Wisconsin, Senators, & You: When Teachers Fought Back
Teachers Fight For Their Rights Meanwhile: Senators on the Run…
because they didn’t want to go to work?!
Protesters including teachers and police officers swell the halls of
the Wisconsin State Capitol building in a 2011 multi-day protest.
One of the largest protest movements of the 2000’s occurred in February 2011 in the state of Wisconsin, and that movement led to some pretty interesting stories including the one you’re going to learn about in this piece: When the state’s democratic senators went on the run from the law… and their own state’s police! That story actually begins in 1959 (don’t worry it’s not too deep a history lesson)…
Basically, in 1959 Wisconsin was the first state in the US to allow public employees (people that are paid for their jobs with money from the state government) to ‘collectively bargain’ – that means they could team up and talk about how much they’d get paid as a group, rather than asking for raises or healthcare from their managers as individuals representing themselves. Ok, now let’s fast-forward to 2008 (yes, it’s still a few years before 2011 , but once again it’s not all that much historical backstory that you’ll need)….
In America during the fall of 2008 , two notable things happened: America elected Barack Obama…and it did it just as the economy was beginning to collapse – an event that would lead to a roughly decade-long period that would come to be known as The Great Recession. That time period was extremely economically challenging for nearly everyone, including government agencies: they had made financial commitments to their employees, but by 2010 they would be running out of money to maintain those commitments because of how the investments they had made were failing.
Ok, so that brings us to Wisconsin in February of 2011. At the time, the state was dealing with some massive budget issues: Without any changes being made, the state government would have more than $1.2 Billion-with-a-B in expenses over several years that it would not have money to pay for. In fact, projections from the office of newly-elected-at-the-time Governor Scott Walker suggested the state would run out of money and be in debt by $137 Million-with-an-M by June of that year!
With just over a month in office, the governor (a republican – which is important to the event) – proposed taking away the government employees’ rights to collectively bargain and insisted that those employees would have to begin receiving less compensation (payment in the form of cash or benefits like health care or retirement savings) immediately. He also said that if his proposal wasn’t approved, thousands of state workers would be fired because there wasn’t enough money to pay them (not because they weren’t good at their jobs). Protests and demonstrations began at the Wisconsin Capitol Building on February 14, 2011 – just as Governor Walker submitted his budget proposal for a vote… By February 20th, 2011 the protests had blown up into a full-blown 24-hours-7-days-a-week occupation! That though.. that is a story for another time.
What concerns this conversation are the events that took place shortly after the occupation began, around February 15: The Wisconsin State Senate had 19 Republicans that supported the Governor’s budget proposal, and 14 Democrats that were completely against it. The Democrats knew they would lose a vote, so they had a better idea: Wisconsin state law did not allow for votes to be held unless 20 state senators were present. Rather than participate in a vote on an issue that deeply concerned them which they knew they would lose, the state senators fled to Illinois! They remained on the run for weeks until March 12, when they finally returned after their absence caused the Republican majority to carve-out the cancellation of collective bargaining rights from the budget proposal. Though the senators couldn’t have been charged with a crime, the state police would have had the right to arrest and detain the senators until the vote had initially taken place.
————————– Questions:
1) Why do you agree or disagree with the cause?
2) Why do you agree or disagree with the action?
3) Why do you agree or disagree with the punishment / consequences?
4) What cause – if any – would make you want to knowingly break the law, and why?
5) What are some better courses of action you can think of besides breaking the law in support of a cause you care about, or if you feel there aren’t any, what obstacles would prevent your from engaging in lawful resistance?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
Freedom for Furry Critters Comes At the
Cost of Convictions for Animal Activists
Mink are tiny little rodent creatures that people murder so they can make clothing out of them.
In October 1997, a roughly-estimated 3,000 mink (tiny rodent creatures with fur that is used for high-end fashion) escaped from a mink ranch. They survived their fate as future fur coats thanks to a 20-foot hole cut in one of the mink-proofed fences around the ranch. The mink didn’t run through that hole though – their liberator, a man named Peter Daniel Young – used it to get to the gates that held the mink in pens. He then opened the gates, freeing the mink to run amok… and to freedom.
Part-owner in the ranch Kelly Turbak explained “We don’t know how many will die, maybe as many as 1,000… Generally they’ll stay pretty close around. They’re domesticated and can’t fend for themselves.”. Less than 24 hours later, more than 1,000 of the furry escapees had been recaptured and once again destined to die on the path to becoming fur coats rather than starving to death outside of the ranch.
