According to the text, white-collar crime refers to offenses committed by workers in the course of their commercial activities. In this case study, you will explore white-collar crime as committed by Julian Assange.

Read the article titled “U.S. v. WikiLeaks: espionage and the First Amendment”, located at http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40653249/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/t/us-v-wikileaks-espionage-first-amendment/. Next, view the indictment titled “18 U.S.C. § 793: US Code – Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information”, located at http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793.

Write a three to five (3-5) page paper in which you:

1. Examine three (3) elements of white-collar crime and then determine whether or not defendant Julian Assange has committed a white-collar crime or any action that requires prosecution. Provide a rationale to support your position.
2. Summarize the Espionage Act, and identify three (3) of the most significant portions of the Act, which you believe Assange infringed upon. Provide support for your opinion.
3. Analyze the significance of the growing support for Assange and then examine the degree to which the support he receives is likely a result of his actions of committing a victimless and costless crime. Next, give your opinion as to whether Assange got the outcome that he intended as a result of his actions. Provide a rationale to support your response.
4. As a result of a number of overwhelming facts surrounding this case, debate the likelihood of the Department of Justice categorizing Assange’s behavior as deviant. Next, determine three (3) possible effects on the pursuit of justice if the Justice Department does or does not consider Assange’s behavior deviant. Justify your response.
5. Use at least three (3) quality academic resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar type Websites do not qualify as academic resources.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

• Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format.

Divorces can be contested or uncontested. What is the difference between the two types? Are they handled differently? What information is necessary to know to get divorced? There are certain disclosure rules for a Property Settlement Agreement to be deemed valid. What are those rules, and what is the consequence of a violation of these rules? Further, read the scenario below and answer the following questions too.

John and Donna have been married eight years and live in New York. They want to get a divorce; they both agree that it is the right thing to do. Donna found out that John was having an affair for almost a year. They no longer love each other or wish to be together. Discuss whether this is a contested or uncontested divorce.

Do you think this information is sufficient to determine the nature of the divorce? What more information might you need? Would your answer change if you knew that they have an eight-year-old son, Matthew? What are the necessary actions for filing and completing an uncontested and contested divorce? In the process of getting the divorce, they negotiated a Property Settlement Agreement. John and Donna have listed their assets and liabilities. The agreement is prepared, and both parties sign the agreement. Donna then learns that John failed to disclose all his assets. Is the Property Settlement Agreement valid? Under what circumstances would the Property Settlement Agreement be valid despite John’s failure to disclose assets?

Justify your ideas and responses by using appropriate examples and references from Westlaw (including primary sources such as cases, statutes, rules, regulations, etc.), government websites, peer-reviewed legal periodicals (not lawyer blogs), which can be supplemented by law dictionaries or the textbook. This means you need to use more than just your text and legal dictionaries.

150 WORDS EACH case scenario

case scenario 1. 

Please read the following case scenario below. You will be using these facts to answer questions below. 

At 10:00 am on May 11th, 2013, First Lieutenant (LT) Susan Smith and Captain (CPT) Pamela Boyd, were married in the King County Courthouse in Seattle, Washington. On November 6, 2012, Washington became the tenth jurisdiction in the United States for same-sex couples to legally marry.  LT Smith and CPT Boyd were, at the time, both stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McCord.

In attendance at the wedding in the Courthouse were LT Smith’s mother and sister, CPT Boyd’s father, step-mother, and step-brother and Colonel (COL) Lopez and Captain (CPT) Henderson, friends of the couple. The ceremony ended at 10:30 am and the group walked out Courthouse using the Jefferson Street exit. 

That morning members of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) were gathered in City Hall Park, a small urban park owned by the City of Seattle. City Hall Park is located across the street from the King County Courthouse on Jefferson Street. The purpose of this gathering was to protest against the marriage of Smith and Boyd.

In accordance with City of Seattle Ordinances, the NOM group obtained the proper Special Event Permit to hold a gathering/ demonstration in a City Park and they obeyed police instructions.  Seventy five people were demonstrating by holding up signs and using megaphones to state their message. The signs and verbal messages over the megaphone included “God’s Marriage, One Man + One Woman”, “Gay marriage is evil”, “America is Doomed”, “Lesbians will go to hell”, “Military Dykes Die!”

