For this assignment, you get to be bad.  You are a debit collector for Annie May, a new student loan company.  Your company offers private student loans at almost outrageous interest rates.  You trick hapless students by offering an additional three-month forbearance on their repayment plan if they friend Annie May on Facebook.  Most of your chump-student-borrowers add you to their page, unaware of your sinister plot.  For any student who goes into default, you, as well-paid representative of Annie May, get to flood his or her Facebook page with messages regarding owed debt.   Here's what you need to do for full credit:

 (1)Write a brief action plan of how you intend to legally taunt your borrowers on their Facebook page.

(2) Compose a brief post, FB-style, in which you demand your money.  Make this as threatening as you can without crossing the harassment line.

(3)As a creditor, you have rights as well.  Discuss how your borrower might accidentally reveal his or her bad spending on Facebook?

(4)In Chapter 4, we covered ethics.  Do you think a bill collector's taunts violate any of the four social ethics discussed in the text?  Why or why not.

*Remember, this is worth 40 points.  I wish you the best of luck.

Hookem and Crookem Law Firm, L.L.C.

____________________________________________________

­­­

Date: May 11, 2012

To:  Ambulance Chaser Task Force (J. Pilarski, A. Cyrus, D. Davis)

From: Michael J. Hookem, Senior Partner

Subject:  Palsgraf v. Trans Florida Railroad

Our client, Annie Palsgraf, underwent plastic surgery last week.  Unfortunately, the package of fireworks, carelessly dropped by a TFR-employed porter, exploded, causing rockets to shoot from the fallen cardboard box.  One such rocket hit Mrs. Palsgraf right between the eyes, knocking her several feet from the commuter rail.   Her face, nearly blown off from the rocket's impact, became the least of her worries.  Other travelers, alarmed by the explosion, started pushing and shoving, ignoring our client as she stumbled to the ground.  As more rockets continued firing from the package, commuters began running for shelter, trampling Mrs. Palsgraf in the process.

Our client wishes to sue TFR for twenty million dollars.  I believe if we use proximate cause, we will win this case. Remember, as lawyers, we must have an argument that passes the laughter test.  This particular fact pattern suggests unforeseeable events.  For that reason, we should employ Cardozo's formula for negligence.  In case you've forgotten this is the formula for negligence:

·         Existence of Duty

·         Breach of Duty

·         Causation and Proximate Cause

·         Injury

To determine if there was an existence of duty, we must see if the severity of harm (SH) added to the likely hood of harm (LH) is more than the cost of precaution (CP).  Next, to determine whether a breach of duty existed, we have to determine what a reasonably prudent person would have done in the defendant's shoes.  Now we need to prove causation and proximate cause.  The standard we use is more likely than not.  So in this case, we would say, "More likely than not, but for the TFR porter dropping the package, the rocket would not have flown into Mrs. Palsgraf's face."  Second to last, we must prove proximate cause.  If we are using Cardozo, we must look from the defendant's perspective and use the foresight approach.  Then we must characterize the risk before determining the zone of danger.  The risk of a rocket firing from a fallen box and hitting someone in the face is moderate during a regular work day at the station.  Finally, we determine the zone of danger.  We want the incident to be foreseeable and the zone of danger to be remote enough to include the plaintiff.  Lastly, we need to say that it is clear Mrs. Palsgraf sustained injuries from the flying rocket.

I have confidence that there is more than a 50% chance we can win this case.  If you have any questions, please email me at hookem@scam.com

Blog Question:

Suppose you are council for TFR.  You are working with three other attorneys.  Discuss how you would organize a rebuttal to Hookem's claims.  Look to Chapter 3 and talk about your defense using strategic planning (subject, purpose, readers, and context).  Finally, discuss what, as a group, your project outcome would be.

*For extra credit:  Above, I have given you the entire formula for negligence.  This is just how J.P. Morgan or any plaintiff's lawyer would argue before a jury.  See if you can apply the negligence formula to brief fact pattern I've laid out for you.  Let me know if you need extra help.  Good luck!

July 31, 2012

Sean Watkins, Head-Scumbag Engineer

Apple Electronic Services: Complaint Dept.

