Supreme Court Case: ASIC V. Andrew Lindberg

To recover losses from the debt owed, Husky filed a complaint in the bankruptcy case of Ritz, arguing Ritz’ transfer of assets form one company he owned to the other, is “actual fraud” under the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge exceptions 11.U.S.C.. §523(a)(2)(A), and does not negate his liability to Husky. The District affirms Ritz was liable under state law, however the debt did not originate by “actual fraud” and could be discharged under bankruptcy. FACTS In 2003 to 2007, Husky International Electronics, Inc., supplied components used in electronic devices to Chrysalis Manufacturing Corp., when the respondent was the Director, resulting in a debt of

I am writing to you to address the Lockhart v. United States case. The issue being tried is, whether or not the mandatory minimum should apply to Lockhart because his previous conviction was of sexual abuse against an adult not a minor or a ward. I choose this case because it is an example of the past affecting the future. In this case Lockhart’s prior crime is affecting how his case is being tried currently. My past has affected my future with every decision I make and things that have happened in my life.

Westover v United States: In Kansas City, Westover was arrested as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies. The FBI received a report that Westover was wanted in California on a felony charge. The night of the arrest and the next morning, Westover was questioned by local police. FBI agents also interrogated Westover for two and a half hours at the station. Westover signed two statements, which were prepared by one of the agents during the questioning, to both California robberies.

Vonlee Titlow was tried for murder when she and her aunt Billie Rodgers killed Billie's wealthy husband Donald Rodgers. The prosecution Presented Titlow with a plea bargain of manslaughter, for her testimony against her aunt Billie in her trial. Shortly before the Trial of Titlow's aunt Billie, she had a conversation with an officer, who instructed her not to take the plea if she was, in fact, innocent. After this conversation, Titlow got rid of her current lawyer for new counsel in her case. Toca who was brought in as this new counsel fought to get the length of the plea reduced to a lower term.

_ Good Cause document was very generic and did not clearly explain the good cause reason why the rep payee had submitted late filing of CDR hearing appeal. missing in good cause letter was rep payee was actively pursuing an appeal with section 301 and after further clarification from the office D47 she decided to request a hearing request with good cause.

Polly Ann Myers Polly Ann Myers and Autherine Lucy were trying to get admission to the University of Alabama. The university didn’t allow them to attend classes at the university. This was a violation to the Fourteenth Amendment. The situation with Polly and Autherine went to court. The case was called the Lucy v. Adams case.

In the case of Timothy Ivory Carpenter V. UNITED STATES Did the government overstep its bounds in Detroit without getting a probable cause warrant, and did the government violated the 4th amendment of Timothy Ivory Carpenter? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,but upon probable cause, the police have the right to searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That is the 4th amendment. So what are the facts of the case then? (“United States v. Carpenter.”

Karina Dyal PHIL 340: Ethics and Law Legal Brief Assignment—Lawrence v. Texas 04/01/17 Case: Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) Facts: Oral and anal sex between two individuals from the same gender was deemed illegal—implemented through a Georgia statute. Hardwick who was an adult male, was charged in 1982 for violating the statute by engaging in sexual activities with another male in his home. The case was not pursued by the District Attorney, who also decided to not have the case presented before a grand jury. Hardwick went to the federal district court where he questioned the statute’s constitutionality. Issue: Does the U.S. Constitution give homosexual individuals the fundamental right to have sexual intercourse, and therefore renders the laws

Kent v. United States 383 US 541 (1966) PROCEDURAL FACTS The defendant, Morris Kent Jr., was arrested by authorities under the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia under charges of housebreaking, robbery, and rape. The defendant was subject to exclusive jurisdiction under the Juvenile Court as he was 16 at the time. Juvenile court jurisdiction was waived and Kent was sent to trial under the regular procedure of the District Court. The defendant was convicted under the District Court of the District of Columbia on six counts of robbery and housebreaking but was acquitted of the rape charges by plea of insanity.

There were many court cases that were discussed in class regarding the mob versus the individual. The most important ones were the United States v. Schwimmer, Roe v. Wade, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and Brown v. Board of Education. In all but one of the cases above, the Mob (the government) used its power to stop the individual from pursuing their American dream. The individual was right in all of the cases because they had the right to express themselves and pursue their dream; and the government had to right to stop them from following it. Starting with the Schwimmer case, the individual was right because the government was not giving her a valid reason as to why they were denying her citizenship.

Consider the Supreme Court of Canada's 2012 decision in R v. Ipeelee. Which of the two summaries of the reasons of the Supreme Court justices is most persuasive? R v. Ipelee, 2012 SCC 13 (Links to an external site.) [Ipeelee], is a complicated case. Ipeelee (39 years old, raised without parental guidance (in an abusive home), alcoholic and on drugs, history of committing violent offences (against women) when intoxicated)) was declared long-term offenders and had long-term supervision orders (LTSOs) imposed.

Michael Terceiro, 'ACCC v Ticketek - a non-event?' (2012) 64(3) Keeping Good Companies 158-161

Background

The policy goes ahead to set out the categories of violations and the corresponding action that should be taken to remedy these violations. The manual provides that progressive steps should be taken unless the case involves a serious misconduct. The failure of Jogbra to follow this progressive system breached the implied contract created by the progressive disciplinary system set out in the manual (Yoder

The defendant was in breach of Sections 52 and 64 and thus Rafferty was ordered to restrain from the business for three years. Tax Evasion Manny and Bella had decided to evade taxation by claiming that all the income obtained from their business is their alone and thus were culpable under the Tax Administration Act 1953, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and Criminal Code Act 1995. However, the approach of dealing with tax crimes depends on the scale and severity of abuse. In this case, the Commonwealth director of public prosecution and the Australian Taxation Office can press charges against Manny and Bella for tax evasion. Once found guilty, the courts would impose security bonds, prison sentences, fines and additional penalties, as well as community service orders to the couple.