In the new Angel Ronan, Greenfield series we deal with a new and emerging urban tale involving essay plagiarizers in the Commonwealth whose parents were born in another culture. Read more here and see if you can solve the problem according to the law; not complexion since the law is color blind!
Two really tiny and inconsequential looking essay plagiarizers sit down in a Costa Brava Restaurant on Pentonville Road in Saskaronto. There is a top class and well financed university in the area where they attend as students from Mile End or Brampmonton on the the 329 Bus Route. A Post Graduate was sitting in the restaurant and seems to be nervous that he left his phone behind after he left to go and teach his course in Law and Sociology that has a unique module on the emergence of the humanzee in the latter part of the 1990's who struggles to understand ownership. There is evidence of a bad spate of this dna arising in the West Indies and South Asia. The scenario continues as follows:
The post graduate asked two females of a light brown complexion but indeterminate ancestry whether or not they saw a phone or an essay entitled Concept of Human Nature according to the Devil and Rousseau. The essay is quite challenging as it addresses the unique human nature that is immutable and about which the devil or the God is quite knowledgeable. The two individuals said they did not see the phone or the essay. The Post Graduate was from Africa and also returned a newspaper where he found it at the same time. His son came and put the essay or newspaper where he knew his father found it although it was not the same location. The paper was soo intelligent that it suggested the absence of Cosmopolitan that promotes divorce and relational division such that one should favor Vanity Fair, Glamour and HARPER'S FAIR instead of confessing their whoredom with the purchase of a magazine that promotes the guilt of a whore's soul.
Now, after asking for his phone and the essay, they said they did not see the phone or the copy of the essay that they were using to try to graduate at the Uni across the road but then they proceeded to call the police and make a false statement and false accusations about the individual taking photos of them with a telephone and using the flash function. There is no evidence of any such incident since the Post Grad did not have a phone in hand. In fact, he is looking for his phone. But, it he had taken a picture in their direction, would the picture demonstrate that they are the subject of the photo or was it the architecture since why not take photos of architecture since he has a right under the Charter of Right and freedoms take photos of architecture? His father told him to be an architect once I think. Anyway, the manager of the Costa Brava did not verify the scenario with all of his powers to verify and proceeded to make false statements, aiding and abetting the allegations of the plagiarizers since he had the same complexion and also intention it would seem but for a different reason since he seems to have known the Post Grad was involved in building a restaurant chain called Butter Nut(TM) and thought this was fortuitous in a manager's inexplicable illiteracy to hope that he might own it if the young business developer was dead. The manager had also written the Costa Brava company a month before to advise Costa Brava that he was taking the location and all of the chattels, chairs furniture, ovens, coffee makers and food processing machines worth more than $5000.00 dollars as his own property along with his Scottish looking Jamaican colleague (argh matey !!!) and they would manage it independently although the property belonged to the Costa Brava company.
What offenses are disclosed in this scenario. Please begin with the essay plagiarism!
You have 40 minutes.
See the Answer here.
______________________________
The above question raises a variety of issues in the Criminal laws involving offenses against the person and malicious intent. It also addresses the issue of trademark infringement, theft over $5000.00 dollars an breach of trust. The facts also disclose a conspiracy to commit.
1. The restaurant owner did not receive any credible information from anyone in his restaurant and uttered false statements involving an allegation where there was no actual incidence of any kind. This is the evidence. The actus reus is to make a false statement and the mens rea is to do so knowingly. He seems to believe the Indian woman on the top floor asked him to say something false to prove their Indian racial superiority in a Commonwealth territory. If the young women participated in the offense although there is no evidence that they did, then they would also be liable for the same offense in addition to the offense of Conspiracy to Commit and Intention to Commit an offence or Criminal enterprise. The Actus Reus is to actively engage in a plan or course of action to commit a criminal offense. The mens rea is to do so knowingly with deliberate intent. As Such the Restaurant Manager and the franchise company are jointly liable for the offense as the restaurant manager is just a servant of the owner company. They are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees could administer a noxious substance to hundreds of innocent patrons and they would be liable in the Civil Courts although they are not guilty in the criminal courts necessarily but could be charged and found guilty all the same. In fact, as such, they would have to be charged and would remain liable until the matter is disposed in Court.
Contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada s. 415, it is an offence to interfere with a common law trademark:
Forgery of Trade-marks and Trade Descriptions
The post graduate asked two females of a light brown complexion but indeterminate ancestry whether or not they saw a phone or an essay entitled Concept of Human Nature according to the Devil and Rousseau. The essay is quite challenging as it addresses the unique human nature that is immutable and about which the devil or the God is quite knowledgeable. The two individuals said they did not see the phone or the essay. The Post Graduate was from Africa and also returned a newspaper where he found it at the same time. His son came and put the essay or newspaper where he knew his father found it although it was not the same location. The paper was soo intelligent that it suggested the absence of Cosmopolitan that promotes divorce and relational division such that one should favor Vanity Fair, Glamour and HARPER'S FAIR instead of confessing their whoredom with the purchase of a magazine that promotes the guilt of a whore's soul.
