bar with some friends where he consumed even more alcohol. He was clearly intoxicated. He saw John. John and Tom had a longstanding feud dating back to when they were in law school 5 years ago. During a disagreement in law school, Tom struck John in the face knocking him to the ground. No charges were laid but the two of them did not speak again. As Tom was leaving the bar, he brushed up against John and called him a “wimp” and asked him if he wanted to taste the floor again like he did 5 years ago. John got up and threw a sucker punch at Tom. Tom fell to the ground but managed to get his hand on a knife that had fallen to the ground. He got up, and stabbed John twice in the stomach. John fell to the ground. Tom then kicked him in the head and ran out of the restaurant. John died from a combination of the stab wounds and the kick to the head. Tom is charged with second degree
murder on the basis that he had the intent to cause John seriously bodily harm that he knew could result in death.

What defence/defences will Tom be able to claim at trial? Discuss whether you think such a defence/defences would be successful? Your answer should include the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code that apply

• The police find Tom in the early hours of the morning in an automobile, rummaging through a glove compartment. He tells police that he was in the car because, “I was going to steal it so I could get home.” When asked why he was looking in the glove compartment, Tom replies, “I was looking for the keys.” Discuss whether Tom’s conduct amounts to an attempt to steal the car? (5 marks)

• Tom is charged with murdering his next-door neighbour with a snow shovel and has been detained in custody awaiting his trial. Although there is no known history of mental illness, as his trial is approaching his defence lawyer, Jane finds it increasingly difficult to speak to her client. Tom’s answers to questions posed by Jane have nothing to do with what she is asking. Tom tells Jane that spirits are talking to him in his cell, and he sees visions of his Great Grandmother walking by his side and constantly talking to him. Jane asks Tom if he understands what would happen if he is found guilty of murder, and Tom’s response has nothing to do with his potential jeopardy. The trial is scheduled to commence in a week. As Tom’s lawyer, which argument should Jane be considering to raise before the trial begins? Your answer should include the appropriate section(s) of the Criminal Code that apply. (5 marks)

What is political parties government?

What is government?

What is constitution?

What is political parties?