Dissent

This case was ruled 7-1 in favor of the government. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Mr. Justice Frankfurter dissented on the case. Frankfurter agreed with the studios that the District Court had not adequately explored the facts in the consent decree. "The framing of decrees should take place in the District rather than Appellate Courts. They are invested with large discretion to model their judgments to fit the exigencies of the particular case." He pointed to the Court decision, International Salt Co. v. United States that the lower courts are the proper place for such findings of fact, to be deferred by the higher courts. He reminded the Court that the District Court had 15 months to consider the case and reviewed almost 4,000 pages of evidence. "I cannot bring myself to conclude that the product of such a painstaking process of adjudication as to a decree appropriate for such a complicated situation as this record discloses was an abuse of direction." Frankfurter was basically unhappy that the case made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. He felt that the case could have been handled by the District Court. He argued that the District Court showed a complete understanding of Sherman Law but did not use its discretion to make a decision.
(http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/paramountdoc_1948supreme.htm) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/131/case.html)

My Own Argument

I agree with the Supreme Court decision in this case. There decision was justified by the stipulations outlined in the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The film industry should not be treated less than any other major corporation in the world. I feel that no company should be allowed to monopolize their particular industry, yet it still seems to be evident within the United states today. We see this with the potential idea of the monopolization of Microsoft. I feel that all businesses should have to compete to survive. If a business is being monopolized it does not allow for other individuals in the world to start their own business in that field to compete with any of the larger corporations. We as a society should all have an opportunity to become millionaires. We should not have to draw our attention to other things just because one person is monopolizing that particular industry. Why should we have to start out at the bottom when we can start at the top. The wealth of an idea should be spread around and not held by just one individual.

Rule of Law

The main precedent to this case is the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The major film companies were in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the act. The companies were in turn found guilty of violating theses major acts. Section one has to do with restraint of illegal trade. It says that any person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony. Section two deals with the monopolizing of trade. It states that every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade of commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony. Since the movie studios were found guilty of these violations it set the precedent for independent film makers to be free of large studio interference.
(http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/sherman.html)

Reasoning of the Court

There were many different rationales behind the decision of the court. The Court found that price fixing conspiracies existed between all defendants. It found that there was a conspiracy to restrain trade by imposing "unreasonable clearances". They found that exhibitor defendants had "pooling agreements" with the studios. The profits were being shared by exhibitors and the studios. These agreements eliminated competition. It found that the defendants had discriminated against small independent exhibitor and favored larger affiliated exhibitors. The court found that on the subject of monopoly that the need for divestiture are set aside in the light of the principal stated in the Unites States v. Griffith and in Schine Chain Theaters v. the united States.

Decision of the Court

The ruling By the Supreme Court was handed down May 4, 1948. The court ruled 7-1 in the government's favor. William O. Douglas delivered the Court's opinion. The court found the studios guilty of violating antitrust laws. The verdict of the court went against the studios forcing them to sell their movie theater chains. The Supreme Court abolished block booking requiring all films be sold on an individual basis. Block booking is a system of selling multiple films to a theater as a unit. Studios used block booking to force independent theater owners to take large number of studio movies sight unseen. The Court ruled that price fixing conspiracies would no longer exist and the movie studios could no longer force exhibitors to charge minimal admission prices. Consequences of the court's decision were more independent producers and studios could produce there film products free of major studio interference and the loss of studios' rights to own their own classic film libraries. The results of the case forced studios to charge higher rents to exhibitors distributing their movies. It also forced an increase in ticket prices. (http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/paramountcase_6supreme1948.htm)

How I feel about the Supreme court?

The Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for settling disputes and interpreting the meaning of laws. Does the Supreme Court do this affectively? I feel that in some ways that it does. I feel that the Supreme Court has made many affective decisions throughout its history. Have all of these decisions been determined affectively? I think that this theory can be argued. Many questions can be posed about the Supreme Court. Should there be more men then woman? Should the views of the justices vary? Should there views be conservative or liberal? Should they have different or the same religious faiths? Should the members be of different ethnic backgrounds? Should there be more than just 9 members? Do any of these questions have any determination at all? In my opinion these views really do not have any threat to the Courts decision making as long as they are making their decisions based off of the determination of the law. When a chief justice becomes out of line and bases their decisions solely on their own opinion rather than the interpretation of the law than the Supreme Court can be found to be a little corrupt. This can open up the forum as to whether or not we need to have members of different backgrounds or do we just need to maybe get some fresh faces in the Supreme Court more often?
Elected members of the Supreme Court are elected for life. I feel like a life membership is a little flawed. I feel that as a justice ages their views of the law age with them and that they may not be as open to change as someone from a younger generation. If they put a limit on the term there would be different individuals revolving through the doors that would have a lot of fresh interpretation of the law.

