MEMORANDUM
To: Employer
From: Jadeane Jones
Date: October 30, 2015
Subject: Powers of a Federal Administrative Agency and the specific powers of the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Administrative agencies are lawmaking bodies with limited powers delegated by Congress. Administrative agencies specialize in specific issues that require expertise. Administrative agencies are established by Article 1 Section1 of the federal constitution which reads: “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The “necessary-and-proper” clause in the eighth section of the Article 1 states that the Congress shall have power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers … in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The rules and regulations created by administrative agencies can be enforced as law. The agencies help in the speedy disposal of cases, both minor and complex and thus are a big aid to US courts. The process also helps in reserving judicial resources for other significant cases. The members of administrative agencies are experts in the respective subject area. Administrative agencies can create their own rules and regulations.
[i] 5 U.S.C.A. § 551 [1982] http://system.uslegal.com/administrative-agencies/#sthash.NsByNDm3.dpuf
The scope of FDA’s regulatory authority is very broad. FDA’s responsibilities are closely related to those of several other government agencies. Often frustrating and confusing for consumers is determining the appropriate regulatory agency to contact. The following is a list of traditionally-recognized product categories that fall under FDA’s regulatory jurisdiction; however, this is not an exhaustive list.
In general, FDA regulates:
Foods, including:
- dietary supplements
- bottled water
- food additives
- infant formulas
- other food products (although the U.S. Department of Agriculture plays a lead role in regulating aspects of some meat, poultry, and egg products)
Drugs, including:
- prescription drugs (both brand-name and generic)
- non-prescription (over-the-counter) drugs
Biologics, including:
- vaccines
- blood and blood products
- cellular and gene therapy products
- tissue and tissue products
- allergenics
Medical Devices, including:
- simple items like tongue depressors and bedpans
- complex technologies such as heart pacemakers
- dental devices
- surgical implants and prosthetics
Electronic Products that give off radiation, including:
- microwave ovens
- x-ray equipment
- laser products
- ultrasonic therapy equipment
- mercury vapor lamps
- sunlamps
Cosmetics, including:
- color additives found in makeup and other personal care products
- skin moisturizers and cleansers
- nail polish and perfume
Veterinary Products, including:
- livestock feeds
- pet foods
- veterinary drugs and devices
Tobacco Products, including:
- cigarettes
- cigarette tobacco
- roll-your-own tobacco
- smokeless tobacco
Memorandum of Law
To: Law Office
From: Jadeane Jones
Date: October 20, 2015
Subject: Elements necessary to prove First-degree murder
The elements of the crime of Murder in the First Degree-Extreme Indifference, as charged in each of these counts, are:
- That the defendant,
- in the State of Colorado, at or about the date and place charged,
- knowingly,
- under circumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally,
- engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death to a person. Or persons, other than himself, and
- thereby caused the death of another,
- and that the defendant was not insane, as defined in Instruction #23.
After considering all the evidence,, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to a count listed earlier in this instruction, you should find the defendant guilty of that count of Murder in the First Degree-Extreme Indifference, and you should so state in Part A of the verdict form for that count.
After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to a count listed earlier in this instruction, you should find the defendant not guilty of that count of Murder in the First Degree-Extreme Indifference, and you should so state in Part A of the verdict form for that count.
The evidence in this case has raised the defense of insanity as a defense to all the charged offenses and lesser-included offenses.
The defendant was insane at the time of the commission of each act if:
- he was so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act; or
- he suffered from a condition of mind caused by a mental disease or defect that prevented him from forming a culpable mental state that is an essential element of a charged offense or of a lesser-included offense.
But care should be taken not to confuse mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions because, when an act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law.
In addition, “diseased or defective in mind” does not refer to an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.
Similarly, “mental disease or defect” means only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person’s perception or understanding of reality and that are not attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychoactive substance. “Mental disease or defect” does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.
The prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not insane at the time of the commission of the act alleged in each count. In order to meet this burden of proof, the prosecution must disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, both of the above numbered conditions with respect to the act alleged in the charged offense in each count and in each of the lesser included offenses of that charged offense.
After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to meet this burden of proof, then the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the act, which is an essential element of each charged offense and each lesser-included offense. If you decide that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the act alleged in a charged offense and in its lesser-included offenses, you must find the defendant not guilty of that charged offense and of its lesser-included offenses. In that event, you should have the foreperson sign on the designated line in Part A of the verdict form for that count to indicate your verdict on that count.
After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has met this burden of proof, then the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not insane at the time of the commission of the act. If you decide that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not insane at the time of the commission of the act alleged in a count, your verdict with respect to the charged offense in that count and the lesser included offenses of that charged offense must depend upon your determination whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof with respect to the remaining elements of the charged offense and the lesser-included offenses.
MEMORANDUM of LAW
TO: Potential Employer
FROM: Jadeane Jones
DATE: September 10, 2015
RE: Colorado Regulations for Paralegals and the Application of Unauthorized Practice of Law Statutes
Question Presented
In the State of Colorado, what are the existing regulations governing paralegals and are there any statutes in the state regarding the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)?
