The decision of the case

The decision of the case

Justice Stevens delivered the decision ". Consistent with our decisions in Burlington and Carter, we conclude that IDEA authorizes reimbursement For the cost of private special-education services when a school district fails to provide a FAPE and the private-school placement is appropriate, Regardless of whether the child previously received special education or related services through the public school”. The decision of the case was in

Favor of the child 6-3. The court decided that the parents that put the child in private school should be reimbursed whether or not if the child had received special assistance in the past. The case precedent that the courts used was form School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass. decided April 29,1985.The major issue that kept coming up was weather or not the 1997 amendment to the IDEA prohibits the reimbursement for private schooling for disabled children in certain cases. Because the public schooling system didn’t approve the parent before putting there child in private school makes this case not so open and close. The courts decision on this is also based upon what was best for the child. The child was obveisily not getting the care that he needed at the public school so his parent put him in a private school where he was getting the care that he needed.  

 

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=359

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/us_supreme_court_rules_against_1.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-305.ZS.html

Your own argument

Your own argument

I completely agree with the ruling. Given all the facts you can only come to the conclusion that the child's parents deserved the reimbursement. First of all the child was misdiagnosed in the first place by the school psychologist. This led the parent to take matter into there own hands. Though the child hasn’t been receiving IEP form the school district that is not the problem. What should be done for the child is what’s best. The precedent case was brought up on the same basis the father put the child in private school as the proceedings to decided whether of not the child should be placed in a private school or public school was going on. This brought up the problem that should the father be reimbursed for putting his child in a private school before the school district decided on what was best for the child. I think that in that case the father was also right in not awaiting and putting his child in a school that could better suit his child’s needs and should have been rein burst. 

reasoning of the court

reasoning of the court

 The decision of the courts is in favor of the child, the parent will be rein burst for the private school tuition that they put their child in. The fact that the child wasn’t receiving FAPE prior to being enrolled in a private school was a major factor. Another fact behind the courts reasoning is that the psychologist that first interviewed the child was later discovered that it’s wasn’t a full interview. In fact the child had ADHA, which didn’t severely affect his schoolwork but effected it enough for him to struggle .Along with the ADHD there were other non-specified disabilities that the child exhibited. Fact three is that "IEP is an education plan tailored to a child’s unique needs that is designed by the school district in consultation with the child’s parents after the child is identified as eligible for special-education services". Though the amendment made to the 1997 IDEA says parents will be rein burst for private schooling doesn’t apply to this case. I think that the court decided what was in the child’s best interest. The public school couldn’t or wouldn’t provide the right education for the student so the parent put the child in a private school where they could be assure that the child will get the education that he/she deserves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-305.ZO.html

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-305

Dissent

Dissent

 

 The dissenting justices to FOREST GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER case are Justices Souter, Scalia, and Thomas. They respectfully disagree with the fact that the IDEA was amended by congress. The amendment that they specifically name is the amendment of 97 which addresses payment for education of children enrolled in private schools without consent of or referral by the public agency. Theses are some of the questions that the justice has” If the mother did not mean that the homework had to be done, why did she mention it at all, and if Congress did not mean to restrict reimbursement authority by reference to previous receipt of services, why did it even raise the subject?”[1] Theses are all legitimate questions, which I think deserve some answers. The justices also believe that because the child had not had past help for the school district that the provisions to the 1997 amendments would not protect them. The clause says “If the parents of a child with a disability, who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency, enroll the child in a private elementary school or secondary school without the consent of or referral by the public agency.”[2]

---

[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-305#dissent1

[2] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-305

 

What do you think of the Supreme Court?

What do you think of the Supreme Court?


