I wanted to choose something that I didn't think anyone else would choose. I also wanted to pick something that was going to be of somewhat interest to me. I chose the anti-abortion law because I figured, "hey, that's not something anyone else will probably think of. I'm sure a lot of people are going to be doing historical bills and things that happened a while ago." So I chose my topic from there. 
I chose the Prezi format for my project because it gave me the opportunity to 1. explore a new learning tool and 2. give my viewers something other than a Keynote or Powerpoint to look at. It was definitely something new and something I needed to get used to, but I learned a lot from the program itself.
In the process of completing this project, a lot of things began to happen in my life. Things got really hectic at home and I began to get really sick. I also damaged my achilles tendon, so being exhausted from the cast the doctors had me in, left me falling asleep at 7pm, not finishing my homework or projects. I also was just dreading doing the research I had to do because honestly, I, myself was making it seem a lot harder than it actually was. I just needed to sit down and do it, that was it. Once I finally got into the process of creating the project, I didn't run into much trouble. 
If I had the chance to do this project ALL over again, I most definitely would. I would manage my time better and get the project in on time to get the grade I should've gotten myself in the first place. I would've also probably tried to understand Prezi more, as it took a lot more time than I would've liked because I was new to the program. 
I was able to research a lot about my particular topic. Because the nation is so very diverse when it comes to abortions, I saw the different times that the country went through. Seeing the people physically harm one another was very hard for me to believe. It was very interesting though. 
The process what a lot easier than I thought it was going to be. I didn't realize just how much information was out there on abortions and the history of abortion laws. This made it a lot easier for me to easily get my project information researched. 



Sources: 
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/13/267880/162-number-of-new-anti-abortion-provisions-in-the-states/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-abortion-timeline,0,7911413.story

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html

Constitutional question:

The constitutional question here is determining or not if the Federal meat Inspection Act, which basically allows slaughterhouses to keep animals that can’t walk for observation, for evidence of disease, does this prevent a state law that determines animals like that to be immediately killed.

“Whether the Federal Meat Inspection Act which requires slaughterhouses to hold animals that become unable to walk for observation for evidence of disease preempts a state law that requires such animals to be immediately killed.”

“Is a California law requiring slaughterhouses to "immediately euthanize" any nonambulatory animal on its premises preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act?”

Facts of the case:

·      The Federal meat Inspection Act is basically an act that is concerned about animals that are going to become meat.

·      Slaughterhouses in California.

·      California made there own rules which is basically allowing them to handle or take care of or observe animals that cannot walk.

·      The right to purchase animals like any type of receipts was also banned in California.

·      Can’t sell meat if the animal was originally with the swine that didn’t allow it to walk.

·      The animals that can’t walk are caused by transportation.

·      220,000 swine die during transportation

·      440,000 become unable to walk during transportation.

·      Are animals suitable to turn into meat?

·      Inspections?

·      Humane treatment to animals that can’t walk. Do whatever they want to the animal.

Summary of the Arguments before the SCOTUS:

The argument before SCOTUS appears argues and states the overall points of the case. Mr. Wells, on behalf of the petitioner, states the rules that the California slaughterhouses have given themselves, which is basically handling animals that cannot walk. The case here is argued among Steven J. Wells, Justice Scalia, Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Alito. One main thing that has come to their attention is the point in which California has banned all receipts for animals. Therefore not allowing any evidence of a purchase from an animal. The situation ended up leading to another case, which involved meat sales, receipts of purchase and such. Meat sales happens to be one of the main steps involved in the process of the slaughterhouse argues one person. Human treatment and food safety are other points made here. How is it that people could sit and sell food yet not knowing much about the health of the animal, this here can lead to health issues among people who buy the meat. The main focus now is the fact as to, why animals are unable to walk, which could be from transportation to the slaughterhouses and could be from the swine disease in, which the animals carry. There were multiple points brought up but the main one had to do with the process in, which animals become unable to walk.

Predictions on the outcome:

I am not sure what to thin actually I mean I completely disagree with the slaughterhouses in California and their rules. I believe they are the ones who will lose the case because of cruelty. Well not exactly cruelty to animals but the point as to, where they are handling and dealing with animals that can’t walk in the way they want to handle them. 

According to http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lafler-v-cooper/ the case Lafler v. Cooper is about When a criminal defendant turns down a plea offer based on seriously deficient advice from his lawyer, and then receives a harsher sentence after being convicted by a jury after a fair trial, can the defendant later seek to overturn his sentence on the ground that his counsel was unconstitutionally deficient in advising him to reject the more generous plea offer? If so, what is the proper remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel in that situation?

