Law

The Three Strikes Law mandates an extended period of imprisonment for the law offenders who will commit the criminal offense three times in different occasions. Whether it is a violent crime or a serious crime (it also involves violent crime) like robbery, will be qualified for  strikes . The name was actually incorporated in baseball where the batter is allowed to have to strikes and after the third one he will be out. In New Zealand, the Three Strike Law is also set to be a law. In Scoop.Co, Hon Rodney Hide said that Three Strikes deliberately escalates the punishment for repeat violent offenders. Most offenders wont want to risk a second strike. Repeat offenders will be locked up without parole and for maximum sentences . However, the effectiveness and fairness of this law are being questioned.

People had been arguing if this law is effective and just. A lot of people are jailed for committing non-violent crimes and some of them can be considered as petty. In March 1999, a man in California was sentenced for 25 years of imprisonment just for stealing a bottle of vitamins. (Murphy,2000). Some say that the Three Strikes Law is effective to the repeat offenders because that just means that they are really bound in committing a crime.  I believe that New York should adapt this law because I feel that this would reduce the crime rate. There are a lot of crimes that always take place in New York. If people would know about this law, I am sure that they are not going to commit the same crime again. They are going to think twice in involving to different crimes for they are going to be accountable for the  second strike   Regardless of the crime that the criminals committed, they should pay for it justly. So whether a person commit homicide or just stole something, it is just right to make them learn their lesson. There are still other basis for conviction for each crimes that are committed. It just so happened that on the second strike, you will already have a longer sentence and on the third strike, you can never be put on parole. Just like when you did something good, big or small it is still goodness and same as when you did something bad.

In many cases, the standard for admissions into a prestigious law school program is that the candidate must be one with an intense drive to succeed, a desire for excellence and a drive to achieve the goals that have been set before himher. But I believe that in my background, the circumstances that I grew up in made my drive not only to excel but also a sense of compassion for those, like myself, who though were on the short end of the stick, as it were, made the most of what we had, enhanced that and made us better and stronger individuals. I do not see my background as a handicap to what I aspire for, to be accepted and graduate from your august law program, but to learn and hopefully give back to society, to aid those who were in my predicament a few years back, not only in a social essence but also in a legal manner if granted admission into your program.

Growing up, many factors could have been the reason for me just to give up, because of the hostility and apathy of society. My mother, an immigrant from Mexico, was left alone o raise me in a poverty stricken setting. The fact that we were poor and my Mexican lineage became sources of embarrassment for me as I grew up. In school, that differentiation was constantly reminded me by my dominant classmates, fueling my desire to be accepted by the superior class. But that differentiation was not limited to me alone my mother would often come home in tears, those differences and the barriers that they created being reminded to her at her place of employment. The image of my mother crying stirred my passions to desire that inclusiveness to the dominant society, not as an abdication of who we were just to fit in, but a recognition of who we are, to help others in their quest to overcome, and to help the people at the short end of the stick.

In college at Xavier, the embarrassment that I was different was when I had to work a full-time job while trying to graduate by attending night and weekend classes. But the differences that  I had so much perceived to be embarrassments were to become my building blocks towards successfully achieving my goals. In my job at Convergys, one of the leading companies in the world, the experience in working at such a prestigious company allowed me to contribute in a significant manner in my class, benefiting my classmates, while the new knowledge I learned in school allowed me to contribute in return to help my employer. At Xavier, I learned web site design this allowed me to impart that knowledge to help Convergys in the development of the companys intra-net web pages, thus saving the company a considerable amount of expenses.  As a member of the Global Diversity Council at the company, I was able to contribute my real life experiences in communicating and coordinating with other team members at various locations around the world.

