Your our Argument and opinions

to be continue

Rule of law

Reasoning of the law

to be continue

Questions

to be continue

legal Authority

to be continue

The Mud Files in New Bratz Brawls

The Mud files in New Bratz Brawls

I read an article by Ann Zimmerman called It’s the dolls Rematch. It says that Mattel Inc., was going to court to prove once again that Isaac Larian’s MGA Entertainment Inc.  stole the toy company’s intellectual property when it created the popular Bratz doll line a decade ago and this case will determined who is the rightful owner of the sultry looking of dolls. Also there case being litigated in federal court in Santa Ana, Calif., will be devoted to dueling allegations that each company engaged in a host of dirty deeds in an effort to steal trade secrets. "This will be a remarkable trial," Judge David O. Carter said during pretrial motions in the case in October, according to a transcript. MGA alleges at least four former Mattel employees, with the knowledge of Mattel executives, disguised themselves as retailers or toy distributors and complete with fake business cards and dummy invoices and to gain access to competitors' show rooms at toy fairs and glean information on rivals' newest products, price lists and marketing strategies, according to court documents. In an email written by Mattel Chief Executive Robert Eckert that has been presented to the court as evidence, he asks one of his executives if he wants him "to kill" a deal between Mattel and video company THQ. It was who made the Bratz videogames. Mattel disputes both allegations. Mike Zeller, an attorney for Mattel, said the information that MGA claims was stolen weren't trade secrets. "In many cases, MGA had released it to the public." Moreover, Mr. Zeller says MGA's allegations about the events involving THQ are confused and inaccurate. He says “it is reasonable and lawful for a company to evaluate whether to do business with another company if it has concerns.” Mattel, for its part, accuses MGA employees of sneaking into its showrooms to peek at coming products during toy fairs, according to court documents. Then there is the allegation of purloined papers. Mattel alleges that MGA stole trade secrets by encouraging Mattel employees from Mexico, Canada and the U.S. to download Mattel documents before coming to work at MGA, according to court documents.

 I think this whole thing is cine of amazing and crazy that dolls companies really had all these things going on.

ECO Supreme Court Prayer

EOC Supreme Court Prayer

The source is NBC News it says that in Washington that the Supreme Court, is testing how far they can go in government bodies can offering prayers at the beginning of an official meetings. There was  a after courtroom arguments in a case that was brought by two women from upstate New York that they though that justices had no interest in eliminating prayers at government meetings. They say instead they use justices grappled with that they” could come up limits to the prayer without making those disagree with the message feel coerced  into participating, or fear that they may alienate government officials.” Also that justice Elena Kagan was thinking if it would be permissible for the Supreme Court to open the sessions by having a minister face the lawyers and to have them “Acknowledge the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.”  Like for if they had the chief justice then called your case by using making an members sign of the cross would that make it okay. Thomas Hungar, a lawyer for the town, said that he did not think so but in this case prayer before a legislative body, the court doctrine has found that the country, “from its very foundations and founding,” allow it, he said. Also the thorny nature of the case was apparent throughout the argument. Some justices wondered what would be an acceptable prayer to appeal to all faiths, and the nonbelievers. Justice Antonin Scalia asked, to laugher in the courtroom: “What about devil-worshippers?” “Who is going to make this determination?” said John Roberts wanted to know. Scalia drew a distinction between prayers before a legislative session and prayers before a judicial session, as in Kagan’s example. “They are there as citizens,” Scalia said, speaking of legislators. “And as citizens, they bring to their job all of — all of the predispositions that citizens have. And these people perhaps invoke the deity at meals. They should not be able to invoke it before they undertake a serious governmental task such as enacting laws or ordinances?” This is some things that they had to face.

When it happened in class I thought it was different and that I wasn’t expecting it. But I being a Christian I liked it but not everyone is so I think it would be respectable even if not right to say a prayer for other religions too.