What do I think about the Supreme Court?
In a summarized version I think that somebody has to do it. Meaning that whether or not I agree or disagree with any of their decisions they are the only way that I know of to decide where the line is drawn. The Supreme Court has its flaws they are all only human but in some case the right decision was made and in some cases the wrong one was made. To go in deeper I think that the whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to make that tough call in a case where both sides are very extreme. I think that diversity could hurt the Supreme Court, men, and woman, black, and white and all other races should be a part of it at some point. Different perspectives is always a good thing the person that thinks that something is bad might have a good argument but the person that thinks that it is good or should be allowed might have a better argument. Since a lot of the people that are up there have their own agendas then most likely think alike. With more diversity it might take way longer to get to a decision but its worth it if all points are discussed levied and weighed. Given today’s world where people study on how to get through loops holes and all the new issues that arise based on the society the Supreme Court should be ever changing in my mind. I say that because I hear about all the stuff that goes on in the background and some of the stuff I see but I’m not really sure on what really goes down in chambers but I do know that I do not what to have their job I think it would be to stressful.

Issue of the case

Issues of the case

An Issue of this case is whether or not the child was mentally disabled or not. The child had been taken to a school psychologist to evaluate his disability. The psychologist found “that respondent did not need further testing for any learning disabilities or other health impairments”[i]. Which lead to a parent conference where “The psychologist and two other school officials discussed the evaluation results with respondent's mother in June 2001, and all agreed that respondent did not qualify for special-education services”[ii]. This rejection by the school psychologist lead to the major issue which is weather the Parents should be rein burst. This is supported by “The plain text of IDEA provides for reimbursement of private-school tuition when a school district fails to provide a free appropriate public education.” This was supported by the administration.
[i] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-305
[ii] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-305

Illicit

Illicit

My view on the stealing of intellectual property is not a positive one. I believe that is wrong but I’m not entirely too concerned with it. If it happens once I can let it slide but if that same person seats the property on multiple occasions it not cool and it shouldn’t fly. Watching the movie today “Illicit” I am more aware of the connections that come with counterfeits but I’m still not convinced that it will destroy the world. The movie had some farfetched ideas such as how purchasing a hand bag form a street vendor who counterfeited the items would lead to bombs and explosives are too big of a step to leap too. A lot of these people that are the heads of the business aren’t stupid if they get rid of the competition in different countries then they are ultimately loosing business. The movie to me is saying that the money they make from the illegal merchandise is going to trickle down to terrorist organizations to fund a bomb that will wipe out the people that provided them with the money. Form a business point of view that’s not a smart business investment on the surface. Why would anybody what to take out there profit? As far as me buying form street vendors for fake stuff it would make no difference to me either way I feel like I’m getting ripped off (which I probably am) at the stores and I know I’m getting not ripped off at a vendor but by the movies logic I’m killing myself so it’s a lose lose situation for me as a consumer. I’m not a willing supporter of counterfeits, I’m not going to go outside and sell stuff and give the money to the underground networks but I might buy something form a street vendor.

Spam

What is the problem with spam?

Beside the fact that spam is annoying to get in your email box, spam is especially dangerous to people that are not computer literate or savvy. Spam just email sent out in bulk, whether it be porn, ads or a scam. If it porn it’s not a big deal you can just delete it and go about your day. Same thing with the ads just delete them but if they are a scam and you fall for it that a major problem on your part. It’s most likely that you given up some personal information about yourself that you rather keep to yourself. Say you fall prey to a scam that asks for your card in exchange for a miracle drug that’s legal. You give them you credit card number and you give them the money for the product that you paid for even if you receive the product they still have you credit car number. Which they can either sell for a quick buck or if they know how to use it use it for themselves any way that they want to. That’s not all by opening the spam you are putting you computer at risk of spyware a virus or a Trojan horses if you have to download something.

Why from a legal prospective is it dangerous?

Form a legal stand point when people get there information stolen they are susceptible to identify theft and from what I hear that is very hard to fight if it major. There is a spam act called the “Can-Spam Act” which has guidelines for spammers. It goes into details about that spammers have to have the sexually explicit in the subject line when sending porn spam and how if you opt out they need to honor that. There are punishments such as fines and imprisonment.