2134 Citrus Drive

Los Angeles, CA

(2)Dear Mr. Watkins,

Hey, Watkins, what the hell, man?  I bought yet another IPOD Nano from your lousy company the other day.  This is the second one I bought, and I am, quite frankly, pissed off. (3)  You see, I went for a run the other day.  You know, like exercise. It's probably something a hard-working, coffee-drinking, pencil-pushing guy like yourself knows nothing about.  So, allow me to give you a brief tutorial on how the human body works:  When you move around a lot, you begin sweat, and when you sweat, you burn calories. And when you burn calories, you lose weight.  Now, I know pale, air-conditioned drones like you quiver at the idea of doing anything physical; however, for the rest of us beautiful people, we like to stay fit, which is hard to do thanks to your product.

(3)Let me explain my difficulty. I promise not use too many words because I know how illiterate you are:  When I exercise, I sweat.  Sweat drips.  Yes, it does.  It's a natural phenomenon scientists call gravity.  So when the sweat, the downward pull of gravity causes the drips to fall on my Nano.  The salts fall into the guts of the IPod, causing a short.  This short burns out my IPOD, and then when I run, I am without my tunes.  This sucks!  I mean, this is second time my Nano shorted out.  Honestly, can't you California egg-heads design an MP3 player impervious to human fluids?  For $200, your product should be almost bulletproof.  Whoever heard of an MP3 player ruined by sweat?  My Sony Walkman from the 90s can take more abuse.  I can drown that damn thing in water and it still works.  However, just a few drips of sweat render your Nano retarded.

(4)Seriously, Watkins, I don't know such pond scum like you gathered enough cells to grow a spine and stand upright.  I suppose someone in your gene pool forgot to float over a sub-average brain.  How hard is it to design a protective case for a product used during exercise?  Because of you and your company's lack of foresight, I must request a new Nano.  As they say, "Third time is the charm."  Maybe by the fifth Nano you'll be inspired to lay off the Twinkies and do what you're paid to do.

(5)Sincerely,
Zeus in a Speedo,
a.k.a Charlie Sheen

IamGoduarenot@gmail.com

Instructions:  First, turn in your book to page 276.  Look at the sample letter vs. Sheen's letter.  Identify the five mistakes in this letter.  

Second, you must write Charlie Sheen a response email to this complaint.  Remember, you are a brand steward for a Apple.  As insulting as Mr. Sheen is, he is also a customer paying for your product.  Write a professional email in which you try resolve this issue as best you can. 

Third, in a separate paragraph, explain why it is important you remain calm, cool, and collect when writing Mr. Sheen back.  What could be at stake by writing angry response back to him?

You must do these three things to get the full 20 points.  I wish you the best of luck.

            The Two Prisoners

               (I)

Gina was a good-time gal;

A real looker of a hooker if there ever was one:

Her creamy skin glowed in the city light,

And she'd show you a good time if the price was right.

                 (II)

Some hot-blooded, naïve boy

Thought he could love a woman like her.

He paid his money, and she broke his heart.

He lost his head over a smoky tart.

                  

                  (III)

Downtown, on one cold and windy Saturday night,

He lurked in the shadows, holding a knife.

Gina came walking by in her sexy coat,

Ran up behind her and he slit her throat.

                   (IV)

Now the rich pretty boy's in jail today,

With a sunken heart and head hung low.

Some fake good news to him I chime,

While I spend his daddy's cocaine money and bide my time.

                 (V)

No wants to lose the love they have

No one wants to feel what they really feel.

No one wants to see what they see.

It's better to be prisoner than to be set free.

             

                 (VI)
I had love once too:

Didn't kill her with a knife—

Didn't spite her when she went away,

But the memories haunt me to this day.

                (VII)

So, I paid my money, and I broke her heart:

Watched as our love crumbled piece-by-piece.

Career-driven, I stuck with my books

And never noticed the tears that stained her good looks.

             

             (VIII)

Years have gone by,

I sit alone with my filing cabinet full of horrors,

Sometimes with a sunken heart and my head hung low:

How I got so poisoned I guess I'll never know?

                 (IX)

At night, alone, I sigh her name,

A lone voice hits the dark ceiling.

No reply from the one I was so fond:

So I wake up alone to wade through the world's shallow pond.

                (X)

Me and the rich boy side-by-side:

I sit outside but so does he.

Both of us killed what we loved

Pushed what never should have been shoved.

                (XI)

No wants to lose the love they have.

No one wants to feel what they really feel.

No one wants to see what they see.

That's why it's better to be a prisoner than to be set free.

               (XII)

We want to see the world for what it's not.

Give me a shovel of sand to throw on your weary head.

Truth is around for all to see

But I'd rather be prisoner again than set free.

