Unit 6 Written Assignment 2 Final Project Outline

  • Uncategorized

Unit6 Written Assignment 2: Final Project Outline

FIRACoutline method

  1. Facts

  1. Though no prior cases have been held similar to this one, the Congress was concerned with the use of cell phones by the primary school students to cheat in their exams.

  2. It is possible that the primary students do use their phones for the exam irregularity purposes a condition that the school administration is unable to control.

  1. Issue

  1. Ted McKinley who is a parent to Martha wants to challenge the decision by the CES Board to expel her daughter from school having been found guilty of the third offense.

  2. The board rules and regulations hold that for the third offense, there should be a full hearing whereby the students found guilty would be subjected to expulsion, arrest, and incarceration for 30 days.

  3. Martha was not subjected to the full hearing before the case was concluded.

  4. Was it proper for the board to decide Martha’s case without subjecting her to the full hearing as it is required by the regulations of the third offense?

  1. Rule

  1. The use of the cellular phones was a concern for the Congress because the students could use them to cheat in their exams and other assessments.

  2. The primary students are not required to be in possession of the cellular phones during the exam periods and other assessments.

  1. Application

  1. An element issue here is the use of cell phones in the primary schools by students during the exam period and other assessments. Ted is concerned about the full hearing that should be held in circumstances where the student is guilty of the third offense.

  2. According to the legal reasoning, the rules and regulations enforced by the CES are meant for the primary students as this was the objective of CPERA. The conditions are clearly outlined for the first, second, and third offense that should be followed when holding the students liable for the crimes they have committed.

  3. There is the point of underage children who lack the capacity to appear before the CES to defend themselves. When it was setting the penalties to the defaulters of the set rules and regulations, the issue of the underage children was not clearly defined.

  4. The punishment holds for the students who were found guilty to violate the rules set by CES whereby Martha is one of them.

  5. Martha had a right to be subjected to the full hearing because she was found guilty of the third offense before being subjected to the appropriate punishments.

  6. In this case, the board never gave her the opportunity for the full hearing so that she could defend herself claiming that Martha was a minor.

  7. I, therefore, hold that Martha was not given a fair trial before her case was determined by the board to face the punishments outlined.

  1. Conclusion

  1. Martha’s parent has a valid reason to challenge the case in a court of law despite the fact that his daughter was found guilty of the third offense as indicated by the board.

  2. The daughter was not subjected to the full hearing as it is required by the CES rules and regulations before she was punished for the crime.

Motionfor protective order

  1. The motion of protective order arises where one party requests the court to protect it from the abusive acts of the other party (Office of the Federal Register, 2011).

  2. First, I will make an attempt to resolve the issue informally in good faith (Gallo, 2012).

  3. I will then bring the motion promptly before thirty days elapse.

  4. I will file a notice to the motion whereby a notice will be served to the court and the other opposing party (Clerkley, Davis, Palmer, 2015).

  5. I will also give a memorandum that will support my motion followed by a declaration regarding the history of using cell phones at school.

  6. Finally, I will prepare the proposed order to enable me to argue my case for the protective order entirely (Snider, Ellins, and Flynn, 2013).

  1. References

Cleckley,F.D., Davis, R.J &amp Palmer, L.J. (2015). LitigationHandbook on West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure- Fourth Edition.Juris Publishing Inc.

Gallo,K. (2012). YouNeed to File a Motion for a Protective Order!!Retrieved fromhttp://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/abuse/you-need-to-file-a-motion-for-a-protective-order/on August 16, 2016

Officeof the Federal Register (US). (2011). Codeof Federal Regulations, Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.Government Printing Office.

Snider,J.G., Ellins, H.A., &amp Flynn, M.S. (2013). CorporatePrivileges and Confidential Information.Law Journal Seminars Pr.

Close Menu