what-are-the-answers-to-the-following-questions-for-each-fact-pattern

I am not interested in fully formed answers. I will be writing everything myself, but I am a little lost on finding where the answers are. I am hoping you can give me some basic information to help me find the information I need to write my portfolio

Fact Pattern B: Mary and the Shipping Department Practices

Mary works in the shipping department at a local office supply company, Paper Company. There is a lot of pressure to keep sales up, especially in this down economy. Mary is training a new employee, Mike. She says customary practice is to send orders to customers consistently, even when they haven’t ordered anything, unless they complain. Mary explains to a co-worker that most of the time, the companies think they have ordered the materials. Many customers have their credit cards on file with Paper Company, and Mary charges the cards as the shipments are sent out without the requisite approval.

Mike isn’t comfortable with this policy, but Mary explains, “Hey, the last person was let go because she wasn’t sending out enough orders. I have 3 kids to feed and I’m a single mom!” Still uncomfortable, Mike approached the company CEO, Scott. Mike recounted every detail, to which Scott replied “Hmm. Okay, thanks, Mike. I’ll look into it.”

In truth, Scott was not bothered by the practice and did not want it to stop. He received a big bonus the last two years, likely stemming from Mary’s shipping practices, he now realized.

Two months later and without any change to the shipping practice, Mike reported the practice to the local police. Police arrived on the scene to question Mary. Mary refused to answer any questions. Frustrated, the police arrested her. At the police station, Mary was read her Miranda rights, and she immediately demanded an attorney.

The case was forwarded to the district attorney’s office. They promptly filed charges against Mary, Scott, and Paper Company.

1) At trial, the prosecution calls Mary’s husband to ask him what Mary tells him about her work duties. The defense objects to the question. What rules from the Federal Rules of Evidence will apply in this case? Rely on the entire Fact Pattern and any new facts introduced in directions here

2) What are the elements of the crime the prosecution must prove?

3) What violations of criminal procedure by law enforcement, if any, occurred?

Be specific in your discussion of the applicable law.

Discuss arguments that could be made on both sides of any issue raised

4) If you are called as an expert witness in this case in your capacity as a fraud examiner, what would you focus on to support the prosecution?

5) What would you say if you were called to support the defense?

Indicate what additional investigation and research you might need to do.

Indicate what qualifications you would need to have to qualify as an expert witness.

Fact Pattern C: Dr. Pointer and the Sweaty Palms Surgeries

Dr. Pointer, a plastic surgeon, was accustomed to living an expensive lifestyle. He had houses in several states and took international vacations several times a year. However, the recent downturn in the economy produced significantly fewer clients than in years past. He was having difficulty paying all his bills, much less doing the expensive things he liked to do.

He realized that people might be in need of money and started advertising for “sweaty palms” surgery, where he would “fix” their sweaty palms issues without any cost to them as their insurance would cover it. In fact, in person, he promised patients he would give them $500 for having the minimally invasive surgery. Many didn’t have a legitimate “sweaty palms” issue, but Dr. Pointer assured them what he was going to do wouldn’t make much difference. They would agree to a minimally invasive procedure, and Dr. Pointer would overcharge insurance companies by $2500 a patient, then pay out $500 to each patient.

On top of that, he kept minimal records on each patient and didn’t do any follow-up visits.

Sometimes, patients expressed hesitation. They didn’t really think they had a sweaty palms issue. Dr. Pointer started submitting false invoices to insurance companies on these people as he now had their insurance information.

One such person, Beth, received a confusing statement from her health insurance company regarding sweaty palms surgery with Dr. Pointer. She had met with him but opted not to have the surgery. She called the police and reported the matter to them.

Local police went to Dr. Pointer’s office to investigate. His assistant told the police he wasn’t there. The police demanded his office files. The young assistant didn’t know what to do. She said, “No, I don’t think I can turn them over to you. I haven’t seen any legal documentation that you are allowed to do that.” However, the police raided the office anyway.

The police found Beth’s file, which indicated her insurance company was billed for a surgery she said she never had. The police turned the matter over to the district attorney, who decided to prosecute. The DA got a warrant for Dr. Pointer’s arrest and gave it to the police.

