Emerson :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Emerson was born in Boston, Massachusetts. Emerson graduated from Harvard University at the age of 18 and for the next three years taught school in Boston. In 1825 he entered Harvard Divinity School, and the next year he was certified to preach by the Middlesex Association of Ministers. Even with ill health, Emerson delivered occasional lecture in churches in the Boston area. In 1829 he became minister of the Second Church (Unitarian) of Boston. That same year he married Ellen Tucker, who died 17 months later. On Christmas Day, 1832, he left the United States for a tour of Europe. He stayed for some time in England, where he made the associate of such British literary notables as Walter Savage Landor, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Thomas Carlyle, and William Wordsworth. His meeting with Carlyle marked the beginning of a lifelong friendship.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  On his return to the United States in 1833, Emerson settled in Concord, Massachusetts, and became active as a lecturer in Boston. His lectures including â€Å"The Philosophy of History,† â€Å"Human Culture,† â€Å"Human Life,† and â€Å"The Present Age† were based on material in his Journals (published posthumously, 1909-1914), a collection of comments and notes that he had begun while a student at Harvard. Emerson applied these ideas to cultural and logical problems in his 1837 lecture â€Å"The American Scholar,† which he delivered before the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Harvard. In it he called for American intellectual independence. A second address, commonly referred to as the â€Å"Address at Divinity College,† delivered in 1838 to the graduating class of Cambridge Divinity College, produce great controversy because it attacked formal religion and argued for self-reliance and unconscious spiritual experience.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The first volume of Emerson's Essays (1841) includes some of his most popular works. It contains History, Self-Reliance, Compensation, Spiritual Laws, Love, Friendship, Prudence, Heroism, The Over-Soul, Circles, Intellect, and Art. The second series of Essays (1844) includes â€Å"The Poet,† â€Å"Manners,† and â€Å"Character.† In it Emerson tempered the hopefulness of the first volume of essays, placing less importance on the self and acknowledging the limitations of real life. Emerson succeeded her as editor in 1842 and remained in that capacity until the journal ceased publication in 1844. In 1846 his first volume of Poems was published (dated, however, 1847).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Emerson again went abroad from 1847 to 1848 and lectured in England, where he was welcomed by Carlyle. Several of Emerson's lectures were later collected in the volume representative men (1850), which contains essays on such figures as Greek philosopher Plato, Swedish philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg, and French writer Michel Eyquem de Montaigne.

The Effects of World War II on Kurt Vonneguts Writing :: Biography Biographies Essays

The Effects of World War II on Kurt Vonnegut's Writing February 13, 1945: Dresden, Germany. War is raging across Europe. In a deep underground meat locker beneath Schlacthof-Funf, Slaughterhouse Five, 100 American prisoners and their six German guards feel the Earth move as Royal Air Force bombers lay wreckage to the city above. They can only hear the mass terror as the greatest slaughter in European history takes place, killing an estimated 135,000 civilians and destroying cathedrals, museums, parks, and even the zoo. In the morning, after the carnage has ended, the prisoners are put to work excavating bombed-out buildings to search for the dead. One of those Americans was none other than Private Kurt Vonnegut, Junior. Vonnegut's experiences in World War II were to haunt him the rest of his life, and were to feature prominently within his writing. Two of his novels, Mother Night and Slaughterhouse Five, take place almost entirely within Hitler's Germany. The latter is perhaps Vonnegut's most autobiographical work to date, the action occurring in and around Slaughterhouse Five, the very hellhole in which he toiled for his captors. The former is no doubt less autobiographical, but the main character certainly has many things in common with his creator: an American artist within Nazi Germany, doing what he felt was necessary to stay alive and to further his work. Mother Night, ironically, was not brought about as much by Vonnegut's exposure to the Nazis in Dresden, but more from his impressions and experiences in the mid-West during the Thirties, when American Nazis were rampant in Indianapolis and his own aunt encountered the new race laws of the German Germans, but it no doubt drew heavily upon his experiences at the hands of Nazi captors and his time spent in their land. Even in the stories that do not actively portray the

Case Study: Collective Bargaining at West University Essay

1. Employees decide to form a union to gain job security and higher wages or when they feel management is not doing their job correctly or fairly. The labor laws are in place that provides rights to unionize. I am not convinced they encourage, but they provide a protection to workers who feel they need the support of the union. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (Wagner Act) basically provides employees the right to unionize. When under a union, employees are protected in ways such as employers must bargain in good faith regarding all issues. Union members have the right to bargain over wages and other terms of their employment. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) takes union power to a higher lever as the members, who were appointed by the president, have authority to determine no unfair labor practices are occurring, appropriate bargaining units, and conducting elections to determine union representation. Basically, the NLRB oversees that the laws of the Wagner Act are being followed and the employers are not conducting any activities that can lead to charges of unfair labor practice. The labor laws give employees the right to choose a union or choose not to participate so it appears the law does not support one over the other, but supports the employees to be able to stand up for their rights when they feel the employer is using unfair labor practices. I believe this to be a very sensitive subject, because in most places I have worked, employees complain about one thing or another. I don’t think that means they should be allowed to decide to overturn the employer’s policies by organizing a union. (DeCenzo. 2010. p.343-346) 2. I believe teaching assistance should be considered employees since this position is represented by the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) which is a collective bargaining representative. Since it is supported by a union, this position would be considered an employee with the same rights to improve their working conditions. The University recognizes the GEO and seems to be familiar with union practices. It appears the university and the organized unions are able to work together and come to amicable agreements. I wonder if this is because some of the unions are made up of a younger generation who are not as demanding as a union of middle aged workers, mainly because they do not have the work experience to know what to ask for. Or maybe they are more willing to have a good labor-union relationship than the more experienced worker who may have become resentful over the years and may expect more then they deserve. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, teacher assistants â€Å"perform duties and deliver direct services to students or parents† (Teacher. May 2012.) This position is a paid position that delivers a service so it does not make sense that this position would not be considered an employee. Even those who attend school, such as Graduate Teaching Assistants, should be afforded the same protections as any other paid employee. This is similar to the RAs and CDAs who were awarded the right to unionize, even though they were undergraduate students. If undergraduates can unionize, the teacher assistants are certainly considered employees and would also have the right to unionize if they chose to do so. 3. I believe management’s reaction to employee interest in unionization differs if the employer already has a high union density. This does not mean employers are happy to have a group of employees become unionized, but I think they are familiar with the practices of a union and what is involved in working with the union to hammer out the issues raised by union members. I think the reaction would be much more positive from the employer that already has a high union density that an employer who does not. The employer without any union interaction would most likely be more negative and would not want to recognize a union within their workplace. Employers with no union involvement would most likely feel their rights were taken away or that they have lost their authority within the business. An employer who has union experience knows they are still in control of their business; however, they are aware of the negotiation process and the demands they may have to agree to. This can be a tense process as I feel unions just expect employers to bow down to all of their demands. This type of force seems like it gives the union an unfair advantage, which to me contradicts the whole reason for a union, where it was thought that the employer had the upper hand. I can only assume my lack of experience makes me form judgments that may or may not be true, but it is how it appears to me looking at it from the outside. 