I prided myself as a person who was not afraid to ask, so I was the one who always asked the questions that no one wanted to open in class. Also, the experience of going to school while at the same time working full time proved to be an immeasurable advantage to me, since this gave me a first hand, hands on experience at managing and fulfilling multiple tasks all at the same time, though I had initially thought of this as an disadvantage at the onset. Again, I had seen that deficiencies, or differences, can be turned into advantages in achieving ones goal. Again, this was made evident to me as I began my stint as a Corporate Diversity Specialist at Toyota. Utilizing my understanding as a member of both dominant and the non dominant sectors in society, and my fluent use of Spanish, I resolved productivity issues, and improved the relations between company headquarters in Kentucky and the production base in Mexico. Realizing the problem was underpinned by a dearth of understanding of the two parties, I initiated acting on the issue by collaborating with the team in the creation of a course on cross cultural competence, inclusive of the history of the two cultures, the differences and the similarities of each culture.

As a result of this program, the business methods being used by each greatly improved, leading to increased productivity and more importantly, an enhancement of the respect that each party gives to one another.  To further strengthen the bonds that have been established, I visited the production base in Mexico, where I implemented a diversity scorecard, and crafted a diversity policy and a training program suitable to the Mexican cultural framework. These actions has resulted in the creation of a Latino affinity group, developed by myself, that enhanced the respect and understanding of our Latino employees, which constitute 2 percent of the Kentucky workforce. The initiatives I undertook at the Mexican plant has bore fruit in the improvement of our relations with the other plant in Canada and the Kentucky headquarters.
The passion that I possess for the creation of a culture anchored on inclusivity that respects and appreciated the differences in every person has grown into a living and vigorous part in every activity that I go into. In the many experiences that I have undergone these past years, I have found the power of the diversity that we all share, and the importance of using that power as well as integrating it into my activities. In the past when I felt that the differences were a well spring of embarrassment for me, now I understand that they no longer are such for me. As I aspire to be part of the legal profession, these differences need to be seen in all facets of the American society. This can be achieved in the equal opportunity that American law will afford to all citizens, regardless of the factors that define that person. As a person who loves to answer a challenge, passionate about what I believe and practice, and of course, asking questions, I feel the desire to step into the gaps and become a solution rather than be part of the problem, of discrimination and hate and retaliating such acts against those of my heritage. In my chosen field of Employment Law, I want to bring that desire of creating that inclusiveness, and being equipped with a legal education will allow me to become a more effective advocate of that cause. A legal foundation, coupled with my diverse experiences, my heritage, fluency in Spanish and familiarity with another culture will give me the advantage of being a well-rounded lawyer and advocate of the future needs of the future workforce, be they dominant or not.

Article 230 EC lays down the times that an individual or business can challenge some EC decisions that they do not seemingly agree with. In order to bring an action under Article 230, it is necessary for the individual to have locus standi, i.e. they must have a direct or indirect personal interest in the actual decision. This has been interpreted very strictly by the courts and the subject of this paper is to consider whether or not this is a justifiable approach or whether the courts have been unduly restrictive.

Under Article 230(4), there must be an individual concern in order for the individual to have locus standi. This has been stated as being a thought against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former. It is this interpretation of individual concern that has been criticised as being too restrictive and it is here that the main analysis will be undertaken. In some cases, it has been argued that the European Court of Justice takes such a restrictive approach to when an individual may have their case heard, that the person had been entirely denied any legal remedy and that this is against the principles of judicial protection.

This proposition will be considered in the light of recent cases from the courts.
The actual theory behind this type of mechanism is clear. Whenever there are any rules that allow an organisation to make decisions, it is also necessary that these decisions can be tested in some clear and fair way. Based on this, it is necessary to have provisions such as those seen in Article 230 allowing individuals to question community decisions and to place controls over the actions of the Commission and the Council and also to a lesser extent the Parliament.

In reality, this burden rests with the European Court of Justice in the court of first instance, because it is seen as the independent body which has been trusted to uphold the rules on community in a fair and reasonable way. Under the treaty, the European Community offers a system whereby there can be judicial review of the decisions that are made. It covers both the administrative and legislative acts of the institutions giving it a potentially very wide remit.

