You will be assigned the paper and presentation of one classmate to evaluate as a

You will be assigned the paper and presentation of one classmate to evaluate as a. You will be assigned the paper and presentation of one classmate to evaluate as a.

You will be assigned the paper and presentation of one classmate to evaluate as a peer-reviewed document. Please provide a score (from 1 (poor) to 10 (outstanding)) for each of the above elements (1 through 6), as well as an evaluation of the overall written portion. You should also provide a narrative evaluation, including a thorough message to the student as to what things you think the student did right, what things you think the student did wrong, and any other information that you feel would be helpful. Your peer review of the student will be worth 10% of your (You will not know the student’s actual grade.) Your evaluation should be approximately 1 single-spaced page in length. Identify the problem and set priorities Deepen understanding and gather relevant information Enumerate options and anticipate consequences Assess the situation and make a preliminary decision The IDEA model is actually a great way to think critically about the law. This exercise will provide one or more legal problems, and your task will be to use the IDEA model to analyze the issues presented to you. This assignment is particularly designed to require you to engage in critical thinking, problem solving, and analysis. Although this is not a creative writing assignment, you should think openly and creatively about the cases and their application to the scenario given in this assignment. Although you should use only the cases provided to you, please feel free to fill in any missing facts that are necessary for your project, and please state any assumptions are you are making regarding these facts. Scoring well on this assignment takes a lot of thought and work, a minimum of 10 hours for most students. Failure to put time, thought, and effort into this project will result in a very low grade (e.g., < 30%). Conversely, some students may earn 100%. General Background Defamation is a legal cause of action based on injury to another person’s reputation. However, not all injuries to a person’s representation are valid causes of action, and the person being injured must prove specific elements in court in order to prevail. In general, as the attached cases show, the elements of a claim for defamation are as follows: A false and defamatory statement was made about another person The statement was made to a third party without sufficient justification The person making the statement at least knew or should have known that making the statement would cause harm to the other person The person about whom the statement was made was harmed as a result Additional Requirement for Public Figures Only: If the statement involves a statement about facts concerning a public figure, then the public figure must show “actual malice,” or intentional conduct, by the person making the statement in order to prevail at trial. (A private person can be considered a “limited public figure” under certain circumstances.) Each state may have its own variation on the above general rules. The attached cases set forth some applications of the above law to some specific scenarios in Minnesota (the state we are using for the exercise). You should not do outside research in order to complete the assignment, and you must use all of the cases provided to you. You should assume that all cases are still valid law, unless otherwise stated in the versions of the cases provided to you as part of the assignment. The Scenario – Minnesota John Wicker is the President and CEO of NM Enterprises Inc., a company that sells New Mexico green chile products in the state of Minnesota. Most or all of the company’s activities take place in Minnesota, except perhaps the transport of chiles from New Mexico to Minnesota. In addition to selling his company’s products, in his spare time outside of his work for the business, John Wicker also conducts public awareness campaigns about the dangers of cigarette smoking. This is not related to the business of NM Enterprises Inc. Maria Larue is a private citizen and resident of the State of Minnesota. She recently created a “public service campaign” in order to tell citizens about the dangers of eating green chile. She claims that green chile is bad for Minnesotans’ health, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence to substantiate her claim. She has created, among other things, a website stating the following about NM Enterprises Inc. and John Wicker: 1.“NM Enterprises Inc. is an immoral company. 2.“NM Enterprises Inc.’s green chiles are linked to autism rates in young children.” 3.“Green chile is bad for your health.” 4.“John Wicker is a philanderer and has had several extramarital affairs with staff.” 5.“John Wicker has lost his mind and cannot manage his company.” 6.“Consumers have filed dozens of complaints against NM Enterprises Inc. since 2017.” 7.“John Wicker is a smoker and a hypocrite.” NM Enterprises Inc. and John Wicker disagree with all of the above statements, and there is no information in the company or John Wicker’s possession to support the factual portions of these statements. NM Enterprises Inc. believes that Maria Larue is simply doing making these statements because she is prejudiced against New Mexico and does not believe that it should be part of the United States. NM Enterprises Inc. and John Wicker also suspect that Maria Larue may wish to set up a business that competes with NM Enterprises Inc. NM Enterprises Inc.’s annual net income for the past few years has been $5, million per year. If these types of statements continue, NM Enterprises Inc. is projected to lose at least 10% of its net income in Minnesota, and John Wicker may be forced to resign from the company, losing his salary and benefits totaling approximately $400,000 per year. NM Enterprises Inc. and John Wicker would like to file a lawsuit against Maria Larue, in order to stop her from engaging in this type of behavior in the future. However, they are not entirely sure how to do so, given the complexity of the law regarding defamation.[supanova_question]

Update my Trial Brief

Please add Part 3 [supanova_question]