4.I believe some of the RA complaints were overstated because they expect to be given the same consideration as a resident, when they were informed in the (MOU) the Memo of Understanding which described the terms and conditions of the position. In the MOU, the university describes the requirements of enrollment, minimum GPA, and disciplinary guidelines. Human resource polices specifically state a violation of these disciplinary guidelines would be cause disciplinary action. It is unclear to me why the RA would compare themselves to the residents when they were entrusted with this position and are held to a higher standard. The complaint of compensation was more reasonable since they do not receive much of a monthly salary for all that is expected of them. After taxes the RA is not left with much. Since they are expected to discipline residents and are faced with the retaliation and anger from the residents, it is no wonder there is such a high turnover rate for the RA position. It is unbelievable that there are so many applicants for the position although perhaps they do not know all of the details of the position. It is most likely the reason why people apply and then quit since such a low paying position demands so much from the undergraduate student to handle. Perhaps in this situation a union is needed since it is obvious that the university is taking advantage of the students by requiring them to do much more than they are compensated for. 5. Unionization could change the culture of residence life in a negative way since the management of the company will have lost the control they once had to freely make changes to the culture and business operations. A union would now require that management to adhere to a distinct set of rules and would not have to agree with the way management decides to do business. I would assume the relationship between union and management can become quite agonizing to management as they might feel they cannot make decisions in their own business. According to an article on newswise.com, a study was conducted to evaluate the impact a union has on organization culture, and I was surprised by the results. It appears a comprehensive study of 10 years of information of both union and non-union groups was provided which included more than 7000 employee responses. It was stated that an organization is only as good as its culture and their ability to be aware of it and make changes. This is not such an easy task when a union is involved since according to the study, â€Å"unions are less likely to endorse the cultures of the organization.† This can create a division between the groups. (Unions. May 2012.) Contrary to what I would have thought, this study revealed less employee involvement and less teamwork or desire for advancement. This was surprising as the power of the union negotiation would make me assume these union members are feeling empowered since their voice is heard and they have job security. Apparently, these employees are not as happy or content as one would think. I feel this may be because the employer now has no room for change when it comes to union members and perhaps the non-union members appear to be a part of the business whereas the union members may feel they do not actually fit in, since they belong to the union. A sense of pride, belonging and appreciation motivate employees to work harder, but the union members do not have this aspect so they are less motivated. 6. Arizona has a â€Å"right-to-work† provision in which â€Å"no person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of a non-membership in a union.† This protects public employees from being turned down due to non-union involvement. The employees are free to choose, and cannot be discriminated against for not supporting a union. I have never worked for a union, but I have witnessed a strike take place at a previous employer, where only some departments were unionized. The strike was out of control, and those not involved had to be protected by the protests going on in front of the building. In my opinion, this should not be allowed, that employees can use such force and violence to coerce the employer to cave to their demands. (Arizona State Senate, 2012, p.1) The NLRA covers employees in the private sector, such as those employed by Federal, state, and local government, agricultural laborers, domestic service, independent contractor, and those subject to the Railway Labor Act. The rights protected under the NLRA are those concerning the employee’s right to form, join, and assist in organizing a union, or to not participate in a union. The protections are in place so no one is forced to join a union, and union cannot force an employer to hire only union members. (National Labor Relations Board, n.d.). I believe there are protections for those who do not wish to participate in a union for a reason. As I previously described, unions can become harsh in order to get their way. I would not want to pay dues for someone else to be paid a salary to speak for me. I negotiate for myself, and my commitment to the company and desire to excel helps in terms of salary increases and other benefits. I do not believe the negotiation process of a union is a benefit to anyone by the union negotiators and it only appears to create hostility within a company that should be able to run their own business. We have other avenues to explore if we feel we are being discriminated against, such as the EEOC. 7. I agree with the decision of the Labor relations commission (LRC) that the RAs and CDAs are employees and have the right to unionize. The university â€Å"hired† the RAs and had them sign a â€Å"job† description and RA Memo of Understanding (MOU). The university laid out clear terms and conditions and requirements that must be met in order to be eligible. This who met the conditions would be eligible for the CDA, community development assistant, which, to me appears to be a type of promotion since the CDA is a mentor for the RAs although no pay increase. Each position receives compensation and must adhere to mandatory requirements such as working 20 hours a week and preparation before each semester. With all of the requirements of these positions, as well as it being a compensated position, is enough proof that this is indeed an employed position in which the employees should have the same rights as any other employee, even though they are students. It would be discrimination to deny these students the rights that any other employee receives. The LRC was absolutely correct to decide for the RAs and CDAs as these are clearly employees and it appears they are being taken advantage of by the university since they deal with all of the negativity on a daily basis with little support and do not receive a pay increase with added responsibilities of a CDA. The university is not being fair to those in these positions because they are students, but being able to become unionized will help them sort through all of the issues they face. References Arizona State Senate (2012, November 8). Labor Employment Laws. Retrieved from http://www.azleg.gov/briefs/Senate/labor%20employment%20laws.pdf DeCenzo, D. A., & Robbins, S. P. (2010). Employee Benefits. In Fundamentals of human resource management (10th ed., p. 343-346). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. National Labor Relations Board (n.d.). Employee Rights | NLRB. Retrieved , from http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights Teacher Assistants. (2012, May). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes259041.htm Unions Can Present Challenges to Organizational Culture and Change. (2012, October 15). Retrieved , from http://www.newswise.com/articles/unions-can-present-challenges-to-organizational-culture-and-change View as multi-pages

Criminal Law Revision Notes