Now, after asking for his phone and the essay, they said they did not see the phone or the copy of the essay that they were using to try to graduate at the Uni across the road but then they proceeded to call the police and make a false statement and false accusations about the individual taking photos of them with a telephone and using the flash function. There is no evidence of any such incident since the Post Grad did not have a phone in hand. In fact, he is looking for his phone. But, it he had taken a picture in their direction, would the picture demonstrate that they are the subject of the photo or was it the architecture since why not take photos of architecture since he has a right under the Charter of Right and freedoms take photos of architecture? His father told him to be an architect once I think. Anyway, the manager of the Costa Brava did not verify the scenario with all of his powers to verify and proceeded to make false statements, aiding and abetting the allegations of the plagiarizers since he had the same complexion and also intention it would seem but for a different reason since he seems to have known the Post Grad was involved in building a restaurant chain called Butter Nut(TM) and thought this was fortuitous in a manager's inexplicable illiteracy to hope that he might own it if the young business developer was dead. The manager had also written the Costa Brava company a month before to advise Costa Brava that he was taking the location and all of the chattels, chairs furniture, ovens, coffee makers and food processing machines worth more than $5000.00 dollars as his own property along with his Scottish looking Jamaican colleague (argh matey !!!) and they would manage it independently although the property belonged to the Costa Brava company.
What offenses are disclosed in this scenario. Please begin with the essay plagiarism!
You have 40 minutes.
See the Answer here.
______________________________
The above question raises a variety of issues in the Criminal laws involving offenses against the person and malicious intent. It also addresses the issue of trademark infringement, theft over $5000.00 dollars an breach of trust. The facts also disclose a conspiracy to commit.
1. The restaurant owner did not receive any credible information from anyone in his restaurant and uttered false statements involving an allegation where there was no actual incidence of any kind. This is the evidence. The actus reus is to make a false statement and the mens rea is to do so knowingly. He seems to believe the Indian woman on the top floor asked him to say something false to prove their Indian racial superiority in a Commonwealth territory. If the young women participated in the offense although there is no evidence that they did, then they would also be liable for the same offense in addition to the offense of Conspiracy to Commit and Intention to Commit an offence or Criminal enterprise. The Actus Reus is to actively engage in a plan or course of action to commit a criminal offense. The mens rea is to do so knowingly with deliberate intent. As Such the Restaurant Manager and the franchise company are jointly liable for the offense as the restaurant manager is just a servant of the owner company. They are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees could administer a noxious substance to hundreds of innocent patrons and they would be liable in the Civil Courts although they are not guilty in the criminal courts necessarily but could be charged and found guilty all the same. In fact, as such, they would have to be charged and would remain liable until the matter is disposed in Court.
Contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada s. 415, it is an offence to interfere with a common law trademark:
Forgery of Trade-marks and Trade Descriptions
Forging trade-mark
406 For the purposes of this Part, every one forges a trade-mark who
- (a) without the consent of the proprietor of the trade-mark, makes or reproduces in any manner that trade-mark or a mark so nearly resembling it as to be calculated to deceive; or
- (b) falsifies, in any manner, a genuine trade-mark.
- R.S., c. C-34, s. 364.
Offence
407 Every one commits an offence who, with intent to deceive or defraud the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, forges a trade-mark.
- R.S., c. C-34, s. 365.
Passing off
408 Every one commits an offence who, with intent to deceive or defraud the public or any person, whether ascertained or not,
- (a) passes off other wares or services as and for those ordered or required; or
- (b) makes use, in association with wares or services, of any description that is false in a material respect regarding
- (i) the kind, quality, quantity or composition,
- (ii) the geographical origin, or
- (iii) the mode of the manufacture, production or performance
of those wares or services.
- R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 408;
- 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).
Instruments for forging trade-mark
Saving
(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section where he proves that he acted in good faith in the ordinary course of his business or employment.
- R.S., c. C-34, s. 367.
Other offences in relation to trade-marks
410 Every one commits an offence who, with intent to deceive or defraud,
- (a) defaces, conceals or removes a trade-mark or the name of another person from anything without the consent of that other person; or
- (b) being a manufacturer, dealer, trader or bottler, fills any bottle or siphon that bears the trade-mark or name of another person, without the consent of that other person, with a beverage, milk, by-product of milk or other liquid commodity for the purpose of sale or traffic.
- R.S., c. C-34, s. 368.
Used goods sold without disclosure
411 Every one commits an offence who sells, exposes or has in his possession for sale, or advertises for sale, goods that have been used, reconditioned or remade and that bear the trade-mark or the trade-name of another person, without making full disclosure that the goods have been reconditioned, rebuilt or remade for sale and that they are not then in the condition in which they were originally made or produced.
- R.S., c. C-34, s. 369.
Punishment
Forfeiture
(2) Anything by means of or in relation to which a person commits an offence under section 407, 408, 409, 410 or 411 is, unless the court otherwise orders, forfeited on the conviction of that person for that offence.
The actus reus is to treat the trademark as your own in reproducing the mark or offering it for dale and the mens rea is the intent to treat the mark as your own.
The facts indicate that an offense was committed by the coffee shop manager when he decided to claim the coffee shop as his own entity in continuing to use the franchise materials as owned by the main company. In applying the law to the facts, the coffee shop manager is certainly liable under the civil laws for breach of contract but also the criminal law for treating the trademarks and the shop materials as his own in his declaration. As such, he is guilty of a criminal offence and was arrested accordingly, tried and convicted based on the evidence with a law suit also pending in the criminal courts.
To be continued....
Comments
Post a Comment