It wasn’t until Smith and Boyd exited the Courthouse with their friends and family, they saw the signs and heard the messages of the demonstrators across the street in City Hall Park. The demonstrators did not engage in direct conversation with any person from the wedding party, including CPT Boyd and LT Smith.

COL Lopez and CPT Henderson were so upset and angry by these messages that they ran across the street and started beating the demonstrators. Initially they could not be controlled by the police and continued to beat on two of the demonstrators for a period of approximately five minutes resulting in the death of one protestor and serious bodily injury to another.  The police arrested many of the protesters for breach of peace and they arrested Lopez and Henderson for assault, battery and murder.

Please answer the following questions:

1. According to the Supreme Court case law, does the fighting words doctrine apply in this case?  Why or why not?

2. Is the speech of NOM protected speech under the First Amendment? Why or why not? What case law would you rely upon? 

3. If your last name begins with A – M, represent CPT Boyd and LT Smith, how will you argue that the First Amendment did not protect NOM’s speech? What re-course does CAPT Boyd and LT Smith have in the court of law? 

4. If your last name begins with N – Z, represent NOM, how will you argue that they were exercising their protected First Amendment rights? Specifically, what  case law would you use defend them? 

Please note that your answers have nothing to do with your personal feelings, thoughts or experiences with these issues. Your answers are based purely on the law, specifically precedent set by case law. Reviewing the week 3 lesson will be very helpful to you in finding relevant case law. 

After you have answered these questions respond to at least 3 student’s postings. Respond to students who have offered a different perspective or opinion than yours. Be sure to ask thought-provoking questions of your classmates to further and deepen the discussion. 

case scenario 2.

Please read the following case scenario below. You will be using these facts to answer questions below. 

At 10:00 am on May 11th, 2013, First Lieutenant (LT) Susan Smith and Captain (CPT) Pamela Boyd, were married in the King County Courthouse in Seattle, Washington. On November 6, 2012, Washington became the tenth jurisdiction in the United States for same-sex couples to legally marry.  LT Smith and CPT Boyd were, at the time, both stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McCord.

In attendance at the wedding in the Courthouse were LT Smith’s mother and sister, CPT Boyd’s father, step-mother, and step-brother and Colonel (COL) Lopez and Captain (CPT) Henderson, friends of the couple. The ceremony ended at 10:30 am and the group walked out Courthouse using the Jefferson Street exit. 

That morning members of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) were gathered in City Hall Park, a small urban park owned by the City of Seattle. City Hall Park is located across the street from the King County Courthouse on Jefferson Street. The purpose of this gathering was to protest against the marriage of Smith and Boyd.

In accordance with City of Seattle Ordinances, the NOM group obtained the proper Special Event Permit to hold a gathering/ demonstration in a City Park and they obeyed police instructions.  Seventy five people were demonstrating by holding up signs and using megaphones to state their message. The signs and verbal messages over the megaphone included “God’s Marriage, One Man + One Woman”, “Gay marriage is evil”, “America is Doomed”, “Lesbians will go to hell”, “Military Dykes Die!”

It wasn’t until Smith and Boyd exited the Courthouse with their friends and family, they saw the signs and heard the messages of the demonstrators across the street in City Hall Park. The demonstrators did not engage in direct conversation with any person from the wedding party, including CPT Boyd and LT Smith.

COL Lopez and CPT Henderson were so upset and angry by these messages that they ran across the street and started beating the demonstrators. Initially they could not be controlled by the police and continued to beat on two of the demonstrators for a period of approximately five minutes resulting in the death of one protestor and serious bodily injury to another.  The police arrested many of the protesters for breach of peace and they arrested Lopez and Henderson for assault, battery and murder.