A few weeks later, Peter and his co-conspirator Justin Samuel had their car impounded while driving between other farms they were hoping to ‘raid’ (break into and free the animals from). They had been pulled over after their car was called in by other suspicious mink farmers in the area, who had been on high alert.
Eventually in September of 1998, charges would be filed against both Peter Daniel Young and Justin Samuel… but just like the mink they freed, the two of them went on the run….for years! In fact, Peter Young wouldn’t be captured until 2005. After being captured, he was sentenced to serve two years in federal prison, more than $254,000 in fines, and 360 hours of community service benefiting – as the judge said at the time of sentencing- “humans and no other species.”
The trouble wasn’t over for Young even by late 2007 when he was released. Since the act of releasing all the mink racked up a number of state crimes, Young was also faced with a number of state charges before his own ordeal was over including third degree burglary, intentional damage to property and animal enterprise trespass!
————————– Questions:
1. Why do you agree or disagree with the cause?
2. Why do you agree or disagree with the action?
3. Why do you agree or disagree with the punishment / consequences?
4. What cause – if any – would make you want to knowingly break the law, and why?
5. What are some better courses of action you can think of besides breaking the law in support of a cause you care about, or if you feel there aren’t any, what obstacles would prevent your from engaging in lawful resistance?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
Law Firm Claims Rival Sucked Up Business
By Copying And Hijacking Their Website
We are taught not to copy a person’s work since it can get us in trouble. According to an article by Above The Law, a law firm is suiting another firm on the basis of copying and hijacking their website.
In Illinois, Motta & Motta is suing Dolci & Weiland over the alleged hijacking and plagiarism. The suit claims that Dolci capitalized on Motta’s reputation by using website hashtags and headers to mislead search engines into believing Motta’s website is Dolci’s website. According to the suit allegations, Dolci & Weiland’s website mirrored Motta’s copyrighted design and content and even copied (verbatim) articles and blogs on Motta’s website.
In school, we are taught many basic principles such as reading, writing, mathematics, but we also introduced into many ethical values as well, such as responsibility, quality, leadership, respect, and honesty. One way these ethical values are exercised is through integrity and not committing plagiarism. This article brings up some interesting points relating to privacy, defamation, and fraud and how Dolci’s law firm was acting unlawfully. Instead of Dolci taking the time to create their website and content, they are now facing a lengthy legal process that is going to cost them a lot of money!
————————– Questions:
1) In what situations is it against the law to impersonate someone online?
2) When would impersonating a person online be a form of fraud, or why would it not be a fraud?
3) The law firm that claimed to be victimized specifically mentioned hashtags in their complaint. Hashtags are basically hyperlinks: text that results in being connected to related information. If the law firm sued only over the plagiarism of the hashtags on their website, why do you think they would or would not have a good chance of winning their case in court? Be specific by using other lawsuits or trademark and copyright news articles as examples when creating your response.*
*Hint #1: Are companies guaranteed websites with their names?
*Hint #2: What are some examples of trademarks, copyrights, and the differences between the two?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
Terror & Tyranny at the Theme Park:
Family Assaulted at Six Flags
Amusement parks go above and beyond to entertain their guests during Halloween each year. In Fright Fest at Six Flags, everyone is up for a good scare. The extra scares are appreciated, but the fall season also seems to bring an increase in bad behavior by some park attendees. What nobody wants is to come home injured or assaulted, but unfortunately, that fear became a reality for one innocent family.
The family – an elderly couple and their 12 year old son – was attempting to ride one of the thrill rides at the park. While waiting in line, a group of friends cut in front of the family. Skipping over the fact that the group had cut in front of them, the woman asked the group to at least stop using unpleasant language around her child.
That is when an attack began.
The 12 year old boy was physically seized upon by the group that had cut in front of his family. The mother and father attempted to intervene, but were quickly overwhelmed by the sizable group. The family continued to be assaulted with punches, kicks, and stomps by their attackers until they submitted to the violence and fell to the ground.
Security at Six Flags broke up the attack quickly after a passersby reported the incident. The attackers spread out in an attempt to escape, but fortunately most of them were prevented from getting away after security cornered them in the parking lot.
Local police reported to the scene, and a total of nine suspects were arrested & charged. Later on, the city’s police chief commented that more suspects may have gotten away. With this concern in mind, the police urged anyone with evidence to submit it to them. As the police chief explained “We know there’s a video out there. People had their phones out, but we have not gotten any additional video yet.”
Following the incident the family was rushed off and received care for their injuries, though eventually all three of them were discharged.
