Question I- Eddie Embezzler has worked for Betty Boss for many years as an accountant.

During his
employment, Eddie has taken thousands of dollars from Betty’s business. As a result, Betty has suffered.
Did Eddie violate a criminal law, a civil law, or both? Explain.

Fraud is a felony, and is robbed by many, but there is a difference. The differences among criminal fraud
and civil fraud are also made. The fundamental distinction from burglary to fraud is that robbery usually
entails the adoption of it by intimidation or deceit, while fraud centres across a deliberate misrepressing
of facts, and who takes disciplinary proceedings lies at the core of the discrepancy between criminal
fraud and civil fraud. One single act of deceit can be charged by judges as criminal deception and the
group who was victims of the misstatement also as a civil suit. When an individual is charged with felony
wrongdoing, he or she has to show that they want to conduct mis-representation, and whether they
want to benefit from it, either through local, state or federal authorities. This instances will be
prosecuted even though the scam has failed and no one has been injured. So, Eddie violated both the
Law.

https://www.bochettoandlentz.com/criminal-fraud-vs-civil-fraud-whats-difference/

Question II - Two (2) high ranking managers of Anrun Corp. know that the company’s revenue is rapidly
declining. However, at a recent shareholder meeting, they tell the shareholders to expect record profits
in the next quarter. Explain the three Blanchard and Peale questions that these two managers should
have asked themselves before the shareholders’ meeting.

They should ask themselves first that It's lawful the act we're completing? It's morally and ethically
unethical if the two high-ranking Anrun Corp bosses are informed of the present condition and giving
investors false expectation for the coming quarter. Moral choices are an important part of being honest
and relying on a monarch. However, many of us have no method or rubric defined for dealing with
moral dilemmas. Secondly, they should think that Is our act changed or equilibrium? It is not only from
the point of view of civil regulation that the legitimacy of choice should be questioned, but also
regarding organisational guidelines or norms. If the first question is "no," the second one does not have
to be invited much. If your business does not have a guideline on ethics or organizational principles that
detail the conduct that community members want to conduct. And lastly, they should be concerned
about The choice they have found is that it helps them sound happy or guilty from inside oneself? How
do you feel if your plans were written in your close-knit newspaper or CNN? Com? What would you like?
Wouldn't that bring proud or embarrassment about you and your loved ones? As John Wood puts it,
"there is no pillow so tenderly as a pure moral sense" is the popular UCLA baskeball education.

References:

Conley, R., (2011, 14 August). Got Ethics? Three Questions Every Leader Should Ask. Leading with Trust.
Retrieved from: https://leadingwithtrust.com/2011/08/14/three-questions/
Question III - The appellate court decides that the trial court committed reversible error by including
evidence found by law enforcement.  Law enforcement discovered this evidence when committing a
Fourth Amendment violation, which should have been excluded at trial.  This inadmissible evidence was
the lynchpin of the prosecutor’s case, which resulted in a conviction.  Where does the case go from
here? Is the Defendant free to go? Does it go back to the trial court? Does it go all the way up to the
Supreme Court?

The fourth section to the U.S. Charter forbids lawmakers from carrying out arbitrary searches and
seizures, and requires that they both have a legal warrant or probably a justification. After all, what
happens if the policeman infringes on the 4th amendment to find incriminating information? What
happens? That's true when it comes to the "exclusion clause." Study how this law has been established
and why we really have a law in the first place. The fourth provision was made for over 100 years after
enactment of the accused at low cost because information captured by the law enforcement officers
was transformed into nonetheless permissible at some point in his trial by means of subpoena or fair
standards. However, in 1914, the U.S. Superb judiciary changed the case law of the 4th section
significantly by passing the ruling in weeks against the U.S. This was an appeal for the person who was
convicted mainly on the basis of evidence taken without any subpoena or procedural excuse with the
help of a federal agent.

FindLaw's team. (2019, Feb 04). The Fourth Amendment and the 'Exclusionary Rule'. Retrieved from:
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html.

Questions IV - During the course of a divorce proceeding, the judge orders the husband and wife
attempt to settle their custody dispute through the mediation process. During the course of the
mediation, the husband tells the mediator that he has secretly been selling marijuana to their children’s
friends. Ultimately, the mediation breaks down and the parties cannot come to a settlement. During
the divorce trial, can the wife introduce the mediator’s testimony as evidence?

The procedure succeeds well where the parties talk with total honesty, accept shortcomings and reach
common ground, without fear of being exploited again in more conventional conflict proceedings where
a solution is not reached. And if you want to summon him, the mediator cannot appear in court None
said is admissible in arbitration. In mediation. The sole exemption was valid child abuse claims, such as a
lawyer, that must be reported by the mediator. The mediation procedure is mostly regarded as that of
candour and confidence, with confidence that what has been said through mediation can continue to be
private, in return for one's candour. Attorneys demonstrate to clients before arranging for consultation
that mediation is private. "These agreements are settlements which cannot be revealed in court,"
lawyers say to their customers. Mediation is a law that would not allow private correspondence in court.

https://www.mediate.com/articles/hobbsk1.cfm