Please answer the following questions:

1. According to the Supreme Court case law, does the fighting words doctrine apply in this case?  Why or why not?

2. Is the speech of NOM protected speech under the First Amendment? Why or why not? What case law would you rely upon? 

3. If your last name begins with A – M, represent CPT Boyd and LT Smith, how will you argue that the First Amendment did not protect NOM’s speech? What re-course does CAPT Boyd and LT Smith have in the court of law? 

4. If your last name begins with N – Z, represent NOM, how will you argue that they were exercising their protected First Amendment rights? Specifically, what  case law would you use defend them? 

Please note that your answers have nothing to do with your personal feelings, thoughts or experiences with these issues. Your answers are based purely on the law, specifically precedent set by case law. Reviewing the week 3 lesson will be very helpful to you in finding relevant case law. 

After you have answered these questions respond to at least 3 student’s postings. Respond to students who have offered a different perspective or opinion than yours. Be sure to ask thought-provoking questions of your classmates to further and deepen the discussion. 

BOTH REQUIRED TWO REFERENCES 

Legal & Ethical Scenarios

Legal Scenarios

Select two of the scenarios.  Support your responses with appropriate cases, laws, and other relevant examples by using at least one scholarly source from the SUO Library in addition to your textbook for each scenario. Do not copy the scenario text into the paper. Label the beginning of each scenario with the number you selected (e.g., Scenario 1). Cite your sources in APA format on a separate page. Submit your document to the Submissions Area by the due date assigned.

Scenario 1:  Business Competition

BRG  of Georgia and BARMAX,  located in Illinois are the nation’s two largest providers of bar review materials and lectures that are designed to help students study and pass the bar exam for their state.

 BARMAX began offering Georgia bar review course on a limited basis in 2006 and was in direct, and often intense, competition with BRG from 2007 to 2009 when the companies were the two main providers of bar review courses in Georgia. In early 2010, they entered into an agreement that gave BRG an exclusive license to market BARMAX materials in  and to use its trade name Bar/Bri. The parties agreed that BARMAX would not compete with BRG in Georgia and that BRG would not compete with BARMAX outside of Georgia. Under the agreement, BARMAX  received $100 per student enrolled by BRG and 40 percent of all revenues over $350. Immediately after the 2010 agreement, the price of BRG’s course was increased from $150 to more than $400. 

Is their conduct illegal under federal antitrust laws?

Scenario 2:  Administrative Agencies and Ethics

Brian Day is the vice president of new technology development at Future Electronics in Southaven Mississippi.  One year ago, he filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission to obtain approval for a new device using satellite technology.  Brian met Jenice Brown at an electronics convention two months ago and invited her to his room at the hotel.  The two parted ways. Brown worked as the director for licensing approval of new products at the FCC.  Two weeks later, Brown wrote Day a letter on FCC letterhead stating, “It was nice to see your name cross my desk on your company’s application for approval of the new satellite device.  I’d really like to see you again.  Why don’t you come visit me in Washington this weekend?”

Day considered requesting that the petition be referred to another director at the FCC.  However, he is concerned that the  transfer would delay the approval process for at least a year.  Day’s chief engineer advised that a key competitor plans to introduce a similar device on the market in three months. 

Are there any legal or ethical barriers to relationships between corporate officers and members of administrative agencies involved in reviewing or regulating corporate activity?

What should Day do?   

What would you advise Day to do if you were head of human resources or legal counsel for Future Electronics?

Scenario 3:  International Law

Reliable Time Inc. imported a shipment of watches into the United States. The watches contained the mark “Lauren” which is a registered trademark owned by Ralph Lauren. U.S. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized the watches pursuant to the Tariff Act, which authorizes seizure of any “merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark.” Ralph Lauren did not make or sell watches at the time of the seizure. Reliable argued that because Ralph Lauren did not make watches at the time of the seizure, the watches it imported were not counterfeit, and the civil penalty imposed by CBP was unlawful. The government argued that the mark was counterfeit and that the Tariff Act does not require the owner of the registered mark to make the same type of goods as those bearing the offending mark. 

Decide the outcome for the case by providing support from scholarly sources such as the textbook, journal articles, cases and information from the CBP website.