———————— Questions, Part 1:
Amusement parks have a lot of discretion in deciding what they allow to occur on their property. They have a duty to protect those who come, which is why they deal with high safety standards and inspections for their rides. The parks also allow a wide range of people to come in and enjoy themselves though.
1.1) Is the process to enter an amusement park too easy?
1.2) Should Six Flags be held financially or criminally responsible for the family’s injuries? What makes them responsible or not responsible?
1.3) If you think Six Flags is responsible, what can they do to prevent attacks like these in the future? If you don’t believe they’re responsible, what laws absolve them of that responsibility?
Questions, Part 2: Research your response!
2) The family of the incident experienced emotional and physical damage from the attack. What consequences will the assailants that were caught face?
Questions, Part 3: According to the park, attacks like these are uncommon, “This is rare.” was the official line from park representatives, yet still the park was prepared for possible incidents like these, having doubled security patrols during holiday seasons. Meanwhile, even with the double patrols, not all of the assailants were detained. Consider the fact that some of the suspects were able to get away and that police are hoping cell phone footage will help identify the remaining suspects. That means the park didn’t have sufficient security camera coverage to identify all of the assailants. With that in mind….
3.1) Should the family place blame on Six Flags for negligence based on the failure of it’s video security?
3.2) Should seasonal events like this continue when the parks know they pose a risk of an increase in violent or otherwise troubling incidents?
3.3) Some of the attackers in the incident were minors. Assuming their parents weren’t with them in the park, should the park be held responsible for allowing large groups of minors to be there without proper supervision?
3.4) What rules should be made for youth at parks, and should there be laws establishing standards for these rules (explain your answer – why or why not)?
3.5) Should security keep a closer eye on young adults at parks? What would lead them to be to strike out like this in such a large force?
Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers. For more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/frightening-fest-family-attacked-beaten-by-teenagers-at-six-flags/
– Submitted by J. Floyd
Did Russia Consider Returning Snowden to the US?
We May Never Know…
In February 2017, reports were circulating that Russia was considering sending Edward Snowden back to the US “as a gift for President Donald Trump” as reported by NBC. At the time, NBC cited an unnamed senior US official who has reviewed intelligence on the matter.
Edward Snowden has lived in Russia since 2013 and recently launched a campaign with his legal team to get him pardoned. Snowden still faces being charged with leaking classified information and treason for his pivotal role in the months-long releases of information about America’s digital surveillance programs, should he return to the United States.
In April 2017 however, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said publicly that Edward Snowden can stay in Russia until he decides to leave for himself. When asked, Zakharova did not clarify on if Russia would consider extraditing Snowden to the U.S. at a later point in time.
This post is about more than just an update to a news story about privacy law and policy. The difference in tone, content, and conclusion (or lack thereof) between the stories should lead readers to question the reliability of news stories that speculate. In an age where people of all political leanings and affiliations make claims of fake news, we encourage the students we connect with to consume all media – no matter the source – with critical eyes.
————————– Questions:
1) Why do you believe Edward Snowden’s Leaks were a good or bad thing?
2) Why do you believe Edward Snowden’s should or should not be punished for leaking the information that he did?
3) Why do you believe Edward Snowden’s should or should not be pardoned?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here:
Man Drags Unconscious Passenger Off
Blue Line Train in Long Beach, CA:
Witness Said He Wanted to Avoid Delay
On August 3rd of 2018, a video surfaced from California as a man in a suit drags an unconscious man off the train to avoid delay.
Controversial as this incident may be, the video depicts a white male in a suit dragging an unconscious black man. During the incident, the white male was recorded by a passenger on the train. The passenger explained how the unconscious man was wearing a medical bracelet, had metal staples in his skull, and threw up before going unconscious. In the video, onlookers expressed their anger towards the man in the suit by saying he had no right to assume he was partying, per an eyewitness. As an act of retaliation towards the man in the suit, the passengers held the train doors open, to prevent the train from leaving while they phoned the paramedics.
Once paramedics and officers arrived on the scene, the unconscious man was taken to the hospital, but the man in the suit was not investigated or a point of interest in this case. The video of this incident was posted on Youtube and gained momentum by its audience and local news stations. This is still an ongoing investigation.
————————– Questions: 1. Just because someone broke a law, that doesn’t mean they’ll always be prosecuted for it, so was it lawful for the man in the suit to drag the unconscious man to train platform, and would it lawful for him to leave the man behind?
2. In this case, the man in the suit will not be charged with this act, explain why you agree or disagree with this decision.