For this last blog posting, you are to write a brief analysis of this poem.  To do this, you must, in your own words, answer these two questions:  Is it easier to live a lie and be happy or is it better to face hard realities of life that plague us day-to-day? What is the main message of this poem?  From there, discuss some of the ethical components of this poem in relation to this poem.  Is there any justice, utility, or care going on here?  Please explain.  Best of luck on your final blog response.

Billy and Sarah began arguing in their kitchen.   Sarah called him a male-chauvinist pig and a nasty drunk. Billy, holding a half-empty bottle of Patron, replied, “You’re a no-good-rotten-bitch!” and swung the bottle at her face, narrowly missing her.  Sarah took a step back, inching her way toward the Fissler knife block Billy’s mother bought them for Christmas last year.  Billy stumbled toward Sarah and swung the bottle at her again, splashing streaks of golden-brown liquid on the marble-tiled floor. “Come on,” Billy laughed, “have a drink with me, slut.”  Sarah grabbed one of the finely crafted German blades and held it front of her new breasts.   The brassy light from the kitchen lights reflected the pure silver of the blade into Billy’s Tequila-tinted eyes.  Billy turned his head to side, looking somewhat like sickened vampire in front of a holy cross.  With effort, he tossed his head back in her direction: “What are you going to do—stab me? Huh? With my mommy’s nice knives? That will be a five-hundred dollar wound.” 

            “Don’t come any closer,” Sarah protested, gripping the handle of the knife.  Not listening, Billy continued his wobbly march toward Sarah.  As he lifted the bottle over his head, Sarah drove the knife right into Billy’s chest.   The bottle of Patron fell to the floor, shattering into several pieces.  Billy collapsed onto the open-door of the dishwasher, breaking it with his weight. The cacophonous sound of silverware and dishes from the lower-part of the Maytag washer followed as Billy hit the floor.  His eyes dropped to the sight of the dark handle sticking out of his chest.  He arched both his eyebrows and, with an unsteady hand, yanked the knife from his flesh. 

            Billy whimpered when the pain from his actions registered with his inebriated brain.  Sarah raised both her hands to her face, pulling down her bow-shaped lips with her finger tips. She felt the coldness from the band of the ring on her third left finger.  Warm tears poured from her eyes, streaking her tan, powdered cheeks. Billy focused his gaze on the bloody blade.  Had he been a more philosophical man, he might have appreciated the cruel, ironic twist of fate that led to his end: to die from a gift bought by his mother in celebration of his engagement to a woman he felt he could not live without.  The love of his mother united with the betrayal of his lover into one blunt instrument.  But Billy’s last thoughts never made it to those depths of reason reserved for reflective men.  Forever the lackadaisical playboy and Monday-night football fan, he could pull only immediate words that were full of emotion and scented with booze.  He dropped the knife; blood trickled out his mouth when he spoke: “Oh, baby… I think you broke… my heart.”  Billy’s eyes rolled into his head.  His arms suddenly relaxed and flopped to the floor.

             You are a legal intern working for the DA's office in Florida.  The prosecutor you intern for asks you to review all the posts on Sarah's Facebook page.   Why would you check Sarah's Facebook page?  What type of evidence would you find there if you were trying to convict Sarah of second degree murder?  Discuss what you specifically hope to find on Sarah's page.   Next, write a brief memo disclosing your findings and post it on your blog.  Did Sarah violate any social ethics with her postings (social, personal, or conservation ethics?  Your findings can be good or bad for Sarah.  Use some creativity here.  In this memo, you should name your primary, secondary, and tertiary readers.  This blog is worth twenty points.  You have until June 1st to complete this assignment.

Hookem and Crookem Law Firm, L.L.C.

____________________________________________________

­­­

Date: May 11, 2012

To:  Ambulance Chaser Task Force (J. Pilarski, A. Cyrus, D. Davis)

From: Michael J. Hookem, Senior Partner

Subject:  Palsgraf v. Trans Florida Railroad

Our client, Annie Palsgraf, underwent plastic surgery last week.  Unfortunately, the package of fireworks, carelessly dropped by a TFR-employed porter, exploded, causing rockets to shoot from the fallen cardboard box.  One such rocket hit Mrs. Palsgraf right between the eyes, knocking her several feet from the commuter rail.   Her face, nearly blown off from the rocket's impact, became the least of her worries.  Other travelers, alarmed by the explosion, started pushing and shoving, ignoring our client as she stumbled to the ground.  As more rockets continued firing from the package, commuters began running for shelter, trampling Mrs. Palsgraf in the process.