Homicide †¢  ·Law: X's actions toward Y may constitute homicide, which pursuant to s 277 is unlawful killing of a person. Depending on the circumstances, under s 277 an unlawful (s268) killing is either murder or manslaughter. Killing is defined in s 270 as causing the death of another directly or indirectly by any means. Death is defined under 13C of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) as the irreversible cessation of circulation or brain function. A person capable of being killed is defined under s 269 as a person completely proceeded in a living state from their mother. Y is a person. Y is dead’ †¢ Variable for s269: Where an injury is done to an unborn child who then dies after birth it must be established that the prior injuries are a valid cause of death. In the case of Martin v R it was held that a causal link can be drawn between injury to a foetus and the death of that child after birth. Specific reference was made in the case to s 271 where â€Å"a child di es in consequence of acts done †¦ by any person before or during birth, the person who did †¦ such act is deemed to have killed the child. †¢ Causation – Proof of causation requires satisfaction of both factual and legal elements (Royall; Krakouer) [what you need to look at is the causation between the act and the death, so when you apply the tests, you pick a specific action of the accused. If there is no action, then you look at omission. ] ? Factual – Generally easy to establish factual causation under the ‘but-for' test (Royall). Variable: However, it does not apply in cases of an innocent agent (White v Ridley) or in cases of omission, unless there was a duty and the actions are reasonable in the circumstances (duties ss 262-267). Apply to facts by stating very precisely . ’but for Y doing specifically this, X would not have done this and hence not died] ? Legal – Royall established four tests for legal causation. In difficult ca ses the operative and substantial cause is best. (1) Operating and substantial cause (2) Natural consequence (3) Reasonable foresight (4) Common sense (Campbell) ? Variable for causation: Behaviour of accused need not be sole cause of death (Krakouer) ? Novus Actus Interveniens: (1) Section 272 and Royall: actions of escaping victim will not reak the chain if fear of death or harm is reasonable and well founded. (2) Section 275: medical treatment of victim will not break chain if reasonably proper in circumstances and applied in good faith. Treatment includes all acts and omissions in the management of the patient (Cook). Turning off life support is not novus actus; original assault is still operative and substantial cause of death (Kanish). (1) Section 23B and R v Martyr: Abnormality or weakness in victim will not break chain. Must take victim as you find them. (3) R v Hallet: natural event will not break chain if it is reasonable foreseeable. 4) R v Pagett: Actions of third party will not break the chain if actions are an obvious result of what first person did. (5) Section 261: Consent to death is immaterial to issue of responsibility. †¢ Intention: The fault element in s 279(1)(a) is an intention to kill, and under s 279(1)(b) it is an intention to do bodily injury which endangers or is likely to endanger life. Intention is not defined in the code. In R v Willmot intention is defined as having the consequence of an action in mind. The intention is inferred from the act if the immediate consequences are obvious and inevitable (Parker v The Queen). Code: ? s279(1)(a): intention to kill is murder ? s279(1)(b): Intention to cause bodily injury of a nature that endangers or is likely (Hind v Harwood) to endanger life is murder. ? s279(1)(c): (1) Death is caused by an act; (2) done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose; (3)which is of the nature to be likely to endanger life. A ‘further' unlawful purpose other than killing (Stuart v The Queen). Li kely is define as a substantial (real and not remote) chance (Hind v Harwood). ? s280: Manslaughter is unlawful killing that is not murder (due to lack of intention). ? 281: unlawful assault (s 222) causing death: Defence against manslaughter (s 23B accident). Only 2 elements must be proved: assault (s 222) and death caused. [you only get to 281 after you have said that there is a defence of 23B. although, maybe not, it could also be lackof causation, but it’s not really correct here with murder/manslaughter]  · Defences: ? 23A: lack of will ? 23B: accident ? 24: mistake of fact ? Mistake of law should be here too, if only to state that it is not relevant ? 27: insanity ? 28: intoxication ? 29: immaturity ? 248: self-defence Stealing, s378, 371 Law: It is an offence to steal under s 378. The elements (s371) to be satisfied are that (1) taking or converting; (2) a thing capable of being stolen; (3) with fraudulent intent. ? A thing capable of being stolen is defined in s 370 . Anything which is the property of a person that is moveable (para 1), able to be made moveable (para 2), wild (para 4)and tame animals (para 3), electricity (s390), use of a computer (s440A), or any thing capable of ownership. Doesn’t matter if belongs to person who’s taking for this element ? Taking is not defined in the Code.It is defined in Wallis v Lane as moving (Clemesha) a thing from the place it originally occupied. Conversion is also not in the Code. In Illich it is defined as dealing with an object in a way that is inconsistent with the right of the owner (not a physical movement). Defence of mistake of fact can occur at this point where there is a mistake as to the identity of transferee (Middleton), identity of thing delivered (Ashwell), and as to the quantity of thing delivered (Russell v Smith), except with money where ownership passes at point of transfer irrespective of mistake (Illich). Fraudulent intent is outlined in s 371(2)(a) to (f). It is: (a) an intent to permanently deprive owner of the thing; [add: and to depreive of substantial value, caselaw] (b) an intent to permanently deprive any person who has any special property in the thing. The intent can be inferred from the circumstances and the manner in which the accused deals with the property (Foster v R). An intent to deprive the owner substantially of its value is equivalent to an outright taking (R v Smails); special property see after (f) (c) An intent to use as security.This applies only where the thing is pledged or given as security to a third party. Does not apply where accused holds property until a debt owed to them by the owner of the property is paid (Parker); (d) An intent to part with it on a condition as to its return; (e) An intent to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be returned in the original condition – must have changed significantly (Bailey); or (f) An intent to use money at will, even though person taking may intend to repay owne r. Variable: Under s371(5) conversion of lost property is not fraudulent if, at time of conversion, person taking/converting does not know who owner is AND reasonably believes that owner cannot be discovered. †¢ Variable: Doctrine of recent possession allows a jury to draw an inference of stealing or receiving where accused is found in possession of stolen goods soon after their theft and has no reasonable explanation as to how they came into their possession, Bruce v The Queen.  · Defence: Legal claim of right (s22) means accused had an honest, but not necessarily reasonable, belief that the property was theirs ( ).Robbery, s392 †¢ Law: Robbery is a compound offence defined in s392 as (1) stealing; (2) using actual/ threatened violence at/ immediately before/immediately after time of stealing; (3) to obtain thing stolen; OR (4) to prevent/overcome resistance to its being stolen. †¢ Prosecution must prove offence of stealing (as outlined on previous page). †¢ A ctual or threatened violence only has be be small to fulfill this element (R v Jerome). It only needs to be of such nature as to show that it was intended to overpower the party robbed, not merely to get possession (R v Gnosit). At, immediately before or after time of stealing includes the use of violence to escape or overcome resistance (R v Hay). †¢ Stealing has a fault element, but robbery has the added fault element of using the actual or threatened violence in order to obtain thing stolen or prevent resistance. †¢ Circumstances of aggravation under s391 include when (1) the offender is accompanied; (2) offender does bodily harm to any person; (3) offender threatens to kill any person; or (4) person to whom violence used/threatened is over 60. Burglary, s401 Law: Burglary is defined in s401 as (1) entering or beings or is; (2) at a place; (3) without consent of the owner; (4) with an intention to commit an offence OR actually committing an offence. ? Enter or be is def ined in s400 as inserting part of body OR instrument into building. ? Place is defined is s400 as Building, structure, tent, or conveyance, or part of building etc. Conveyance in s1 means vehicle, vessel, or aircraft. [if none of these, you mustlook at statutory interpretation, eg with a garden] ? Without the consent of the owner includes beyond consent of owner (Barker v The Queen). can be implied eg where a gate is open or a door. But only implied for legitimate purpose, not to commit a crime] ? Intention to commit an offence (fault element) can be formed prior to entry, or may be formed after entering building (Barker v The Queen). †¢ Circumstances of aggravation under s400 include when a person (1) has, or pretends to have, a weapon; (2) is accompanied; (3) does bodily harm to another; (4) threatens to kill or injure; (5) knows, or should have known, that there was someone in the place. Criminal Damage and Destruction, s444 Law: Criminal damage is the (1) wilful (s443) and (2) unlawful (s441); (3) damage or destruction (s1); (4) of any property (s1). Start with 4 then 3 then 1 and 2 (4) Property is define in s1 as any animate or inanimate thing capable of being the subject of ownership. (3) Damage or destroy is defined in Zischke as being when something is rendered imperfect or inoperative. Damage that is impermanent, ie remediable, is still damage unless it’s transient like chalk on a jumper. (1) Wilfully (s443) means an act or omission with the intention to damage or destroy, OR with knowledge or belief of likelihood of damage or destruction. Likelihood is (Hind v Harwood; Lockwood) a real