Issue of the Case

In 1948 the case The United States Vs. Paramount Pictures Inc came before the Supreme Court. The major issue in this case was anti-trust. Anti-trust laws prohibit agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities, ban abusive behavior by firms dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that lead to a dominant position, and supervise mergers and acquisitions of large corporations and some joint ventures. By 1945, major movie studios owned either partially or outright 17% of the theaters in the country, accounting for 45% of the film-rental revenue.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.
The studios basically controlled everything. The court complaint charged that the producer defendants had attempted to monopolize and had monopolized the production of motion pictures. The complaint also charged that all the defendants, as distributors, had conspired to restrain and monopolize and had restrained and monopolized interstate trade in the distribution and exhibition of films by specific practices.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/131/case.html.
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony” http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

Illicit

Illicit or unlawful trade has become one of the largest crimes in the world. When you buy a knock off handbag or pair of sunglasses do you ever wonder how the person you are buying it from got the product? I myself do not think of these things when I purchase a knock off brand item. What I’m usually thinking is what a great deal I’m getting and how great it’s going to be to show people I own something expensive even though I didn’t pay full price. There is more behind your purchase than a great deal. There is a crime going on behind the scenes. There are many illegal acts taking place. For one there are people making fake product. Then they are taking this fake product and illegally distributing it all over the world. There is also a full money laundering operation. The money made from this crime needs to be cleaned so it can’t be traced. Have you ever wondered who the real criminal behind all of this illicit trading is? Well, it is you of course. You, the consumer, are actually contributing to one of the biggest crimes in the world. Without you these illicit traders could not survive. You are the main reason why they are involved in this trade in the first place. Each and every day people decide to find a cheaper alternative to buy a product. If you just worked harder and saved your money to buy the original there wouldn’t be such a major illicit trade problem in the world. The illicit traders would have no reason to trade because there was no consumer to buy and there wouldn’t be any money to be made. So think to yourself the next time you reach for your wallet to buy that fake handbag. Do I really need this? Do I really want to contribute to one of the largest crimes in the world?

What's the problem with SPAM?

What is Spam? Spam is an unsolicited e-mail that is sent for commercial purposes. Spam is nothing more than a nuisance. It can drain your computers resources, hurt your bandwith, and clutter up your e-mail. The problem with spam is it can be very dangerous if the wrong user reads them or falls victim to their prey. There are many people out there that use spam to take advantage of others. These people use unsolicited e-mails to lure people into buying items that do not exist. Then why is it ok for a seller to solicit via e-mail? Because the law says it is ok. In 2004, a federal statute, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act), went into effect. (Essentials of Business Law, Anthony L. Liuzzo, J.D., Ph.D. page 418). This law gives a seller the ok to solicit via e-mail. I feel that to protect the public the law should be that no seller is allowed to solicit via e-mail at all. There are plenty of other ways for sellers to get there advertisements out and e-mail should not be one of them. E-mail should be my personal resource and should not have to be violated by someone from the outside. I don’t appreciate the fact that another individual has access to my e-mail to figure out what my interests are. I also do not agree with the fact that these individuals can create false advertisement to take advantage of other people. There are many instances where a person has used spam to solicit other people in an unfit way. Solicitors have used spam to their advantage. Crooked solicitors have sent false e-mails stating that a product is being sold for a certain dollar amount and the purchaser never receives the product. These solicitors are wrong and should be prosecuted under the law.

Facts of the case

I have chosen the Supreme Court case The United States vs. Paramount Pictures Inc. This legal issue originated when the Federal Trade Commission began investigating film companies for potential violation under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Federal Trade Commission is an Independent agency of the United States government, established in 1914 by the Federal Trade Commission Act. The main purpose of the Federal Trade Commission is to eliminate and prevent anti-competitive business practices. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first United States Federal statute to limit cartels and monopoly. It falls under antitrust law. The Act provides: "Every contract, combination in the form of Trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal". The major film studios owned the theaters where their motion pictures were being shown, either in partnerships or outright and complete. These specific theater chains showed only the films produced by the studio that owned them. The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff ("under contract" as it was called), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned. The film studios were monopolizing theaters so they can manipulate the amount of sales that they had. (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc)

What are our landlords rights?