According to http://www.americancriminallawreview.com/Drupal/blogs/blog-entry/lafler-v-cooper-attorney-mistakes-plea-bargaining-and-remedies-09-25-2011 the way this case came about is Among other charges, the respondent, Anthony Cooper, was charged with Assault with Intent to Murder for shooting Kali Mundy and inflicting life-threatening injuries. Although Cooper had aimed the gun at Mundy’s head, the bullets ended up hitting her in the buttocks and thighs. After the preliminary hearings, the prosecutor communicated an initial plea offer to Cooper’s attorney that allowed Cooper to plead guilty to assault with intent to murder and face a minimum sentence of 51 to 85 years imprisonment. 

Cooper testified that he wanted to plead guilty but that his attorney advised him not to take the deal. Cooper’s attorney informed him that because the victim was shot below the waist, the government could not prove an assault with intent to commit murder charge. The prosecutor later offered a second plea deal of a minimum sentence of 126 to 210 months but Cooper again rejected the plea based on his attorney’s advice. The case went to trial and the jury found Cooper guilty on all crimes charged. He was sentenced to 185 to 360 months of imprisonment.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

This goes with is case because this amendment shows that a person on trial has the rite to have a say so in his or her case no matter what even if there is a error and has the rite to speak up. So because a attorney does not make the right decision he or she has the rite to speak up and say he or she objects. 

Main Issue: Can the court of appeals intervene in a federal habeas case? And when does the statute of limitations for federal habeas claims begin?

One June 2nd of 1995, Robert Velasquez was murdered in a drive-by shooting, in which Rafael Gonzalez was labeled as one of the men in the two cars involved in the shooting, and thus an accomplice, if not the perpetrator of the murder. Officers tried to arrest Gonzales at his last known address, but unbeknownst to detectives, Gonzalez had left the country. After failing to apprehend Gonzalez at any known addresses, no further attempts to locate him were made until six weeks later detectives were told that Gonzalez was in Guatemala. Shortly thereafter the U.S embassy in Guatemala was informed of Gonzalez's actions and general whereabouts, but no further action was taken to apprehend him.
Six years later the extradition process begins, but he is not extradited until July of 2004, nine years after the murder. On July 15th of 2005, Gonzalez is put on trial. At this trial, he attempts to have the case dismissed on the grounds that this trial violates his 6th and 14th amendments, which guarantee him a speedy trial. In addition, he adds that because he was unaware that he was charged with murder for most of those ten years, he was unable to prepare a proper defense for the case. Ultimately he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. After sentencing, he filed many habeas corpus appeals, which in short protect a person from unlawful detention, as he saw because of the lack of a speedy trial, violating the 6th and 14th amendments. The appeals climbed the judicial ladder until it finally arrived at United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. However, because the appeals had not had any approval on it's journey here, there was no 'renewal' for the expiration date, so the claim was long expired, and thus discarded on those grounds, with little consideration to the constitutional issue it brought up. He then filed an appeal addressed to the district court, requesting a certificate of appealability. This was denied on grounds of being untimely as well, so in turn he filed a request with the court of appeals for a certificate of appealability. Ultimately, this request was granted, and Judge Garza signed a certificate of appealability. This has caused quite a lot of rabble, and has brought up a large question: Should courts dismiss constitutional claims on procedural bases without any real investigation of the constitutional claims?
I'm not quite sure what to think of this. Logically, I believe he should stay in jail because he was involved in a murder, but procedurally he should walk free because he was denied the constitutional right to a prompt and speedy trial. This case is really quite a mess and it's very hard to predict the outcome. If it were a small crime, then I think certainly the charges would be dropped due to the constitutional issues, but because it's murder it's much more complex. I think that this case will come down to very small details, but I think he stands a chance of winning it due to his persistence.

Zayd Alsardary
American Government
Kawashima v. Holder: SCOTUS Case

Main Issue: Whether a person can be deported for filing a false statement on a corporate tax return under a statute that allows the government to deport anyone convicted of an aggravated felony involving fraud and deceit.



Overview of case:

Akio and Fusako Kawashima, the petitioners in the case, are residents of the United States and have been since 1984. In 1997, it was found out that Mr. Kawashima, with help from his wife, filed a false corporate tax return that understated their income and therefore basically cheated the government of owed tax revenue – and this violated Section 7206 of the tax code.