and not remote chance, regardless of whether it is less or more than 50 per cent. ? Omission was discussed in Miller. At the point a person becomes aware of the damage occuring, they have a duty to act. (2) Unlawfully (s441) means (1) injury to property of another (i. e. Not own and not abandoned); (2) without consent; AND (3) with no authorisation, justifi cation or excuse. †¢ Defence of person or property (s441(3)) can be used if injury is deemed on reasonable grounds to be imminent. Force used must be reasonable.Common Assault, ss222, 313 †¢ Law: There are two types of assault defined in s222 of the Code: Physical assault and threat of assault. To fulfill the requirements of physical assault there must be (1) striking, touching, moving or otherwise applying force; (2) directly or indirectly; (3) to another person; without the consent of the other OR with fraudulently obtaining consent. An assault is unlawful unless authorised, justified or excused by law (s223). Fault element †¢ According to s 23 no intention is required for an offence unless stated in the offence.However, in Hall v Fonceca it was found that an intention on the part of the assailant either to use force or to create an apprehension in the victim is an element in an assault. †¢ Unlawful: an assault is always unlawful unless authorised, justified or excused by law (s223). It may also be unlawful if the person consents to the assault. †¢ Indirect force: Includes heat, light, gas or any other substance IF applied to a degree to cause injury or physical discomfort. (1) Queen v Jacob – electrical trap (2) Martin – bar across exit (3)DPP v K – acid in hand dryer (4) Gibbon v Pepper – causing horse to run someone over †¢ Without consent: Consent can be express or implied, and it must be freely given (not obtained by fraud). (1) Boughey v R: consent to accidental physical contact of ordinary life is impliedly consented to; (2) Collins v Wilcock: ‘commonplace intentional but non-hostile acts’ are impliedly consented to. (3) Pallante v Stadiums: Sporting context: contact within rules and intention of sports game. (4) Ferguson: Teaching context: touching student to ‘encourage. †¢ Law: To fulfill he requirements of threat of assault there must be (1) a bodily act or gesture (w ords not enough in WA, but sometimes needs to be discussed anyway where there is maybe just a twitch); (2) which represents actual or apparent present ability to apply force; (3) without consent OR with fraudulently obtaining consent.. †¢ Threatening words are insufficient. †¢ A conditional threat is also not a true threat of assault because the victim can avoid the threatened act (Rosza v Samuals; Cf Turberville v Savage).  · The victim need not actually fear the bodily act or gesture (Brady v Schatzel).Fault element †¢ According to s 23 no intention is required for an offence unless stated in the offence. However, in Hall v Fonceca it was found that an intention on the part of the assailant either to use force or to create an apprehension in the victim is an element in an assault. †¢ Unlawful: an assault is always unlawful unless authorised, justified or excused by law (s223). It may also be unlawful if the person consents to the assault. Offences  · s313: common assault  · s317: assault occasioning bodily harm (unlawful assault + harm).Section 1 defines bodily harm as any bodily injury which interferes with health or comfort. No extra fault element required. ? Lergesner v Carroll: broad interpretation. Extends to, for example, black eye from fight. ? Scatchard: pain does not necessarily equate to bodily harm. ? Chan-Fook : psychological harm.  · s317A: assault with intent to: ? commit crime ? do GBH ? resist lawful arrest/detention.  · s318: Serious assault is on a public officer (while they are on duty), a person performing a public function conferred on them by law, or person helping someone in the previous two categories. s304: acts/omissions causing bodily harm require establishing an existing duty (ss262-267), a breach of that duty and resulting bodily harm. If there is no harm, the must be endangerment of another's life/health/safety. Endangering life and health Definitions  · Grievous bodily harm ? s1 – any bodi ly injury that endangers/ is likely to endanger life, or causes/ is likely to cause permanent injury to health. ? R v Tranby: permanent disfigurement that is only cosmetic does not = GBH. ? Consent is not an element of GBH, therefore unlike assault, GBH cannot be consented to (Raabe)  · Wounding ?Devine v R: occurs when injury breaks skin & penetrates below epidermis. ? Consent and wounding: Common law rule says that a person may not consent to bodily harm unless there’s a public policy justification- R v Brown. Offences with no specific intention  · Unlawfully doing GBH, s297 ? Can be direct/indirect act – R v Clark. All that must be proved is that a person negligently breached his/her duty. Proof of intention to harm is not necessary. ? ‘unlawful’ – to be given ordinary meaning of ‘prohibited by law’: Houghton v The Queen †¢ Relevance of s23A, s23B/ negligence  · Unlawfully wounding – s301(1)Offences requiring a spec ific intention †¢ s294, Acts intended to cause GBH or prevent arrest. †¢ GBH + certain intention: ? an intention to maim, disfigure or disable any person; or ? an intention to do grievous bodily harm; or ? an intention to resist or prevent lawful arrest or detention; or †¢ Administering noxious thing – s301(2) ? Cause poison or noxious thing to be administered or taken + ? Intention to injure or annoy Threats, s338 [not in exam] The definition of threat in s338 is very wide and includes any statement or behaviour that might reasonably constitute a threat to: (a) ill, injure, endanger or harm any person; (b) destroy, damage, endanger or harm any property; (c) take or exercise control over any building, structure, or conveyance by force or violence; OR (d) cause a detriment of any kind to any person. The threat must be to do one of the things in s338A:. a) Gain a benefit b) Cause a detriment c) Prevent someone doing something d) Make someone do something What doe s detrimental mean? ? R v Zaphir: ? â€Å"a threat is some sort of indication of intention to cause harm or damage or to punish. † ? Detriment means â€Å"loss or disadvantage, or damage as opposed to benefit. ? To satisfy the offence â€Å"a threat must be of such nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal ability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede unwillingly to the demand† Offences ? ? s338A Threats with intent to influence s338B Threats Stalking, s338D [not in exam] s338D defines: intimidate, pursue, circumstances of aggravation. Offences: s338E(1) †¢ Pursuing with †¢ intention to intimidate s338E(2) †¢ Pursuing that †¢ Can be reasonably expected to intimidate AND †¢ Does intimidate Legal Capacity (defences) Children Law: A Child is deemed to be incapable of committing a crime, irrespective of what they have done. Under s29 a child under 10 years is presumed incapable (not rebuttable). Between 10 and 14 the presumption of incapacity is rebuttable if it is proved by prosecution that at the time of the offence that child knew that the conduct was wrong according to the standards of ordinary people – M (1977). It is not clear if this test means legally or morally wrong. Child does not need to know act was against the law. They need to know that what they did was seriously wrong as opposed to just naughty. †¢ Following facts should be taken into account: Age: â€Å"the lower the child is on the scale between ten and fourteen, the stronger the evidence necessary to rebut that presumption†: B v R (1958) 44 Cr App R 1 at 3 ? Type of offence: Heinousness, Ferocity, Nature. Was there a victim? L v DPP = the more heinous the crime the easier it is to rebut the presumption. ? Statements by child: Does it really show an understanding ? Expert evidence ? Presumption of normality (what is normal? ) ? Conduct surrounding the act: Luring victim, trying to cove r tracks, running away (= not conclusive, as children will run away if have done something merely naughty). Mode of committing the act: Positive act versus omission, degree of participation, peer influence ? Home background: Abuse at home; physical environment; upbringing. (White (1964) – behaviour the result of socialisation. ? Appearance & demeanour in court ? Past criminal record: can be used if similar fact evidence ? Different culture ? The child has to know that it was wrong at time of act, not when picked up/ questioned. Corporations (look in exam question for â€Å"Pty Ltd† which should indicate whether person or corporation is being charged) †¢ Law: Corporations can commit offences.In the Code corporations come under the definition of a person. And under s69(1) of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) all indictable and summary offences apply to bodies corporate as well as individuals. †¢ Identification Liability: (= preferred test) : â€Å"A corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who for some purposes may be called an agent, but who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation. † Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd. Vicarious Liability: attributing to employer what an employee does in the course of employment. Torts test, too wide. Defences: Mental Capacity Intention and motive, s23 