Manhattan Community AccessCorp v.Halleck;Prior Rulling: 882 F.3d 300 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) This is a moot court assisgnment my role is to act as a amicus for this case. Amicus is an impartial adviser, often voluntary,

[ad_1]

THE WORK WRITTEN SHOULD BE AS IF IT IS COMING FROM MY BRAIN/MY OWN WORDS/YOUR OWN WORDS OR OPINON….. The last writer plagrized an entire brief and just changed a few words, i will upload that paper so you can see what not to do.

Title: Manhattan Community Access Corp v. Halleck
Prior Rulling: 882 F.3d 300 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) This is a moot court assisgnment my role is to act as a amicus for this case. Amicus is an impartial adviser, often voluntary, to a court of law in a particular case. This should be a research/argumentative essay defending one side. I personally would like you to find evidence to support defending Manhattan Community Access Corp.

1) State what organizatiion you are representing and your reasons for wanting to participate as a third party to this case (why is the outcome of this case important to your group?)
2) Your brief should follow this outline: brief restatement of facts, present constitutional questions to be addressed (a. whether the u.s. court of appeals in the 2nd circuit erred in rejeting the supreme court’s state actor tests and instead creating a per se rule that private operators of public access channels are state actors subject to constitutional liability; b. whether the u.s. court of appeals for the 2nd circuit erred in holding contrary to the u.s. courts of appeals for the 6th and district of columbia circuits that private entities operating public access television stations are state actors for constitutional purposes where the state has no control over the private enitity’s board or operations); analyze each of those questions in light of constitutional precedent. As often as possible, refer to other supreme court precedents, then use those from the u.s. courts of appeal. decisions from u.s., district courts should be cited sparingly. With rare exception, state courts of last resort are not appropriate as sources of legal authority in supreme court cases. You must discuss ALL assigned questions, although they need not be discussed equally. Conclude your brief by urging the court to AFFIRRM or REVERSE the lower court opinion.

The post Manhattan Community AccessCorp v.Halleck;Prior Rulling: 882 F.3d 300 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) This is a moot court assisgnment my role is to act as a amicus for this case. Amicus is an impartial adviser, often voluntary, appeared first on mynursinghomeworks.

[ad_2]

Source link