What kind of rights do we have as a landlord? In the movie Pacific Heights the landlords really didn’t have any rights at all. The two main characters purchased a triplex in which they would live in one apartment and rent out the other two. The characters seemed to be very precise on how they chose to rent to their potential renters. The movie showed them interviewing and showing numerous renters around. After each of the renters showed interest they asked them to fill out an application so they could do a background check. There were two instances where the renters showed disinterest in filling out the particular forms. The female character stood true to herself when one of the potential renters said they did not want to fill out the application. She stood up to him by saying that it was there rule and that he would have to in order for them to rent to him. He ultimately agreed. The male character encountered the same situation with another potential renter. The problem with him was that he gave into the potential renter and let him not fill out the application.
The renter that did not fill out the application turned out to be a poor choice for a renter. He decided to not pay the landlords and proceeded to wreak havoc on them. There is one scene where he calls the cops on the landlords because the landlord shut off his power and gas the night before. The cops stated to the landlords that it was against the law for them to do that. The landlords really didn’t have any rights at all when it came to this renter. The only thing they could do was to get a lawyer and to go through a long process of eviction.
My feeling on this is that if you own property you should have the right to say what goes on in that property. The only way your right should be taken away is if you have someone sign a contract taking away your rights. The landlords in the movie should be able to throw the renter out without having to go through the eviction process. The renter didn’t sign any written agreement giving him any rights to be there. I think that since he did not sign an agreement that he shouldn’t be allowed to stay.

3's about me

Three Names I have been called: Mikey, Aardvark, Big Perm

Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to): Gas station attendant, loan processor, Pizza delivery boy

Three Places I Have Lived: New York, Ohio, Las Vegas

Three TV Shows that I watch: Rescue Me, Entourage, Top Chef

Three places I have been: Hawaii, Mexico, Austin Texas

People that e-mail me regularly- my sister Jennifer, Brother in law Rob, Best friend Danyell

Three of my favorite foods- chicken parmigana, pizza, cheese burgers

Three cars I have driven: Chevy Blazer, Honda Civic, Mazda 3

Three things I am looking forward to: Going to Can Cun, Graduating college, Being successful

What is greed?

Greed-an excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves. I feel that greed is a really strong word, but how do we truly define greed. Is it really greedy of a corporation that has been bailed out by the government to give bonuses out to their employees? I feel that it is not. It may be greedy if they were trying to gain this money excessively, but they are not. This is money that the employees have earned. Why should they be punished because there company made a mistake and is now requesting assistance from a higher power. I don’t feel that the money they earned should be taken away from them. Some people may disagree with my opinion, but that’s exactly what it is an opinion. Don’t take this the wrong way but how can I feel greedy if I want to make money to support myself and my family.

Greed in a case such as the movie Wall Street where Geico decides to take advantage of a company for his own personal wealth is another story. There is a point where you must step in and ask yourself is this moral. He was going in and picking apart a company to make money for his own personal gain without thinking about all of the lives he could affect in the process.
These two examples depict how greed can be good and bad. Greed can be good when it is used correctly and bad when it is placed in the wrong hands.

If I could make a whack doll of any one person it would be a whack a boss doll. There are just some bosses out there that should not be in the position there in. My boss in particular is one of them. He comes from a sales background and my job that I’m in is not all about sales. There is a lot more to it. When he addresses us it is always in a sales context and it drives me insane.

What my classmates think of the legal system?

My classmates share similar thoughts about the legal system that I do. One of the things that I liked about the legal system is that it is broken down into three parts the legislative, executive and judicial branch of government. A fellow classmate of mine Angel Perez agrees. This is a quote from his blog: “This is the greatest part about our legal system; each branch of our legal system (legislative, judicial, executive) has a specific job and each branch checks one another to make sure that they all abide by the law.” ( http://alperez322.blogspot.com/ Angel L. Perez )This evaluation can be supported by what we have read in our books and what we have discussed in class about the branches of government.

