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.