The police went to Dr. Pointer’s house. The door was open, and they went inside without knocking. They saw him sitting in his back pool and arrested him.

1) At trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce statements of Beth as made to the police in a police report. What rules from the Federal Rules of Evidence will apply in this case? Rely on the entire Fact Pattern and any new facts introduced in directions here.

2) What are the elements of the crime the prosecution must prove?

3) What violations of criminal procedure by law enforcement, if any, occurred?

Be specific in your discussion of the applicable law.

Discuss arguments that could be made on both sides of any issue raised

4) If you are called as an expert witness in this case in your capacity as a fraud examiner, what would you focus on to support the prosecution?

5) What would you say if you were called to support the defense?

Indicate what additional investigation and research you might need to do.

Indicate what qualifications you would need to have to qualify as an expert witness.

Fact Pattern D: Bill’s Investment

Bill lived in Denver and was always careful with money. However, he realized he could make his money grow by investing it. He researched a few options, but nothing sounded good to him until he was approached in a local bar by Amy. She started talking to him about “Western Tool and Equipment Repair and Investment Services” (hereafter, “Western Tool”). She gave him her card with that business name on it and with the title of “Investment Manager.” She explained that the purpose of Western Tool was to use invested funds to purchase used tractor-trailers. They would be reconditioned and sold for profit to large corporations, like K-Mart and Wal-mart. They would also be sold internationally.

She explained that they operated at a distant plant out of state in Texas but that there was a local headquarters nearby in Boulder, CO. She stated that investors made a 36% profit within the first year and that investment checks were distributed every 6 months.

Bill thought this idea sounded great. He asked for some documents to review, which Amy provided by e- mail. The numbers were too good to be true! He decided to invest $20,000 at the start.

Six months in, Bill received a check for $259 from Western Tool. He thought this was significantly lower than he was supposed to receive based on the numbers Amy provided him. He contacted Amy, who stated Bill needed to be bringing in other investors to reach those higher numbers. Amy said she would get him the information to bring others in, including some business cards and updated files.

A week later, Bill received business cards with his name on them and the title of “Investment Manager.” Bill was confused because he was not an investment manager. However, he believed in the goals of the company and set out to bring more people into the business. He connected three individuals with Amy, and each person invested $5000. When Bill received his next investment check six months later, it was for $98. Now he was confused and angry. He managed to get other people to invest, and his investment proceeds decreased, contrary to what Amy told him.

At this point, he asked Amy for a face-to-face meeting because he wanted his money back. He suspected something was not right with this investment arrangement. He last saw her in the local bar and never went to headquarters in Boulder.

Amy never responded to his e-mails or phone calls. Bill drove to the address listed as headquarters in Boulder; but when he got there, it was a P.O. Box.

He hired a private investigator to find out more information. It turns out the Texas plant address didn’t exist.

One of the people whom Bill managed to get to sign up, Dan, called the police after his own small investment check for $27 came in the mail. Dan thought this was some kind of fraud. He explained the details as he knew them to the police. Bill never hid any information about himself, so Dan had Bill’s home address. Police went there to talk to Bill. Bill wanted to be helpful to the police. He answered the door and let them in. They began asking him about Western Tool. This was not the first time they had heard about the company, but Bill was the first person to provide significant information. With all the information Bill provided, the police forwarded the matter to the DA.

1) Assume the DA charged Bill with a crime. At trial, Dan is called as a witness and testifies that Bill told him there was an investment fund and that Bill was an investment manager. Bill also told Dan all the information he had been told by Amy. Dan testified to Amy’s statements as told to Bill. What issue of evidence does this raise, if any? Rely on the entire Fact Pattern and any new facts introduced in this fact pattern.

2) What are the elements of the crime the prosecution must prove?

3) What violations of criminal procedure by law enforcement, if any, occurred?

Be specific in your discussion of the applicable law.

Discuss arguments that could be made on both sides of any issue raised

4) If you are called as an expert witness in this case in your capacity as a fraud examiner, what would you focus on to support the prosecution?

5) What would you say if you were called to support the defense?

Indicate what additional investigation and research you might need to do.

Indicate what qualifications you would need to have to qualify as an expert witness.