Final Review

My current practice towards the final is simply at this ppoint managment, reviews, and research of the laws brought about during the case. Under the reasoning of the Case Nixon him self not only broke the law but littarly danced on it like a Grave to attempted to keep him self in the clean. I will go in depth into the case to look for any potential loop holes and to see what exacly happend point for point. My progress is Massivly sluggish and deserves to be brought up to speed as soon as possible when time is avalable despite recent ... surcomstance. Under the Reasoning though I would like to know of more reputable records of the case if possible to where I can review it more clearly and clearly refrence the laws broken other then the ovouse. Despite this horrid Scandle Nixon did end the Biological Warfar and deserves some respect for actions. Also details dealing Directly into the presentation of this would be nice since the Final project document seems brief yet stright forward lacks description which would make this stronger documantation. Any help is welcome or any commentation, However the Work will be done come hell or high water.

Facts of the case

President Nixon authorized an attack on Cambodia, where 4 students were killed in the incident. He and his colleges were then put into a conspiracy to with hold information to prevent this from becoming public and to prevent their trails and prosecutions. That being said burglars who had come to rob had stumbled upon the information and were forced to silence and all tapes with held. Due to this the court challenged the president’s ability to with hold tapes from the courts simply because of statues. The courts found it un-reasonable and forced the forwarding of the tapes, their by making the president release his hidden evidence to the courts.

Pacific heights

Under the reasoning given and understanding, the home owner has these rights which were violated drastic violated. One: the right to investigate property under said management. By changing the locks and preventing the owner from entering upkeep can not be mantained and their for unlawfully prevents the owner from providing his duty. Two: violation of Contract as well as a lack there of. Littarly The man made a verbal contract saying and wishing to pay for his rent and never did. Under that a contract was never writen and property was not handed over so there for the resident was not a resident but a trasspasser. These are only a few and there for in their own allow the owner to turn off, evict, or report said Trasspasser and have them removed from the primeses. Also under law any disruption to said naboring areas including other rooms after warning has been given would be remarked as public diruption. On top of that undo cunstruction or deconstruction would be illegal by prospect and lack of permit to work on property.

Instant Extra Credit

Three Names I have been called:
AJ
Blaze
Mr. DeBlase

Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to):
Tutor
Bagel Maker
Dietary assistant

Three Places I Have Lived:
Apple Apartments
Charles Ct.
Meridian dr.

Three TV Shows that I watch:
Soul eater
Chaos; Head
Basqash

Three places I have been:
Hover Dam
Disney Land
Every Game stop in las vegas

People that e-mail me regularly
Rita Zertch
Rika jefferson
Brandon Noles

Three of my favorite foods
Clams
Lobster
Steak

Three cars I have driven:
Don’t Drive

Three things I am looking forward to:

My Animation
Dating again
Making my stories come to life.

Greed is good

Moronic! I put it simply on this level of speech due to the fact that work and hard effort are what win a pay check and nothing less. To have acceptable value put into bonus for those who only hold and re-evaluate stock is simply moronic. Growing up in not poverty but in mild middle class with little money despite what three people earned I find all of this simply put as a stupid Rayne of those who feel they can gain money by using others rather then simply putting forth a effort or looking for short cuts threw stocks they need only control on a governmental stand point I can see the idea of preventing monopoly as well as upholding the American dream however there should be laws such acts that demolish companies during take over that risk destroying others livelihood that being said Greed being called good is simply a joke based off a man’s idea that by using others, for closing on that which he thinks is a bad investment or more profitable to sell then to simply build upon. On a ideal look I see the fall of not only the United states but the fall of the world in the hands of morons who simply thing that money is the only thing that matters in this world and having nothing but is the only way to live. In the words found “ when is it enough” to these people whom never work and whom think of others as simply play things to be sold off or used are as I said earlier and will stand by fully heartedly Moronic.

Bong hits 4 jesus

This is a interesting case to me because it boiled right down to constitutional rights. Now to me there are a verity of issues that are emplace here however I will agree with the principle on this one under the principle of law that We as American Citizens herby are given the freedom and right to do as we please up until it infringes upon the rights of others. Now that being said the principles Ideas where not misplaced however his all around approach was wrong. That being said the Authority was clearly in the wrong as far as not presenting the fact that posting the banner was a violation or rights upon others as well as solicitation of Illegal Drugs on grounds where Minors are present. Had this been made clear and the consequences of the actions brought forth the student may have actually backed down However without doing that the Authority at large did leave an opening allowing for a argument of first amendment rights. That being said he left a loop hole as well as to some extenuate did violate the constitutional rights. "While children assuredly do not 'shed their constitutional rights ... at the schoolhouse gate,' . . . the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school." was used and frankly It is correct under any terms that students should and DO have the rights of any other citizen of the United States of America. That being said in this particular case it Is hard to state that the student was in the wrong for challenging the statement So both sides have both Rights and wrongs. That being said I will side on the Childs side under the violation of first amendment however under the reasoning behind the Authority figure I will state their actions are not In the complete wrong but should be more refined In the future to prevent such problems.