Brief Answer
Paralegals are defined under the Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3 as paraprofessionals or non-lawyer assistants. They must be supervised by a licensed attorney for whom that attorney is responsible.
Yes. There are statutes in the State of Colorado governing UPL. Unless a person is a licensed attorney, in good standing, in the State of Colorado that person may not practice law in the state.
Statement of Facts
The American Bar Association (ABA) has imposed standards in regulating the practice of law to protect citizens from harm resulting in dishonest, unethical and incompetent providers of legal services.
http://www.adbmich.org/download/ABA%20STANDARDS%20(1992).pdf
The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct do not specifically regulate paralegals, however there are rules governing paralegals. They are considered to be an assistant to the attorney and as such, the attorney is directly responsible in the supervision and conduct of said paralegal. Under Colo. RPC 5.3, the attorney is responsible for a paralegals work product and should consider the fact that they do not have any legal training nor are they subject to professional discipline. It is the attorney’s responsibility to ensure that the conduct and ethics of the paralegal meet with the professional obligations of the attorney.
http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/20496/subID/22466/CETH//.
Paralegals are not permitted to provide any direct legal services to anyone who is not the attorney.
The Colorado State Constitution gives the Colorado Supreme Court the power to regulate the practice of law for non-lawyers. There are strict rules outlined by the Colorado Supreme Court governing the practice of law for non-lawyers.
A non-lawyer is not permitted:
- Provide legal advice to others;
- Unless under direct supervision of a licensed attorney, a paralegal may not select legal documents on behalf of another person;
- Draft Legal documents on behalf of another person, unless under the direct supervision of a licensed attorney;
- Interpret the law as it applies to someone else’s situation;
- Represent another in a legal transaction or matter; or
- Prepare a matter for trial, unless under the direction supervision of a licensed attorney.
http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/pdfs/Regulation/UPL%20Website%20Q&A%20Final.pdf
Supreme Court has the inherent authority to regulate and prevent the practice of law by individuals who are not licensed to practice law in Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel investigates and prosecutes matters involving the unauthorized practice of law (UPL).
http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/pdfs/Regulation/Unauthorized%20Practice%20(English).pdf
Injunctive Proceedings (according to The Colorado Bar):
- Order of Injunction
- Disgorgement of any fees received
- Restitution to “client” for damages
- Restitution to third parties for damages
- Assessment of costs of proceeding
Contempt Proceedings (according to The Colorado Bar):
- Imprisonment
- Fines
- Remedial Sanctions
– Disgorgement of fees
– Restitution to “client” or third parties
- Assessment of costs of proceedings
http://www.cobar.org/docs/Nancy%20Cohen%20handout%20in%20pdf%20format.pdf?ID=3042
Conclusion
Colorado State Law prohibits the practice of law unless you are a licensed attorney. It further prohibits anyone without a license to perform any duties that a licensed attorney is responsible for. Any non-lawyer working for a licensed attorney is to be supervised and their ethics is the responsibility of that licensed attorney. The attorney will be held liable in the event that a non-lawyer practices law on behalf of that attorney. The Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel will investigate a complaint regarding UPL whether it involved an attorney or non-lawyer.
Memorandum of Law
Whether the FCC could regulate Internet service providers with regards to network neutrality.
Statement of Facts
A 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit case vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 that the court determined could only be applied to common carriers. The court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to impose the order in its entirety. Because the FCC had previously classified broadband providers under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, the court ruled that the FCC had relinquished its right to regulate them like common carriers. The case was largely viewed as a loss for network neutrality supporters and a victory for the cable broadband industry. Of the three orders that make up the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, two were vacated (no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination) and one was upheld (transparency).
Verizon is arguing that the FCC exceeded its authority, and violated the company’s constitutional rights. Verizon filed its suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the same court that in April ruled that the FCC had overstepped itself when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for blocking users of its broadband Internet service for BitTorrent, a file-sharing application.
Discussions
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today sent the rules governing what’s known as net neutrality back to the Federal Communications Commission, saying the agency overreached in barring broadband providers from slowing or blocking selected Web traffic. The FCC rules, which the agency may attempt to rewrite, required high-speed Internet providers that use fiber- optic or other cable to treat all traffic equally and disclose their network practices.
In this case I agree that Verizon and other communication companies should have the option to block or slow down traffic from or to selected Websites. Reviewing the FCC policy I agree with a change needing to be enacted. Which the FCC soon provided.
The FCC Open Internet Order 2010 established three orders on fixed and mobile operators of Internet access.
Transparency
This order was applied to both fixed and mobile operators. It requires them to publicly disclose accurate information regarding their network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service. This order was not vacated by the court.
No blocking
This order was applied to both fixed and mobile operators. This order prevents blocking, or otherwise degrading so as to make unusable, access to lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices. This order was canceled by the court.
No unreasonable discrimination
This order was applied only to fixed operators. This order forbids fixed network operators from unreasonably discriminating against lawful network traffic. The FCC did not order for mobile operators because, according to the FCC, competition in the mobile networking space rendered it unnecessary. This order was vacated by the court.
Paralegal Adventures 