Brief the mandatory court opinion

You will be assigned the paper and presentation of one classmate to evaluate as a overpopulation-and-the-problems-and-solutions-for-over-price-housing-and-over-farming/”>Law Assignment Help Appellate Brief Scenario:
Your client, Ms. Kimberly Hall, stands convicted under your state law for charges involving theft, trafficking in stolen property, fraud, and alteration of vehicle identification numbers. Hall runs a small salvage yard on a 3.5 acre piece of property surrounded by several fences, tall trees, dense scrub bushes, and posted No Trespassing signs. The property contains 2 structures: a small one-room cabin, in which Hall resides, and a separate structure, approximately 30 feet high, with sliding barn doors on all four sides, no windows, and no roof.
Early on the day of Hall’s arrest, state and local authorities conducted a drone-surveillance sweep after an anonymous tip line received several calls reporting the operation of multiple automotive chop shops in a rural location within your state of residence. Captured video of the larger structure, obtained by the drone’s camera from approximately 100 feet in the air and simultaneously transmitted to police officers on the ground, revealed the presence of multiple dismantled vehicles, a pile of license plates, various automotive parts and tools, including grinders, cutting saws, hoists and welding rigs. Hall was taken into police custody at approximately 5:00 a.m. that morning, and was subsequently charged based on that footage.
At trial, several residents claimed that the presence of the drones in the early morning hours resulted in unnecessary panic, which quickly swept the small community, and resulted in multiple calls to local police dispatch, some minor property damage, and at least one assault. Sally Jones, who lives adjacent to Ms. Hall, testified that, “Conner Peterson and those damned drones caused enough drama and paranoia to end a 25-year friendship in a fistfight.” Conner Peterson, a survivalist/prepper and avid short-wave radio enthusiast, stated for the record that, on the morning of Hall’s arrest, he was up late monitoring radio transmissions between members of a known local anti-government group who were discussing plans for “something big” involving the use of personal drones. Mr. Peterson stated that he heard an unusual buzzing noise coming from the west side of his property as he stood outside with his dog at approximately 4:00 a.m. When he spotted a drone hovering between his house and his garage, he immediately began calling to warn his neighbors that something was up, and to remain vigilant.
The trial court considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments and found your client guilty.

done
Seen
8 mins ago[supanova_question]

Extra Credit: Discussion board

Please submit an opinion paper no longer than two pages, typed, double spaced, 12 pt font on the following topic:
There are two sides to the argument with regards to accessing online music and movie streaming: (1) the right of the public to share information freely (including movies and music) without fear of government intervention and (2) the right of creative owners to profit from their efforts via intellectual property law.
View the following video clips and consider which side of the argument is stronger.
The Pirate Bay Speaks @ Wired 2011 Conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AXZhMG8Dcs
Javier Bardem on Film Piracy.
Film Piracy: Taking a Stand for the Film Industry

done
Seen
2 mins ago[supanova_question]

https://anyessayhelp.com/ Appellate Brief Scenario:
Your client, Ms. Kimberly Hall, stands convicted under your state law for charges involving theft, trafficking in stolen property, fraud, and alteration of vehicle identification numbers. Hall runs a small salvage yard on a 3.5 acre piece of property surrounded by several fences, tall trees, dense scrub bushes, and posted No Trespassing signs. The property contains 2 structures: a small one-room cabin, in which Hall resides, and a separate structure, approximately 30 feet high, with sliding barn doors on all four sides, no windows, and no roof.
Early on the day of Hall’s arrest, state and local authorities conducted a drone-surveillance sweep after an anonymous tip line received several calls reporting the operation of multiple automotive chop shops in a rural location within your state of residence. Captured video of the larger structure, obtained by the drone’s camera from approximately 100 feet in the air and simultaneously transmitted to police officers on the ground, revealed the presence of multiple dismantled vehicles, a pile of license plates, various automotive parts and tools, including grinders, cutting saws, hoists and welding rigs. Hall was taken into police custody at approximately 5:00 a.m. that morning, and was subsequently charged based on that footage.
At trial, several residents claimed that the presence of the drones in the early morning hours resulted in unnecessary panic, which quickly swept the small community, and resulted in multiple calls to local police dispatch, some minor property damage, and at least one assault. Sally Jones, who lives adjacent to Ms. Hall, testified that, “Conner Peterson and those damned drones caused enough drama and paranoia to end a 25-year friendship in a fistfight.” Conner Peterson, a survivalist/prepper and avid short-wave radio enthusiast, stated for the record that, on the morning of Hall’s arrest, he was up late monitoring radio transmissions between members of a known local anti-government group who were discussing plans for “something big” involving the use of personal drones. Mr. Peterson stated that he heard an unusual buzzing noise coming from the west side of his property as he stood outside with his dog at approximately 4:00 a.m. When he spotted a drone hovering between his house and his garage, he immediately began calling to warn his neighbors that something was up, and to remain vigilant.
The trial court considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments and found your client guilty.

done
Seen
8 mins ago[supanova_question]