Supreme Court Case

FOREST GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT v. T. A.
This case is about a child who has be diagnosed by a professional as disabled the child never received special education for the public school and the parent parents are suing for the tuition for the private school. The district said that the child will make a big finical problem for the district and should be entered into private school that why they put him in a private school. The question of this case is weather or not the parents should be reimbursed for the private school tuition. He wasn’t receiving the special education that he needed. Grove School District determined that the child (T.A.) was not eligible for special education services under IDEA. From kindergarten through eighth grade, the child’s teachers observed that he had trouble paying attention in class. When the child got to high school his lack of attention increased.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-305.ZO.html
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/forestgrove.ta.analysis.htm

What are your rights as a property owner?

What are your rights as a property owner?

There are many rights that bout the tenant and the landlord have. In the movie it felt as if the two landlords had no rights when it came to their troublesome tenant. In the movie the rights of the tenant were that they had the right to rent out the room to the tenant. When the tenant moved in he hadn’t paid the rent in the movie the main guy handled this wrong he should have instead looked at the lease that the tenant signed and checked if he had broken the lease in any way. From what I gathered the Landlord had the right to take back the property if the rent hasn’t been paid the landlord could have also seek possession of the property if the tenant has damaged it in any way. According to Global Property Guide.com there are three ways that the landlord can evict Pay rent or Quit, Cure or Quit, or an Unconditional Quit. Given these three choices I think that the landlord in the movie should have used the unconditional quit to evict the tenant. The tenant was doing construction in the house and if it was done to destroy the property or even looked like it was destroying the property he has ground to sue and get him out. But that might not be so cut and dry considering that the tenant has rights that were violated by the landlord in the movie.

3's About Me

Three Names I have been called:
Kyle, Hudson, KY
Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to):
In Student accounting, Vons, Sears
Three Places I Have Lived:
Germany, Texas, England
Three TV Shows that I watch:
Bones, Chowder, Flap Jack
Three places I have been:
Italy, Czech Republic, Holland
People that e-mail me regularly
Friends, Family, Coworkers
Three of my favorite foods
Nachos, Pizza, Chicken
Three cars I have driven:
Honda, Chevy, Audi
Three things I am looking forward to:
Graduating, Sleeping, Having Fun

Greed Is Good ?

What do you think about Greed?

I think that greed is a bad thing in general. Greed is a self destructive act were the person of greed will most likely take in more than they can handle. This eventually leads to power trip and destruction which leaves people as the ones to pay. When people get greedy and get bonuses like 1 million to redecorate their office. I think that that is really unnecessary and should even be allowed by any one and that that they have the chance to do that with government money mean that many things have to change. I think that it was a good decision on the president’s part to step in and do something about it. But at the same time I think that many many people would have done the exact same thing if they were in a position to get an underserved bonus. People are always looking for something for nothing that just what people want it makes life easier, so I can completely see where the employees would feel that taking the money was a good idea.

What do I think my class thinks about the law?

What do I think my class thinks about the law?

To me it seems that my class thinks that it’s not perfect but it’s there for a reason. As Stacia Woody stated “I do believe that it needs improvement”. I think that the class somewhat agrees on the fact that the law is there, it is not doing exactly what we want it to do, and it’s not perfect. I like the way, Jaqueline Hernandez put it she said “I’m not saying it’s one hundred percent shit but I’m just saying, it could be so much better.” I completely agree with this statement made by a fellow class mate. There are flaws in the system and hole which people exploit but the system could be worse. As a class I believe that we can all also agree that “The legal system in the United States is so vast” stated Richmond Pham. It is so vast that there are many way and possibilities out there. With all its flaws and loop holes it the one we got and there not much if any that we can do to change. We can only sit back relax and do what most the people my age do watch.