A second classmate had similar opinions of how I felt about our legal system. Andrew Veliz said that “Where it tends to be corrupt is in the upper hierarchy where the money you have, the better representation you can receive”. ( http://sincidkid24.blogspot.com/ Andrew Veliz) I said that the legal system has failed when it comes to how we handle our criminals. I feel that our beliefs can be viewed as similar because we both agree that this system is flawed. However, our opinions of the way the system is flawed differ. After reading Andrew’s blog I agree with his statement as well. The evidence of our statements come from the media. It has been said that criminals have a hard time adapting back into society. An example where money equaling good representation is evident in the O.J. Simpson trial.

A third classmate of mine Gustavo Ibarra is quoted to say “I feel that the Legal system is a savior when it is not corrupted or altered.” (http://legionsphotography.blogspot.com/ Gustavo Alonso Ibarra, Jr.) I believe that his statement is similar to my opinion as well about my likes and dislikes of the system. I feel that the system does work when it is not altered. We have learned that without the legal system we would not have too much order in the world.

What I think of the legal system

I feel that the legal system is fair and flawed. One of the things that I like about the legal system is that it is broken down into a legislative, executive and judicial branch of government. The legislative branch consists of elected officials who have the responsibility for passing the laws that represent the people, the executive branch ensures that all enacted legislation is enforced and the judicial branch determines if there have been violations of the law. “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (Essentials of Business law, Anthony L. Liuzzo, J.D., PH.D. page 9)
The judicial branch allows for different levels of courts. At the federal level there are district, appeals and supreme courts. At the state level there are trial, appeals and supreme courts. At the local level there are municipal, justice of the peace and magistrate courts. Each of these courts serves a purpose. The court system allows us to take our case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow us to have a just and fair trial.
I believe the legal system has failed when it comes to how we handle our criminals. Once criminals are jailed they do not stand a chance making back into the real world. The legal system needs to do a better job at reforming criminals. I feel that the jails are an animalistic society. Inside the jails there is survival of the fittest. There has got to be a way that we can reform criminals so that they can make it back into society without ever wanting to commit another crime. We also need to somehow find a way to get criminals back into society so we can eliminate overcrowding in our jails.

MySpace Hoax Week 2

The Movie Absence of Malice and the MySpace hoax case can be compared in several ways. One way is that in both these cases individual lives were tampered with. Lori Drew and her daughter tampered with the life of the 13 year old girl Megan in the MySpace hoax and the DA and newspaper tampered with Michael Gallagher’s life in Absence of Malice. In my opinion the party’s in both the Absence of Malice and the MySpace case were wrongfully accused according to the law.

I feel that in the movie Absence of Malice Gallagher’s character shouldn’t have been accused of something just so the D A could get information out of him. They should have gone straight to the source without allowing the reporter to leak the information. They should have realized prior to the reporter leaking the information that it could affect an innocent person’s life.

In the case of the MySpace hoax Lori Drew was wrongfully accused for the charges of accessing computers without authorization, because there was no law against it. However, there should be some kind of law in place that protects innocent people from such abuse as creating a false MySpace account to hurt another individual. In the aspect of morals Lori Drew and her younger daughter were wrong. They should have known that what they were doing was not morally correct. One of the problems with society today is that nobody thinks about the consequences, they only think about how things will pan out to better themselves. In the MySpace case the parents of the girl that hung herself could have monitored her time on the account better since she was under the legal age of 14 to have a MySpace account. The parent’s stated they did monitor the account. If they were monitoring the account they should have prevented their daughter from having a relationship on the MySpace page.

How I feel about Lawyers?

How do I really feel about lawyers? I have mixed feelings about lawyers. I feel that some can be ethical and moral and some are there to take advantage of our misfortunes. I personally have never had an experience with a lawyer for my own case but have dealt with one for a friend. The experience I had with dealing with this particular lawyer was a great one. I had to have my friend Shaun bailed out of jail after he was arrested for DUI. Some friends and I called this particular lawyer and within 8 hours he had my friend out of jail. This particular lawyer was there to take our call at 5:00am without hesitation. This lawyer did not even charge us that much to help us get bail posted.

I have heard of some cases with public defenders where the defender did not even remember the person’s name and they ended up with jail time. There was an incident that I heard once where a particular attorney who was known for injury cases took a murder case and then never showed up to the court appearance. I can just imagine that there has to be quite a few lawyers out there that use their knowledge of the law to take advantage of other people. There are no perfect people in this world. Actually, I feel that most people in the world are out for themselves is some way and that links into my notion that there are corrupt lawyers. I have told myself that I never want to be put in a position where I needed a lawyer because I wouldn’t want my fait o be put in the hands of another individual.