The result intended to be caused by an act/omission is immaterial, unless intention is expressly declared to be an element of the offence. The motive for an act/omission/intention is immaterial, unless otherwise expressly declared. Voluntariness of will s23A, 23B 23A: Lack of will †¢ Law: A person is not criminally responsible for an act/omission that is independent of his/her will (not available as a defence where there is a duty of care owed under Ch 27). Act: At c ommon law an act can be defined both narrowly and broadly (both should be considered: If narrow view taken, charge under s 266 still possible. ) which ones do the court tend to follow nowadays? ? Narrow definition: any bodily action, e. g pulling trigger of gun: Kaporonovski. ? Broad definition: includes all physical conduct that caused death, e. g. from getting loaded firearm to pulling trigger: Falconer. †¢ Will: Examples of unwilled acts are:An involuntary response to external stimulus (e. g. bee sting) is unwilled. An act done whilst sleepwalking is unwilled (R v Holmes).An act done whilst asleep is unwilled (Michael Jiminez) – although D may be liable for act/omission immediately before falling asleep, eg driving while tired. †¢ Sane Automatism describes a mental state where the D lacks awareness of their actions during the commission of a serious offence. Any act occurring independent of the will of the D whilst in a state of sane automatism is unwilled. In co ntrast to insanity, sane automatism is the result of an external stimulus (eg sudden physical/ psychological trauma, hypoglycaemia). Insanity results from an internal mental disorder (Falconer). Test to distinguish SA from insanity (Falconer): ? Too complicated! ? In an exam, this would not help you, I am sure. It’s ot about who needs to prove what, as when you arguing something in the exam, hardly ever will YOU be able to meet the standard of proof as it’s always ambiguous. You need to set out some of the limbs of the focloner test, eg (and most importantly) the test of the reasonable person. What characteristics does that person have? It’s the reasonable person in the same situation as the accused, but not with their specific weaknesses (eg an additional depression). If they wold have done the same = sane automatism.Another thing you look at is whether one off event (unlikely to reoccur) or they’ve got a screw loose (= will likely do it again cos they l ack some control over their actions generally] ? 1st step: Has Crown disproved sane automatism? (Standard of proof: beyond reasonable doubt. Onus of proof: on Crown). If not, unqualified acquittal. ? 2nd step: If so, has D proved insanity under s 27? (first question is: is there a mental impairment as opposed to an external blow, before you even get to the capacities) Was one of the 3 capacities in s27 absent? Standard of proof: on balance of probabilities.Onus of Proof: on D, since s 26 presumes every person to be of sound mind). If so, acquittal with provision that accused was of unsound mind at the time of the offence. ? If sane automatism is disproved and the D does not prove insanity under s 27, jury must consider whether the other elements of the offence have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. If so, proper verdict is guilty (Falconer). 23B: accident †¢ A person is not criminally responsible for an event which occurs by accident (not available as a defence where there i s a duty of care owed under Ch 27: R v Hodgetts and Jackson). ‘event’ means the ‘result or consequence of an action’ (Van Den Bemd). †¢ ‘accident’: Kaporonovski, Taiters: an event is only an accident if it 1. was not intended 2. was not foreseen by the defendant (subjective element) AND 3. was not reasonably foreseeable by an ordinary person (objective element) Evidentiary burden: on accused. Onus of proof: on prosection to disprove 1, 2 OR 3 beyond reasonable doubt. [they only need to disprove one for the defence to fall] Causation: P must prove that D caused a particular outcome if the outcome is an element of the offence. Causation established by tests in Royall). Can be difficult to distinguish between proof of causation and obligation of P to negative accident (Jemielita). †¢ If death/GBH by a deliberate use of force, the fact that it would not have occurred but for an abnormality/defect/weakness in the victim is not a defense, e ven if the accused did not intend/foresee the death/GBH and even if it was not reasonably foreseeable. Insanity ss26, 27 †¢ Law: Pursuant to s26, the accused is presumed to understand the consequences of their actions and is capable of acting rationally.This presumption must be disproved by the accused (Falconer) on the balance of probabilities (R v Porter). Accused also carries the evidentiary burden of establishing that their mental impairment deprived them of ONE of the THREE capacities in s27 (McNaghten’s Case, approved by R v Porter): (1) understand what they were doing (refers to physical consequences of action, not moral qualities); OR (2) control their actions (e. g irresistible impulses: Moore, Soderman v the King); OR (3) know that they ought not do the act or make the omission (similar to test used to assess children). Mental impairment [comes before the capacities]is defined in s1 as an intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage or senility. The Co mmon law helps distinguish sane and insane automatism. (1) The state of mind must be one of disease, disorder or disturbance arising from some infirmity, whether temporary or long standing (R v Porter); (2) NO need for physical deterioration of brain; (3) A defect of reasoning caused by physical disease unrelated to mind could be insanity (R v Kemp). (4) Insanity is internal, with no external physical cause (Cooper v McKenna); (5)Insanity caused by medical treatment of physical disease (eg. Insulin) will not be insanity if self induced (R v Quick). Some result are contentious. Hyperglycemia was held to be a desease of the mind (R v Hennessy). Hypoglycemia was not held to be internal (R v Quick). (6) Sane automatism is a reaction to a once-off psychological trauma, test is: Would ordinary person react the same way in the circumstances? (Falconer). Yes = sane automatism, not insanity. [see comments above] †¢ Persuasive burden on prosecution (Falconer). †¢ Variable: Distingui sh from situation where accused unfit to stand trial. Consequence: no full acquittal, but rather ‘not guilty by reason of insanity'. May mean indefinite detention in appropriate institution. Intoxication s28 †¢ Law: Intoxication (by drugs/alcohol/any other means) may be used as a basis for a defence of insanity under s 27 as long as it was not self-induced. Where intention to cause a specific result is an element of an offence, intoxication may be considered when deciding whether intention existed. Onus on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt: 1. That such intention existed AND 2.That accused was capable of forming the intention, and did in fact form the intention. (R v Crump). Defences: Mistake Mistake of Fact s22 †¢ A person who does/omits to do something under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of things is only criminally responsible for the act/omission as if the real state of things had been such as he believed to exist (their delusion were true). ? Mistake must be honest: (Subjective test). ? Mistake must be reasonable: Pearce v Stanton (Objective test). ? There must be a positive belief in the existence of any state of things. Ignorance/inadvertence not enough (GJ Coles v Goldsworthy). Must be present state, not future or consequences (R v Gould and Barnes). ? Evidentiary burden: on accused. ? Onus of proof: on prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. ? Only a partial defense. †¢ Can be excluded by express or implied provisions of offences. (e. g. s 331, mistake of age cannot be a defence for sexual penetration of minor under 13) Mistake of Law s24  · Law: Ignorance of the law is not a defense to any act/omission, unless knowledge of the law is expressly declared to be an element of the offence.  ·A person is not criminally responsible for an act/omission with respect to any property in the exercise of an honest claim of right and without intention to defraud. ? They must actually believe they have the right at the time of the offence, not that they may get the right in future (R v Pollard). ? Only applies when being claimed as a defence to a property offence (Pearce v Paskov ) under the Crim Code. Defences Duress s 32 †¢ Law: Occurs when a person believes that a threat made against them will be carried out unless they do an act or make an omission. The action dictated is taken by the threatener. The act/omission must be a reasonable response to the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be (i. e. the accused must cause less harm than the harm avoided). Emergency s 25 †¢ Occurs when the threat of sudden harm arises from the circumstances in which a person is placed. The accused decides what action to take to avoid the harm. †¢ The act /omission must be a necessary response in circumstances of ‘sudden or extraordinary emergency’ (s 25(3)(a)(i)), and it must be a reasonable response to the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be. Self defence s248An act of self-defence is lawful if: †¢ the person reasonably [3: say if that’s reasonable] [objective] believes [2: state that they believed] [subjective] that the harmful act [1: define and then state what they did] is necessary [4: look at what else they could have done and if that would have been equally suitable] to defend themselves or another person AND †¢ the response is reasonable [objective] in the circumstances as the person defending themselves reasonably [objective] believes [subjective] them to be. †¢ Self-defence is a complete defence to homicide. †¢ Technically, self-defence is an excuse.Evidential burden: on accused. Onus of proof: on Crown to negative self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt (not on accused to prove on balance of probs). †¢ Does the initial act have to be unlawful? S 5 = yes, but qualified by s 6 says a harmful act is not lawful just because the person who does it is no t criminally responsible for it (so you can defend yourself against child/insane person etc. ) (s 6 also supported by case law: Zecevic). †¢ Excessive self-defence = a partial defence. Applies when accused has killed to defend self or another but either the use of force was not necessary, or more force than necessary was used.Excessive self-defence means murder will be downgraded to manslaughter. Provocation ss245, 246 Complete defence only to offences in the definition of which assault is an element (Kaporonovski). No longer a defence to homicide. Not a defence to attempted murder (Roche), or to GBH or wounding. The following elements must be proved: †¢ The offence was against a person who offered provocation that amounted to an unlawful or wrongful act or insult. (Does the ‘insult’ also have to be ‘wrongful’? Stevens v Doglione (Qld): ‘wrongful’ applies to act and insult. Stingel (in obiter): ‘wrongful’ applies only to act, not insult.Therefore, not settled). Attempts s4 An attempt is an offence that is somehow incomplete. (If an offence is complete, don’t consider attempts unless, for example, an offence is attempted on one person but succeeds on another, e. g. A tries to shoot B but instead shoots C). not always section 4, some offence, eg assault and murder, have attempted offence in the specific section in which case you don’t look at s4 3 elements: 1. Intention to commit an offence; 2. Putting that intention into action to some extent (must go beyond ‘mere preparatory acts’) AND; 3. Failure to fulfill the intention of committing the offence. . Intention – requires †¢ An intention of bringing about all the elements of the offence OR †¢ The knowledge (to the extent of virtual certainty) that these elements will occur 2. Beyond ‘mere preparatory acts’: whether this is the case is a question of fact for the jury. Don’t just look at w hat the accused did, take into account other factors in the situation (Cutter v R) to decide whether the act that was done is convincing of the intention to commit the ultimate offence. Tests: †¢ Proximity test: (R v Eagleton): How close is the accused to committing the final act that constitutes the offence? Substantial step test: Has the accused made substantial progress towards completion of the offence? Consider how much progress has been made and what is left to do. †¢ Unequivocality test: (R v Williams): requires that there be ‘no possible innocent explanation for the accused’s conduct’. (Any conduct which might have an innocent explanation cannot be brought by the prosecution as evidence). A precise test, but considered too restrictive. †¢ Last step test: (R v Chellingworth): Has the accused taken the last step towards the completed offence? Voluntary desistance (s4, par. ): If the accused does most of the acts required to constitute the off ence but then stops, it is generally no defence (although may be considered in sentencing). Impossibility (s4, par. 3): †¢ Legal: It is impossible for the accused to commit an offence only where there is no offence at law to capture the defendant’s conduct (e. g. if the defendant mistakenly believes that it is an offence to acquire a certain weapon, but attempts to do so anyway = no offence). BUT, †¢ Factual: if the offender tries to commit an offence but the offence cannot be committed for factual reasons, this is still an attempt: English. eg, the offender tries to import drugs, but the ‘drug’ is talcum powder)’ Conspiracy: [not in exam] †¢ takes place before any preparatory action. (An offender is usually not charged with conspiracy and a completed offence. , so conspiracy is not relevant if an offence is actually committed). †¢ No definition in Code, defined in common law as ‘an agreement between 2 or more persons to achieve a common objective’ (R v Campbell). (note: agreement must be reached. Not sufficient that parties were in communication). †¢ There must be an intention to do all the elements of the offence. There must be a positive intention – recklessness will not suffice. †¢ If there is no agreement, there is no conspiracy – BUT, it is not necessary that all conspirators know one another. †¢ When 2 or more conspirators are charged, the fact that A is acquitted does not necessarily mean B will be as well (R v Darby). †¢ You can’t conspire to do something that is legally impossible. †¢ You can conspire to do something that is factually impossible. Aiding s 7(b) and (c) †¢ What is the principal offence and who is principal offender?Deal with them first †¢ Then distinguish from counselling; presence, constructive presence  · Law: Aiding is providing support, help or assistance (R v Beck) to the PO. Aid is generally given to the PO during the commission of the offence, but can be before the offence (Ancuta). If a person aids another in the commission of an offence they will be liable for the primary offence under s 7(b) or (c).  · First, there must be proof of a Principal Offence actually committed, although conviction of a Principal Offender not necessary (R v Lopuszynski). There can be joint Principal Offenders (Mohan v R). define  · (b): requires proof of assistance being given for the purpose of aiding the commission of the offence. Therefore, an accused can act with the purpose of aiding but not actually aid, and still be liable (R v Arnold).  · 7(c): does not specify mental element, but has been held that ‘aids’ means ‘knowingly aids’( Jervis v R: ‘aids’ held to be a word that carries an inherent mental element).  · In both 7(c) and (d), the accessory must have actual knowledge of the future offence they are aiding, as opposed to merely a suspicion (although this knowledge can be inferred from proof of exposure to the obvious).It is sufficient that the accused contemplates the type of crime to be committed by the PO – it is not necessary that its precise details be known (Ancuta). Recklessness, however, is an insufficient mental state for aiding. (Giorgianni).  · Variable: Where the offence is one requiring fault elements, the accused must also have actual knowledge that the principal offender possessed the fault element for the principal offence (Stokes and Difford).  ·Variable: Non-interference to prevent a crime is not an offence BUT the fact that a person is ‘voluntarily and purposely present’ and offers no opposition may be grounds for a jury to find that he aided. Positive action NOT essential (Coney). Passive presence at the scene is aid, IF the accused knows his/her presence is encouraging/supporting the PO (e. g. , combination of prior aid and continued nondissociating presence may constitute implied offer of continuing aid = aid under s7) (Beck).  · Apply to facts  · Conclude Counselling or Procuring: s 7(d)  ·Law: If a person counsels or procures another to commit an offence they will be liable for the primary offence under s 7(d).  · Procure means to provide information or material assistance to the PO, and that the provisions cause or bring about the crime (R v Beck). ‘Procuring’ involves intentionally causing the commission of the offence. Humphry v R: ‘procure’ means to produce by endeavour, and one procures a thing by setting out to see that it happens. The accused must also have an intention to assist (Georgianni v R) the PO and general knowledge of the planned crime (Ancuta).  ·Counselling means advice or encouragement (Stuart v R) before the commission of the offence. The counsel does not need to cause the crime (R v Coney). Section 9 extends liability beyond s7(d). [again, not really helpful here. You need to look at 7(d) direct, and only i f that is not gven, you mention section 9] If it is established that the accused counselled the PO to commit the offence, then a jury must determine if the offence was a probable consequence of the counsel. Probable is defined (Darkan v R) as more probable than not, or of probability less than 50/50, but more than real chance.  · Apply to facts  · Conclude Common purpose, s8Liability under s8 attaches when one of the parties goes beyond the common unlawful design/ plan. (If parties are within common plan, s7 enough for determining liability).  · Law: When two or more persons together form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose the court will regard them as joint principal offenders. The prosecution must establish that; (1) the accused formed an intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose (Brennan v R); (2) the PO committed the unlawful purpose (R v Phillips and Lawrence); and (3) the principle offence must have been a probable consequence of the prosecution of the unlawful purpose.Test of whether ‘probable consequence’ is objective (Stuart v R). Probable is defined (Darkan v R) as more probable than not, or of probability less than 50/50, but more than just a ‘substantial or real chance’. There is no liability if PO unexpectedly departs from the common purpose and commits an offence that was not within the contemplation of the accessory and was not a probable consequence of the common purpose (R v Anderson and Morris)  · Apply to facts  · Conclude Withdrawal s 8(2) †¢ Law: An accessory will not be liable until the PO is actually committed (s 8(2)).The accused can terminate their involvement and escape their liability if they; (1) withdrew from the prosecution of the unlawful purpose; (2) by words or conduct communicate their withdrawal from the unlawful purpose to those invloved in the PO; and (3) take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence (R v Menniti).  · Apply to Facts  · Conclude Fraud (not in exam) †¢ Law: Fraud is when an owner parts with their property under false pretences. It is defined in s409 as (1) any person; (2) with intent to defraud; (3) by deceit or any other fraudulent means; (4) obtains property from another person. An intent to defraud is discussed in Balcombe v De Simoni. It requires an intention to induce, and does induce, another to act  ·  · ? Deceit or other fraudulent means are generally statements of fact that the defendant knew to be untrue (R v Carpenter). But the definition is very broad. ? Obtains is defined in s1 as obtaining possession of property. Possession without ownership is enough (Seiler v R). ? Property in s1 includes everything, animate or inanimate, that is capable of ownership. Apply to facts Cobclusion

Artemis Fowl Book Report

He had devised a plan that would restore his family's fortune, a plan that could people civilizations and plunge the planet into a cross species war. Was at Ho Chi Mini City waiting for our contact Guan Unguent accompanied by Butler. As we waited Guan walked up to us dressed as a waiter. Obvious. Handmade loafers, a silk shirt, three gold signet rings. Pathetic really. Only to check for weapons. Who does he think I am? I told him that I was unarmed but for fun I told him about Butler. How he had tons of weapons and how he could kill him even without them. It was hilarious.He looked as if he were going to cry. Finally he told us to look at a picture he had. It was a wrinkly green hand. Guan then told us that she is a healer that works in exchange for rice wine. She was always drunk. He led us to a fire escape in Tu Do Street. I asked Butler for the night vision goggles. Inside I saw the green old hag. She asked for wine. Butler gave her the Irish whiskey. It was the same wrinkly green hand. I told Butler to give Guan the money. Finally things were going according to plan. She asked me if had anything that needed healing. I told her only wanted her book.She threatened to kill me. I told her that I would save her if she gave me the book. She gave me a questioning look. Perhaps the affects of the holy water hadn't darted yet. Told her about it and she said I murdered her. Then she started listening to what I had to say. Told her that we had two vials: #1 a vial of spring water from the fairy well sixty meters below Tara, Ireland the most magical place on the Earth, it would counteract the holy water and #2 a booster with a virus that feeds on alcohol which will flush every drop of rice wine out of her body.She asked me how could I trust you. That was a good question. Sometimes I can't even trust myself. I had to say something so I told her that I would give her the first vial on faith and the second one after am even the book for at least 30 minutes. Butler gave he r the first shot with the syringe gun then she gave me the book. I took my camera and took a picture of every page of the characters then gave it back and Butler injected the second vial, we left immediately. A century's worth of alcohol leaving the body isn't a pretty sight. When we got home I checked on mum.Sleeping like a baby. If she had recovered I would have to cancel everything and go to school. I went to my room uploading the files into my computer. It was a mixture of symbols and characters they were all around the page in no regular order. I printed all the ages and tacked them to the wall. First I needed a central point language so I started with English, Chinese, Arabic, Greek, Cyrillic, and even Gingham texts. There was still nothing. Was frustrated; none of the characters had a match. I thought hard and remembered the only base language didn't try: Egyptian. Finally a hit.The computer didn't show anything so I would have to get every Gnomish figure and compare it with the hieroglyphics. At midnight when I was done I fed my findings into the Macintosh. I pressed decode. Papers of meaningless gibberish came flowing out. Now all I had to do was find out the order it was written in. The Arabic right to left, no, the Chinese columns, no. Nothing worked. Then I noticed a tiny dot in the middle Of each page with arrows around it Then I knew that it was read in spirals. I typed spiral on the read menu and the letters came out in lines, finally. This was it.The Book of the People. Being Instructions to our Magic's And Life Rules. Carry me always, carry me well. Am thy teacher of herb and spell am thy link to power arcane. Forget me and thy magic will wane. Ten times ten commandments there be. They will answer every mystery. Cures, curses, alchemy. These secrets shall be thin, through me. But fairy remember this above all. Am not for those in mud that crawl. And forever doomed shall be the one, who betrays my secrets one by one†¦ Finally the book was translated and read. Now it was time for the thing I do best; plot dastardly acts.After a few hours I called Butler and Juliet(Butler's sister) into the room. I told them that according to the book, all we have to do is stakeout at an ancient tree at a full moon at a river bend. Juliet questioned me about fairies and how they weren't real, that got me thinking that all this work could be for nothing, but again the book proved quite promising. I told Juliet to get a cage into the cellar. We had over 100 places to try, it wouldn't be as easy as I thought. Four months of searching, not a hit. After 1 hour of waiting the proximity alarms flashed red someone was here. Hacked the scope and saw a figure bending down beside a tree. It was a possible fairy picking up a seat. In the bushes I saw Butler hold the dart pistol with the red dot pointed at her neck. Butler pulled the trigger, but out of a million odds she ducked again. Now she noticed she was under fire, we would have to do this ma nually. Butler was already ahead of the game and started to taunt the fairy. New that it was my turn so I started to scare the fairy. Butler stood behind her preparing a second tranquilizer dart while stalled her. Finally Butler shot her in the back and took her helmet.I couldn't believe how human the fairy looked. When We got TO Fowl Manor I examined the helmet and found a small tracking device. Of course they be following us now. Or they be following the tracker at least. I told Butler to get the car. It's time for road trip number 2. When we got too the dock I told Butler we needed a diversion. Butler nodded then I went to the nearest whaler and dumped the tracker inside. I put a mob there also to whoever was tracking it down. When got back to the car Butler was still fighting some men. Felt sorry for them. Even I don't want to pick a fight with him.After he finished he came to the car and we drove back to Fowl Manor. Went to our prisoner in a cage in the basement. It was time to taunt her once again. Told her, her name: Holly Short, rank: Captain and the rules in the house. Finally she asked how knew these things. I was surprised. It seemed like she didn't know she had a name tag on her. Told her I was aiming for gold. She again asked how do we know everything. Knew that couldn't tell err had the book so I told her we gave her a truth serum and she told us everything. She went to a corner thinking how had she had betrayed her people. Aft and went to Butler who was monitoring the cameras. Nothing yet. I told Butler to try the avenue and freeze the picture. He did and five black figures appeared on the screen. I handed him a bigger helmet that had several filters that allowed him to see shielded fairies. Butler went outside to take care of them. Before he left I told him to get the head to talk with better scared than dead. After a few minutes Butler came back with a handful of technology and left or preparation for my special visitor. They'd put a time stop on Fowl Manor.Seconds later the clock stopped and an unshielded figure stepped onto the lawn. The game was just beginning. Came to the front door and allowed him to come in. Told him that in return for the captain that I wanted a ton often-carat gold. He told me that he was going to kill us all with a bomb that I already knew of. I told him I could escape it. He was bewildered. He told me that nobody could escape the bio bomb, and then he left. After he left I went straight to the surveillance room and I noticed that Butler wasn't going around doing his rounds. Diode butler and asked him what was he doing.