Where an action for annulment is sought, Article 230 becomes central. Article 230(4) allows a non-privileged applicant, i.e. every legal or natural person, to challenge an alleged illegal act by the community. This is necessary due to the fact that community law has a direct effect on individuals as well as on member states and therefore these individuals deserve the right, potentially, to bring an action for annulment where they feel there has been an illegal act. It is possible for individuals to request a review of actions from the Council, the Commission, the European Central Bank and the European Parliament. The difficulty arises due to the fact that proving locus standi for such action is particularly arduous and this has a direct impact on the effectiveness of judicial protection.

In order to consider whether or not these positions are too restrictive, the operation of Article 230(4) will be considered in more detail. Broadly speaking, Article 230(4) allows any natural or legal person to bring proceedings against a decision that has been addressed to them or they have a direct individual concern with the decision. Therefore, in order to be able to bring an action for annulment and to initiate review proceedings against a decision, that decision must have been addressed to the applicant, be addressed to a third party with which the applicant has a direct and individual concern, or be a decision that is in the form of a regulation and this can be directly of concern to the applicant. Interestingly, Article 230 does not deal with the possibility of challenging directives by individual people, but as it is a legal instrument of the community, there is no reason why directors could not be challenged in this way. In fact, case law suggests that the legal instrument in question does not prevent individuals from bringing an action.

In order to show that the individual has a direct or individual concern, it is necessary that the legal decision is more than a mere interest. Both criteria need to be fulfilled, i.e. the decision must be both direct and individual. It could be argued that the direct concern is one that affects the legal situation of the individual applicant and allows little or no discretion in terms of how the measure should be implemented. Therefore, where there are rules brought into place and their implementation is not discretionary, parole is capable of having direct legal effect on an applicant. Based on this fact, it is necessary to consider whether or not the member state has a discretion regarding the way in which it implements the community rule. If the members had discretion, then it will be much harder to prove that the individual could bring an action against the community, as the communitys action did not directly restrict their legal rights.

The matter of individual concern was considered in detail in the case of Plaumann v Commission not only did the case discussed the issue individual concern in detail, but it also lays down the general approach that the courts would take when dealing with matters of judicial review. In this case, Plaumann but they dont individual who imported clementines try to bring an action against the Commission, due to the fact that the Commission had talked to me that it was unable to lower the duty on imports of clementines from 13 to 10. As the decision was actually addressed to the German government and not to Plaumann himself, he had to show that he had individual concern in the decision. The court stated that this meant it had to be a decision that affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually.

The court held that Plaumann was affected by the decision due to the fact that he was an importer of clementines, but that this did not wish him from other imported clementines or anyone else that chose to undertake this commercial activity from time to time. Based on this, he is not individually concerned as he was only considered due to his status as being commercially involved with clementines. This exceptionally restrictive test has been applied in subsequent cases and has also been the subject of much criticism from a wide range of sources.

In the case of Toepfer v Commission, the alternative decision was reached as the applicant who was an importer of cereals was held to have individual concern due to the fact that the rules only apply to those who attempted to gain an import licence and were refused such a licence on a specific date due to the Commissions decision. It was held, in this case, that he did have individual concern, as the decision applied to a very limited number of individuals and could not be extended at any point. A similar point was made in the case of Bock v Commission where it was stated that A decision is of individual concern to a person when the factual situation created by the decision differentiates him from all other persons and distinguishes him individually just as in the case of the person addressed. A trader is therefore individually concerned by a decision authorizing a Member State to reject the application for an import license made by the said trader prior to the adoption of the decision if the State makes use of that authorization.

Pulling these cases together, it can be concluded that, where the contested measures can have a general application, an individual could never be seen to be individually concerned, no matter how directly the decision may be seen to affect them. It is likely that this could result in some individuals being very badly affected by a Commission decision of not being able to bring an action, due to the fact that they are not considered to be individually concerned.

