reply to/ and our provide feedback to post 1 and post 2

(post 1)

Issue: More than 200 lawsuits have been filed against U.S. landowners, all of who have been affected by the government project of building a border wall along the country's southern border. In some instances, landowners have been compensated for the land taken by the government per eminent domain, presented in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (Jennings, 2018, p. 164). Others are still "in limbo" as the project's construction has been halted under the Biden administration, but the land has already been taken by the government. In other situations, lawsuits are still pending and the government does not officially own the land where construction has already occurred.

Rule: According to eminent domain presented in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the government must provide just compensation for land taken for the use of government initiatives.

Application/Analysis: Landowners must be compensated for land taken in the name of eminent domain. The court should rule that construction occurring on land not owned by the government is unconstitutional if compensation is not given. In situations where money has been paid for land by the government, but construction has permanently halted, the money should either be returned in exchange for the return of the land, otherwise, that is now government-owned land.

Conclusion: Much of the situation is still up in the air as the Biden administration determines how to proceed with border wall construction. Depending on the proposed course of action, construction of the wall may be torn down and the land returned to previous owners. If construction continues, lawsuits will continue until settlements are reached.

Resources:

Findell, E., Hackman, M. (2021, February 7). As Biden decides what to do with Trump's border wall, landowners are in limbo. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-biden-decides-what-to-do-with-trumps-border-wall-landowners-are-in-limbo-11612702800?page=1

Jennings, M. M. (2018). Business: Its legal, ethical, and global environment (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning

-

(post 2)

Issue

Peter Brand, now-former fencing coach at Harvard University, faces bribery charges over claims that he accepted a bribe from Jie Zhao, a Maryland businessman, to admit Zhao's sons into Harvard's fencing program.

Ruling

A jury in Federal Court found Brand and Zhao not guilty on all charges.

Analysis

The prosecutors claimed that Peter Brand was facing financial trouble, and in exchange for some financial favors he was willing to provide good friend Jie Zhao with an easier admissions process for his two sons, by recruiting them to the fencing team. After failing to disclose the payments, "Brand was fired from the school in July 2019 for violating its conflict-of-interest policy" (CBS Boston). It was also discovered that Brand sold his home to Zhao for almost $1 million, which was estimated to be nearly double the value of the home. Furthermore, it turned out that Zhao sold the house 17 months later at a loss, having never lived in it.In addition, the prosecution also claimed that Zhao paid more than $150,000 to a contractor to renovate Peter Brand's new home that he has purchased with the money from his previous house sale.Another strong argument from the prosecution was the evidence of a message sent from Peter Brand in 2012, stating "His boys don't have to be great fencers. All I need is a good incentive to recruit them."

The defense claimed that there was never an attempt to hide or cover any of this information up from Brand or Zhao, simply because there was no foul play here, and thus nothing to cover up. They highlighted that Zhao's children were both very highly ranked fencers in the the nation and were also great students. The argument from the defense was build around the foundation that Zhao and Brand were friends, which provided the basis for financial help in a time of trouble. They finally stated that Zhao receive the money plus interest in return from Brand.

Conclusion

Upon conclusion, I think that the jury may have come to the wrong outcome in this case. In a time where college admission scandals have been extremely rife, and including the details of Zhao's over-generous behavior towards Peter Brand, I find it very difficult to believe that these monetary actions were not in exchange for favorable treatment.

References

CBS Boston (December 21, 2022) "Former Harvard coach, dad acquitted in college bribery case" CBS News