Kyle Hudson,Crystal Burrell,Ray Price,Dianne Polo

1. False advertising- tort
2. Battery – crime
3. Illegal gambling – crime
4. Vandalism of property – crime
5. Bribery – crime
6. Perjury – crime
7. Speeding – crime
8. Hit and run – crime
9. Reckless driving – crime
10. Minors driving without a license – crime
11. Fleeing scene of accident – crime
12. Attempted murder – crime
13. Reckless endangerment – crime
14. Reckless driving – crime
15. Threatening to cause bodily harm – crime
16. Slander – tort
17. Sexual harassment – crime
18. Tampering with video – tort
19. Accepting bribes – crime
20. Driving without a seatbelt – crime
21. Illegal use of firearm – crime
22. Lying to a customer – tort
23. Assault with a deadly weapon – crime
24. Minors driving without licensed drivers – crime
25. Animal cruelty – crime
26. Stealing – crime
27. Libel – tort
28. Endangerment of life – crime
29. Defying police orders – crime
30. Driving on oncoming traffic lane - crime

What do I think about the legal system?

What do I think about the legal system?

The first thought that pops in my head when I’m asked that a question is that the legal system is messed up. Though I’m only basing this opinion on what I’ve seen on TV, heard on the radio, and whats in movies. If I were to stop and think about it the question I would realize that without the legal system the U.S. would be a different place maybe a place I wouldn’t want to be in. Yes, the legal system has it flaws but that is because it was created by people who have their flaws. From what I’ve seen and not experienced the legal system is full of many, many, many holes which people tend to pass through. Most of the people that I hear about leaping through the holes are rich people who have enough money to exploit them. In the news I mostly hear about how people who I think should have been punished severally just slipped through a hole and gotten off barely touched. Take the MySpace hoax that mother who helped her daughter play a prank on a young girl which eventually lead to her demise.The mother got off with a fine and a slap on the wrist no major jail time just a fine. Incidents like that lead me and other people to believe that the legal system is flawed. What I don’t get is that people know that the legal system is flawed but don’t do anything about it. They are either like me and they are unaware of what actions can be done taken to solve the problem or they are not willing to do anything about it but complain.

Myspace Hoax

What do I think about the MySpace hoax compared to the film? What should be done about the situation?

As I see it the MySpace hoax was an unnecessary prank carried out by unintelligent individuals that eventually lead to the dead of another young girl. Just because the little girl of Lori Drew didn’t like the Megan Meier isn’t a good reason to play around with her head and feelings. In the MSNBC article I was reading it stated that people knew Megan Meier was emotionally detached unstable and depressed and was also taking medicine for it. I think that the mother made a bad decision to help her thirteen years old daughter get back at another girl ,who they had spent time with as families at activities, just because she up and didn’t like her. The mother of Megan Meier is right in pleading that Lori Drew gets the max sentence which would be 3 years in prison and $300,000 fine. To me that would be nowhere near what I would want to see happen to mother daughter and co-worker who all had a part in the hoax. The fact that the mother has no remorse for messing with Megan Meier is bad and disgusting but that she would actually go bragging to people that she is making a 13 year old hormonal teenager fall for a fake boy is just sad. But before I go slandering this woman I must keep in mind that all my information is coming from a source that will do or say anything to sell and get reader. I only have the sad side of the mother and I don’t have the complete story of what happen just bits and mostly what the news wants you to hear.

EOC

What do you think about lawyers?

I think that a lawyer is a person that has a job to do whether it be moral or not it’s just a job. I think that a lawyer can be moral without having to actually be completely amoral. Let me explain, a lawyer defends a client that has committed a murder and the lawyer has a strong hunch that that person committed the murder. Well if the lawyer is good at doing their job they would put their morals aside to become amoral in a sense and defend that client that he accepted the money from in the first place. I think no less of a lawyer that can do this some would feel a lot safer with them on the basis that they would be loyal to their client. I also think that the lawyers that are able to do this are not entirely moral but they get the job done. People in their life do things that are not moral and I don’t think that just because a person chooses to do that for a living they are amoral and bad. Though I may not like what some lawyers do and how they do it I understand that it is what they do it’s a job and its how they get things done. I also think that lawyers that that only do moral things are nice they might get the job done and you might be able to trust them more, the people that do amoral things to get the job done will always win out until they are caught. Overall I think that the lawyers are only doing what has been done for many of year and shouldn’t be viewed negativity just because the job demands amoral actions to win.