How to Right a Paper

ppendix D: Individual Skills Assessment Questionnaire for the Instructor Directions: The following questionnaire contains the Individual Skills Assessment that must be administered to each student individually as a panel interview. Print enough copies of the ISA Questionnaire so that each interviewer has one copy per student before the panel interview begins. Please see the Instructor Guide section of this courseware for complete instructions on how to conduct the interviews. For each topic, start with Learning Level 3. Circle each of the response criteria that the student successfully includes in his or her response.You may use the scoring table at the end of the questionnaire to tally the student’s score. Note: Each topic includes questions at three levels: o Level 3: Synthesis/Evaluation (Most-challenging questions) o Level 2: Application/Analysis (Medium-level questions) o Level 1: Knowledge/Comprehension (Least-difficult questions) Appendix D: Individual Skills Assessment Questionnaire for the Instructor  ©ITT Educational Services, Inc. 104 Date: 01/12/2010 Individual Assessment Skills Questions with Correct Response Criteria Topic 1: HardwareLearning Level 3: Synthesis/Evaluation Question: 1. You are building a LAN in a company that develops insurance management software. What hardware requirements should be taken into consideration? (TB143, IT1220) Correct Response Criteria: The student addresses why each is important: PC resources needed: Memory, disk drive size, processor size Networking resources: Category 5e cable, hub, switch, bridge, router Learning Level 2: Application/Analysis Question: 1. Describe how the memory manager divides up and allocates memory. (TB143, IT103) Correct Response Criteria:The student identifies the following memory concepts and describes how each works: Virtual memory Shared memory Paged memory Contiguous memory Non-contiguous memory Multi-programming Learning Level 1: Knowledge/Comprehension Question: 1. Identify a ll of the different types of input ports is available on a modern computer? (TB143) Correct Response Criteria: The student identifies the following ports: USB Serial Parallel Video /audio RJ45 FireWire Appendix D: Individual Skills Assessment Questionnaire for the Instructor  ©ITT Educational Services, Inc. 05 Date: 01/12/2010 SCSI Topic 2: Programming Learning Level 3: Synthesis/Evaluation Question: 1. Explain the difference between passing a piece of data â€Å"by value† and passing a piece of data â€Å"by reference. † (IT104) Correct Response Criteria: The student identifies the following data types and describes how each piece of data is passed: Parameter Argument Parameter list Data type Compatibility Reference address Learning Level 2: Application/Analysis Question: 1. Explain the â€Å"scope† of a data statement. 2. What are the implications of misidentifying a l

Introduction to Roles of Army Engineers

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NIGERIAN ARMY ENGINEERS TO NATION BUILDING: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS INTRODUCTION 1. Nations of the world set objectives which they continually strive to achieve. These objectives which are regarded to be of benefit to the citizens of the country are collectively known as national interest. The extent to which a nation can achieve its national interest and indeed the influence it wields in the international community depends largely on its level of development. Nation building literally connotes national development.In a contemporary society, the concept of national development is directly linked to the general well-being of a state and its people. National development or nation building is predicated on indices such as economic stability, peace and security of the state. The essence of any government therefore is to provide security and welfare for the citizenry to achieve stability and peace. Nation building is a continuous process. It represents the process wh ereby changes are effected within any society to generate wealth, create economic opportunities and bring about peace, stability and security. . Over the last half century, some advanced countries like the USA, China and Israel among others have implemented various plans towards development. One of such plans is the use of their military in national development. Historically, military involvement in nation building can be traced to socialist countries like Russia, China, Cuba and Vietnam where the military was engaged in developmental activities such as agriculture and manufacturing.Later in the face of economic challenges, countries like Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Iraq also used their military in nation building through their military engineers for road construction and industrial development. This contributed to the development of their national economy. 3. A nation is defined as ‘a large body of people united by common descent, culture or language, inhabiting a particul ar state or territory’. On the other hand, building is ‘the business or task of constructing houses, factories, bridges and other large structures’.Hence, nation building could be described as a structural transformation of all facets of national lives such as economic, political, social and technological endeavours in order to make a nation more viable for development. 4. Similarly,in developing countries like Nigeria, it has become imperative that the military be actively involved in nation building to compliment the efforts of all other sectors involved in such activities. The NA through the Nigerian Army Engineers (NAE) has been in the forefront of this drive, in addition to its role of the defence of the territorial integrity of Nigeria.The NA also has the responsibility of aiding civil authority in disaster management or civil construction works which are normally carried out by NAE. However, the NAEhas the primary role of helping the NA to live, move and f ight. These include construction of roads and bridges, reconstruction and rehabilitation of facilities and water supply. For example, the NAE constructed the first road to Mambilla Plateau, of the then Northern Region now Adamawa State, in the 1960s. The Corps was also involved in the construction of a bridge across River Rima and the reconstruction of Ayakoromo town in 2010.When the NAE plays these roles, it is inadvertently contributing to nation building. 5. It is pertinent to state that NAE evolved from the Royal West African Frontier Force (RWAFF) which dates back to the early Twentieth Century. The NAE were part of the Royal British Engineers which surveyed and fixed the boundaries of what is now known as Nigeria with the neighbouring French and German colonies. In spite of the contributions of the NAE in nation building, the corps encountered some challenges while performing their functions.These challenges include dearth of equipment, absence of legal backing and shortage of manpower among others. It is against this background that this paper seeks to examine these challenges in order to proffer viable solutions for the NA in supporting the NAE towards efficiently contributing to nation building. It is written for the Director Department of Land Warfare in partial fulfillment for the award of Pass Staff Course. 6. The purpose of this paper therefore is to examine the challenges and prospects of the contribution of NAE to nation building.The paper will discuss an overview of NAE and the contributions of NAE to nation building. It will further appraise the contributions of some other countries to nation building in order to draw lessons for NAE. Finally, it will examine the challenges and prospects of the NAE’s contribution to nation building. This paper will however be limited to NAE‘s contribution to nation building in terms of structural constructions and projects. The aspects of peace and security as part of nation building will not be d iscussed. It is assumed that the reader is conversant with the concept of nation building.This would therefore not be discussed in detail. AIM 7. The aim of this paper is to discuss the challenges and prospects of the contributions of NAE to nation building with a view to making recommendations. ——————————————– [ 1 ]. 1. Encarta Dictionary, 2012. [ 2 ]. 2. Robert B Schulz, The Dynamics of Development in the Engineering Nation, (Canberra, Canberra University Press, 2004). [ 3 ]. 3. Olaniyi AA, Maj Gen, Capability of the Nigerian Army Engineers in National Development, (Unpublished, May 2012). [ 4 ]. 4. Ibid. [ 5 ]. 5.Catherine S, Angus S, The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Indian Edition, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press Ltd, 2007), P. 952. [ 6 ]. 6. Op. cit. Encarta Dictionary. [ 7 ]. 7. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. [ 8 ]. 8. NA, Electrical and Mec hanical Engineering Precis (Nigerian Army School of Military Engineering, 1996), P. 11. [ 9 ]. 9. Abubakar, S, â€Å"How Military Bridge Brought Succour to Sokoto†, Daily Trust (Sokoto), 25 Oct 10, P. 3. [ 10 ]. 10. Olawuni, T, â€Å"Hope Rises for Ayakoromo Community as Jonathan Orders Reconstruction†, Business Day (Lagos), 16 Dec 10, P. 5.