3. ‘Duty to rescue’ laws require people to help others if they witness someone in trouble and are able to help without endangering themselves. Are there ‘duty to rescue’ or similar laws where you live, and do you agree with your community having or not having them?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
Salt Bae Gets Salty After
Health Code Violation Accusations
The man known as Salt Bae’s technique for salting steaks captivated the world, quickly elevating him to meme-status. After he opened his new restaurant recently however, some people weren’t so quick to ‘like and share’. A few sticklers for the law were quick to point out that he might be violating New York City’s health code.
Salt Bae’s critics pointed out that by salting steaks without gloves, this living meme appeared to be breaking clause 81.07 of the NYC health code. That clause states that there must be use of tools of ‘sufficient length to prevent bare hand contact with ready to eat potentially hazardous food’.
After being called out he started wearing gloves. With his salting technique which employs significant amounts of flair, pomp, and circumstance though, salt may still hit his bare forearm before reaching his customers’ plates.
A common condiment isn’t the only legal matter keeping Salt Bae so salty these days though.
According to videos he’s posted to Instagram, he had been slicing steaks at customers’ tables without gloves and while wearing a flashy watch – 2 more possible violations of NYC health code! In addition to the first violation, by wearing a watch he’s also violating a rule stating ‘food workers may not wear jewelry on their arms unless it’s a medical bracelet or smooth ring’..
New York City’s Department of Health said they would be launching an investigation into the violations. The restaurant opened earlier this year and has received mixed reviews over price, food quality and the overall experience. Sounds like this Salt Bae could use a little sweetness these days!
————————– Questions:
1) What consequences could the restaurant face if it is found to be violating NYC health code?
2) Can videos posted to social media be used as admissible evidence if charges are filed?
3) Do you think the case is being handled differently, or should be handled differently since a celebrity is involved?
Criminal Complaints From
Villainous Avengers Fans!
Directors Anthony and Joe Russo received death threats for not putting the character Hawkeye in “Avengers: Infinity War.” His absence was first noticed when the first movie trailer was released in November 2017. As time got closer to the movie release date, it became clearer that Hawkeye wasn’t going to be featured in the movie. As a result, some of Hawkeye’s fans revealed that even villains love superheroes.
Actor Jeremy Renner, who plays Hawkeye, revealed that the director brothers were receiving death threats because his character was not included in the movie. When asked how he felt about the dedication being shown by some of his less respectable fans, Renner said “It’s a nice feeling I suppose. I think the Russo brothers got way too many death threats. I’m like, ‘Wow, dude, that’s intense. I’m sorry.”
Looking at Nevada Revised Statute 202.448, these threats appear to be criminal. The statue defines “making threats or conveying false information regarding acts of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, lethal agents or toxins” as a criminal act.
NRS is a Nevada statute, but certain acts of issuing a threat are also federal crimes! United States Code Title 18 Chapter 41 Section 875 states that “whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
————————– Questions:
1) What are the maximum amount of penalties could be faced by the people who made the death threats to The Russo Brothers?
2) Explain the different legal penalties for threats made in person in comparison to threats made over the internet?
3) List 3 other laws regarding threats (other than NRS 202.448 and USC.18.41.875, and report what the maximum penalty for each one is.
U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminalize
Boycott Campaign Against Israel
Within the last year, there has been a rise in political speech and activism towards many momentous events, such as North Korean conflict, same-sex marriage, to Twitter going beyond 140 characters! In relation to this article, a group of senators wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the boycott against Israel, resulting in a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.
Why is there a boycott on Israel and why is it becoming an international movement?
According to a Time article, the boycott movement was started by the Israelis-Zionist (a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation, Israel) liberals who support Israel’s existence on land it won in the 1948 war, but with Israel’s occupation in Palestinian territory in 1967, the Israelis wanted to boycott goods produced by Israeli companies (that operate on Palestinian land). Over time, this situation gained different opinions from other countries. Some felt sympathetic towards the Palestinians while others were in favor of Israel.
For more information regarding the history of the Boycott campaign, click here!
Which leads us to the boycott movement today. Around the world, people are expressing their avoidance of Israel and are getting punished for it. For instance, in France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. In the U.K., has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism. Leading into the United States, U.S. governors are trying to impose strict regulations of any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements. In July 2017, a group of senators wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. But, people have questioned that penalizing boycotting may infringe upon the first amendment’s freedom of speech and protest.
————————– Questions:
1) How does this violate or how does this not violate the right to freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment?