The restrictions are seen when it comes to challenges that are made against regulations which appear more like fact decisions. The reading of Article 230(4) suggests that regulations can only be challenged when they are, in fact, decisions and if a regulation were to be the subject matter of a challenge, it would have to be viewed as a series of decisions making up that regulation and the same restrictions in relation to individual concern would apply. In reality, however, the court has taken a different approach. Case law indicates that the courts have taken two approaches by looking at the closed category test and also the abstract terminology test.

The application of the closed category test could be seen in the case of International Fruit Company BV v. Commission, where a group of importers had applied for a licence to their own national authorities. The Commission was notified of the application and was responsible for the rules regulating whether or not these licences would be granted. The regulation would only apply to those who are applying for an import licence. It was held by the court that the regulations were, in fact, a series of individual decisions and therefore potentially caught by the provisions of Article 230.

When it comes to the abstract terminology test, the leading case is that of Calpak. In this case, the applicant produced William pears and they looked to another regulation which had advocated the amount of production aid they would receive, based on one marketing year, where previously the amount of aid had been based on the previous three years. The applicant argued that they were a close group and could be easily defined and therefore should have locus standi to bring an action. The court held The nature of the measure as a regulation is not called in question by the mere fact that it is possible to determine the number or even identity of the producers to be granted the aid which is limited thereby.

It can be seen, therefore, that when determining whether or not an individual has standing to bring an action for annulment the court, on the whole, has taken a very restrictive approach, but they have been slightly more lenient in certain areas such as anti-dumping and competition.

Some cases have attempted to justify the restrictive approach taken. In some cases, it has been found that an applicant would be able to bring an action where it was their only way of ensuring equality. Where not allowing an action for annulment would result in a denial of justice, the court will be more inclined to hold that there is standing. As stated in the case of Les Verts the European Economic Community is a Community based on the rule of law, inasmuch as neither its Member States nor its institutions can avoid a review of the question whether the measures adopted by them are in conformity with the basic constitutional charter, the treaty.

Less restrictive approaches have also been seen in competition law cases, although this could be arguably due to the fact that the applicants are often directly involved in the case and therefore establishing direct and individual concern is much easier, rather than it being a policy decision, to be more relaxed in competition cases.

Pulling this together and looking more closely at the actual wording in Article 230(4), it can be seen that, overall, the ethos behind these restrictions is to prevent individuals bringing actions in which they have merely a passing interest. If these were not interpreted very restrictively, the courts could find themselves inundated with mildly interested applicants and this would not be in the best interests of justice. This is a perfectly logical and sensible but it can be argued that the restrictions have gone too far and are now preventing legitimate claims from being brought.

Despite this strong argument for the restrictions, it has left individuals concerned by community action as case law has resulted in establishing standing being very difficult and justice not being achieved in many cases. Controlling actions against the European Community had been something that has been dealt with in other aspects of European law very successfully and it is hard to see how similar equality cannot be achieved in the area of Article 230(4).

One possible explanation could be that the courts goal is ultimately to operate as a form of appellate courts or community decisions and being restrictive in terms of interpreting Article 230(4) is a way of modifying the way in which the judicial system works within the European Community. It would seem that by being restrictive in relation to Article 230 claims of a forced to follow the process is under Article 234, where individuals can bring an action to question whether its member states have acted in light of the community law.

In conclusion, the way in which Article 230 is being interpreted has resulted in an unduly restrictive approach and has at times resulted in individuals failing to bring a claim for annulment. In these cases, a common interpretation of the situation would have been likely to suggest that they did have individual interest, but the courts decided differently. There may be good reasons for this such as the need to restrict access to the courts and to ensure that the court takes a more appellate type role however, as it stands currently, the restriction are such that they prevent justice in many cases and require applicants to look for different means of questioning illegal actions. Currently, the restrictions placed on the application of Article 230 cannot be fully justified, without an alternative being offered.