Our client wishes to sue TFR for twenty million dollars.  I believe if we use proximate cause, we will win this case. Remember, as lawyers, we must have an argument that passes the laughter test.  This particular fact pattern suggests unforeseeable events.  For that reason, we should employ Cardozo's formula for negligence.  In case you've forgotten this is the formula for negligence:

·        
-em and Crook-em Law FirmExistence of Duty

·         Breach of Duty

·         Causation and Proximate Cause

·         Injury

To determine if there was an existence of duty, we must see if the severity of harm (SH) added to the likely hood of harm (LH) is more than the cost of precaution (CP).  Next, to determine whether a breach of duty existed, we have to determine what a reasonably prudent person would have done in the defendant's shoes.  Now we need to prove causation and proximate cause.  The standard we use is more likely than not.  So in this case, we would say, "More likely than not, but for the TFR porter dropping the package, the rocket would not have flown into Mrs. Palsgraf's face."  Second to last, we must prove proximate cause.  If we are using Cardozo, we must look from the defendant's perspective and use the foresight approach.  Then we must characterize the risk before determining the zone of danger.  The risk of a rocket firing from a fallen box and hitting someone in the face is moderate during a regular work day at the station.  Finally, we determine the zone of danger.  We want the incident to be foreseeable and the zone of danger to be remote enough to include the plaintiff.  Lastly, we need to say that it is clear Mrs. Palsgraf sustained injuries from the flying rocket.

I have confidence that there is more than a 50% chance we can win this case.  If you have any questions, please email me at hookem@scam.com

Blog Question:

Suppose you are council for TFR.  You are working with three other attorneys.  Discuss how you would organize a rebuttal to Hookem's claims.  Look to Chapter 3 and talk about your defense using strategic planning (subject, purpose, readers, and context).  Finally, discuss what, as a group, your project outcome would be.

*For extra credit:  Above, I have given you the entire formula for negligence.  This is just how J.P. Morgan or any plaintiff's lawyer would argue before a jury.  See if you can apply the negligence formula to brief fact pattern I've laid out for you.  Let me know if you need extra help.  Good luck!

Summer A Blog Post I

Blog Posting I (Summer A)

This first blog posting deals with an ethical question.  Remember, there is no right or wrong answer.  Suppose a colleague of yours left her computer on.   You try your best to mind your own business, but the temptation overwhelms your senses of decency (not that you really had any to begin with).  So, as you peer over the desk, you see an unsent email on her screen.   With famished eyes, you read the text, perusing every juicy morsel of text.  It appears that, Jane, your colleague and competitor, has left the following message for your accidental perusal:

Dear Rich:

After last night together, I decided that I want to run away with you. I know it's crazy, but crazy and love go together fire and passion.  I don't care about my husband or kids.  All I care about is you.  I miss the strong squeeze of your arms around my waist and your heavy breathing against my cheek at night ;-)  It's hard to go an hour without your firm, gentle touch.

I know you worry that my husband will find out.  Well, you shouldn't.  He doesn't know anything about us.  Actually, he really believes I still love him.  I can hide from him, but I can't hide from you.  Hold me, take me, and love me.

Jane X0X0

Now you stand at the computer with the power to wreck the lives of two people employed within the company. Rich is the senior technical writer and Jane is a products specialist.  Both are employees of Mastech, a microchip company.  You never liked Jane, and she is your direct competitor for the big promotion.

 No one is in the office at the moment.  You have four scenarios to choose from.  Pick one of them and write your first response on your own personal blog page.

(I)You decide to cc Jane's email to everyone in the company.  Do you think doing this would be a justifiable action?  What might happen to the people involved should everyone know Jane's feelings about Rich?  Could you gain anything by doing something to hurt these two?  What might you lose if you sent the email?

(2)Read over chapter 11 of your text and discuss how Jane is incorrectly using email?  Also, what legal trouble could Jane face by sending this email through work?

(3)You decide to do nothing.  Despite your hatred for Jane, you don't want to risk any backlash from the parties involved.  Is this is a wise decision?  Would your personal outcome be better or worse if you decide to walk away?

(4)Suddenly, Jane appears in the cubicle, startling you.  She demands to know what you are doing in her work area.  How would handle this situation?  Would you mention that you read her email to Rich?  Would you threaten her with that evidence?  Or would you feign ignorance?