2) How does this violate or how does this not violate the right to freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment?
3) Why do you think boycotting as a form of activism should or should not be a felony offense?
4) Some critics of the attempted boycott ban argued that this type of ban would not be attempted if it was any other nation allied with the United States, and that Jewish and Christian lawmakers have suggested the ban because of religious beliefs rather than out of national security concerns. Remember: the First Amendment suggests there should be some separation of church and state, but how that separation should look has led to many legal battles throughout American history.
With those observations in mind Why do you feel that it is acceptable or unacceptable for lawmakers to make decisions based on their own personal beliefs when serving in government, and
5) How are your feelings (as explained in response to Question 4) supported or not supported by the wording of the First Amendment, and what precedent-setting legal decisions support your response?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
A 2,000-year-old terracotta warrior from China had one of its thumbs stolen while in an American museum. The suspected thief was caught on camera sneaking into the warrior’s exhibit, taking a selfie with the statue, and then breaking off its thumb. The camera then caught him pocketing the terracotta thumb and taking it.
Not important but also interesting: the thief burgled the museum during an ugly0-sweater party being held there!
On the way home from the party, a suspect named Michael Rohana bragged to his friends about successfully stealing part of a warrior. A month later the FBI went to his house and questioned him which lead to the return of the missing thumb. As a result he was charged with multiple crimes including “concealment of an object of cultural heritage stolen from a museum” (meaning that he knew the thumb was stolen from the museum yet he kept it like it was his own belonging.)
The warrior statues were discovered by a Chinese farmer in 1974 but originally date all the way back to 209 BC. Sculptures like the one that had its thumb stolen were created in order to protect the tomb of China’s first emperor. At the time of the theft, the statue was worth $4.5 million. Additionally China has to send two experts to the United States to try and repair the thumb.
Chinese officials and citizens are upset at both the museum and the United States for the lack of security for the sculptures and for failing to protect the warrior from harm. Users of China’s Facebook-like service Weibo left critical comments about the incident, including one user who noted that the warriors “are kept far away from the public” (in China) and asked “How come the sculptures in Philadelphia are not displayed inside glass cases?”
The man – Michael Rohana – made a quick decision to mess with the terracotta warrior’s display to try and impress his friends. Now he has to face consequences starting with going to court, though he’s likely to face much worse than that!
————————– Questions:
1) Given the fact that the damaged item was originally worth $4.5 million and that the thumb portion of it was taken illegally, what are the lowest criminal charges or consequences the suspect can face (if they were charged in Nevada)?
2) The artifact was being borrowed while it was damaged. If China decides to take action against the US, what court would the case be taken to (China’s? American Federal Court? An American State Court?) and what charges could the US government face, if any? If not the government, who would end up in court and why would it be a criminal or civil case (pick one or the other and explain why you chose that way)?
3) Everyone know of someone (maybe even themselves) who’ve just done what the thumb-thief did: failed to think about the consequences and just quickly acted on an impulse. What is something you saw – or even did – that could have resulted in a lot of big trouble all because you or that person you saw just didn’t stop to think, and then act? What could the consequences have been?
My favorite part of the fieldtrip to the courthouse is when I got to play the part of Ron. I got to go on the witness chair and speaking. I helped Potter to be not guilty. Thank you for the great opportunity.
- Johnathan M [Harmon Elementary - Grade 4]
Project Real
2020-12-16T21:47:04+00:00
My favorite part of the fieldtrip to the courthouse is when I got to play the part of Ron. I got to go on the witness chair and speaking. I helped Potter to be not guilty. Thank you for the great opportunity. - Johnathan M [Harmon Elementary - Grade 4]
Thank you for letting us watch the civil case! It was cool because it was a real case and not one played out. I had a lot of fun watching the other kids act out a session. Thank you for your time.
- Kaylie [Hewetson Elementary - Grade 5]
Project Real
2020-12-11T20:39:35+00:00
Thank you for letting us watch the civil case! It was cool because it was a real case and not one played out. I had a lot of fun watching the other kids act out a session. Thank you for your time. - Kaylie [Hewetson Elementary - Grade 5]
Thank you for letting us experience court for the first time. It was the best experience ever, thank you for everything. You really made me think about being a judge. Thank you
-Mina L [ Twitchell Elementary - Grade 5]
Project Real
2020-12-16T22:04:09+00:00
Thank you for letting us experience court for the first time. It was the best experience ever, thank you for everything. You really made me think about being a judge. Thank you -Mina L [ Twitchell Elementary - Grade 5]