A provision in immigration law allows the government to deport anyone who has been convicted of an "aggravated felony", which is defined toward anything along the lines of murder and drug trafficking, but as time went on, an offense that was added is any offense that deals with fraud and deceit in which the victim loses more than $10,000 in the crime which is described in section 7201 of title 26.

Because the Kawashimas were convicted of filing a false return (a violation of Section 7206 of the tax code), rather tax evasion (a violation of Section 7201), they were not subject to deportation. Despite that, the government still put down deportation proceedings against them on the belief that the Kawashimas filing a false tax return is a form of “fraud or deceit”. ---> (There is no dispute that the crime resulted in a loss of more than $10,000 to the government.)


Main Question: Whether Congress meant for the broader fraud subsection to encompass tax violations which is specifically for tax evasion.

The Kawashimas are arguing that by only addressing tax violations in the second subsection (the revenue loss to the government exceeds $10,000) but basing that to tax evasion, Congress showed that they were trying to leave out other kinds of tax violations in the meaning of "aggravated felony". In turn, the government is agruing that tax evasion counts as fraud and deceit, which then falls into the first subsection (involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000). Basically it is trying to be decided whether tax evasion is fraud and deceit based on what is said in section 7201 of title 26.  The question in the case is whether filing a false tax return counts as an “aggravated felony”.

The case is to take place on November 7, 2011.


Predictions: I believe that the Kawashimas will be in favor a bit because the meaning of aggravated felony will be put down many times, especially since it is not clear when talking about it. I kind of do believe that filing a false tax return is fraud and especially deceit since you are purposely trying to mislead someone, but then the question that comes to play is the intentions. I am actually interested to know what the outcome will be.

​    I live in philadelphia county's  4th district and I am represented by Councilman Curtis Jones.Councilman Jones graduated from Overbook high school then attending the University of Pennsylvania's Fels School of Government and Boston University. Councilman Jones has been apart of the city government for the past seven mayoral administrations. He serves on many different committees and councils in philadelphia and is very keen on it's the preservation. Promoting community development and educational stability.
    When concerning education in philadelphia Coucilman Jones voted in favor of not cutting the philadephia school districts budget. Saying "As I have stated from the very beginning of this school budget crisis, we will either pay now with the proper investment in public education or we will pay later by funding prisons and parole officers." As said before Jones is very adamant about philadelphia's youth, community development, and education. It does not seem as thought college students and the recent increase in tuition cost around the state are a major concern for Jones at the moment.
    As far as commonalities between Coucilman Jones and myself go, there are some. For example , we have both attended schools within the philadelphia school district and lived in some of the same areas and we both want Philadelphia to thrive. Now Jones is the representative for my current location within philadelphia.

Links:
http://www.phila.gov/citycouncil/CurtisJonesJr.html
http://www.curtisjonesjr.com/
google PDF

I live in District 4 and Curtis Jones represents me. 
Curtis Jones hosted and sponsored a fracking resolution in order to forbid fracking from the Marcellus Shale.

Curtis Jones and I both have similar opinions about fracking. It has a negative impact on the environment. He is attempting to make changes with the power he has as a Councilman. 

http://protectingourwaters.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/philadelphia-city-council-unanimously-passes-resolution-to-sue-drbc-demand-impact-studies-forbid-fracking-for-now/

​The public official that represents my area and topic the most would be State Rep. Ronald G. Waters of the 191st. district of pennsylvania. He has served his seat since 1999, being an ambassador for areas in both Philadelphia and Delaware Counties. His legislation has consisted of a variety of different topics, including health, judiciary, children and youth, and most recently environment.

 I believe that Waters would be an appropriate legislator because he has shown efforts in the past to fight for opportunities for children, and has been very involved in his community. His resumé includes the "Ought To Be A Law" contest, in which 3rd graders around the state submit papers to their district representatives on topics that they believe affect them the most and ought to be a law. Recently he has backed up the 'Dream Act', a piece of legislation that fights to insure the opportunities for children of ilegal immigrants to receive higher education. 

Other influential officials include Janie Blackwell, who is the councilwoman of my district on the city level. Although my lobby is one that appeals to the views of American's nationwide and target the federal level, legislators like Blackwell have recently taken part in campaigning for the reform of education in the Philadelphia area. Anthony Williams, another resident of the West Philadelphia area, as state senator may also pose as a direct connection to the federal level.

Links:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/house_bio.cfm?id=142

http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/biography/2538

http://dreamact.info/students

http://www.senatoranthonyhwilliams.com/legislative/legislation/there-oughta-be-a-law