It is said that power and influence in the legal jargon goes beyond the judiciary. In the current world, some law firms have a lot of influence due their popularity and dominance in the market. Times online legal editors Frances Gibb and Alex Spence in their article law1oo asked

Who are the driving forces at the big City law firms, the generators of billion-pound revenues  the dealmakers who command most respect And is the in-house solicitor, with power to bring a test case, more powerful than the barristers who win it or the judge who decides it And what of those in the backrooms, the unseen lawyers driving the policy cogs of government

This is an indicator that the people are aware and unhappy of what is going on in our judicial system. If this situation continues to prevail, who will be the poor peoples defender  This has caused a lot of unjust judgments. If the best lawyers are only found onboard the high profile law firms and on that matter very expensive, who is going to represent the less fortunate in the society That is a question only the lawyers themselves can answer out of self consciousness. The problem with our courts is that the judges prosecute on grounds of who is representing you. These top lawyers dine and wine with the judges. How then do we expect them not to receive favors from the judges if they are their friends

Business wise, corporate law firms are very expensive. This has helped increase the vulnerability and manipulation of small businesses by the huge firms who have their cases presented by big law firms in the country.

This has greatly influenced injustice in the society with the poor being represented by appointed court attorneys while the rich being represented by top profile lawyers from big law firms in the cities.

Admission essay to the law undergraduate of the year award
Even before I joined law school, I was very sure that my calling was destined to work as a lawyer and that arguing and presenting law facts is a thing cultivated in me. There has never been doubt about what I have wanted to do with my life. When I am in court room I feel that the working environment is more controlled than any where else. I find the satisfaction I get when after winning a case very much fulfilling. I am well conversant with what is required of a lawyer and I have a clear understanding of the repercussions although to me they are just but an urge to pursue further. By becoming an integral winner of the Mayer brown law summer work experience program, will be a step further in building my profile as a lawyer.

I have strong educational background I am expecting at least a 22 in my results. I have been fully active in school activities relating to law and have won various awards in my time of study. I am also am deeply associated with communal work. I participate in community based activities to help create a better place for the benefit of us all and even hold a burning sphere award for event organizing.

I boast of having great communication, listening and interpersonal skills which I believe incorporated by the passion for law I have and team work provided, we will both be able to offer the public the justice they deserve. With the areas I am not conversant with, I will compensate by learning quickly. I adopt quickly to change and collaborate very well with others towards achieving our goal. I believe by adopting me into your program will be a step further towards promoting my career interests and helping you achieve your business objectives

A corporate law project
This is the most interesting and intriguing project I have ever undertook in my time of study. The many cases relating to business fraud and financial mismanagement I encountered in my research were very helpful to me in understanding corporate law fully. The project was to evaluate and relate two cases studies regarding business ethic dilemmas caused by breach of corporate law in the United States and Australia. That led me to unearth the Enron scandal (2001 United States) and the Skase saga (1989 Australia).

The Enron scandal is the biggest audit failure in the history of United States. An analysis on the failure indicated personal involvement on the financial management of the organization. The Enron scandal led to the generation of the Sarbanes Oxley act on 8th, June 2002. United States senator Mr. Paul Sarbanes and a house representative Michael Oxley managed to pass what would be known as the Sarbanes Oxley bill at the senate banking committee. The act was to overlook financial management and corporate governance in organizations.

Similar to this is the Skase (Quintex) saga. Quintex was retail and broadcasting company that performed well in its early days of business. In 1989, the company scrambled down due to bankruptcy. One of the company directors Mr. Ted Harris highlighted the circumstances of the collapse to the public as personal interference of the chief executive in the running of the business. He stated that Mr. Skase was channeling company revenues to his other private companies including the seven network TV station and a number of hotel resorts and clubs across Australia and Asia. These transfers were unauthorized and involved huge amounts of money. In the early 1980s, Quintex was estimated to be over 1.5 Australian billion dollars and by the time of collapse, the company was in debt of over 700, 000 million Australian dollars.