From: Boss Partner To: Newbie Date: 01/04/YR01 Re: Smith v. Johnson Hi. I hope you’re settled in and that you like the office we've assigned to you. Listen, about the Johnson case that I wrote you about the other day… I had a very interesting conversation with a friend of mine who also practices law here in Fresno. I told her all about the Johnson case and she told me that she heard that there was a case in the federal district court for the Eastern District of California that had many similar facts to our case. She tells me she thinks it discussed jurisdiction, defamation, invasion of privacy, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, which are all seemingly relevant to our case. Unfortunately, my friend forgot the name of the case although she thinks it was also about the publication of a website called something-“exposed” and a movie that was made about some high-profile murders. In any case, I'd love to go search for it but I have to prepare for my court hearing next Wednesday and I just don't have the time. Please do me a favor and: - Find the case that my friend was talking about; and - With regard to all of the issues in common with our case mentioned above (ONLY those issues, mind you), brief It formally in a way that will allow me to refer to it in the most useful manner. I know you've been given a copy of “Legal Research, Analysis and Writing” by Hames and Ekern and I certainly expect that you will refer to their method in most effectively briefing this case for me. Thank you very much. B. PartnerThis preliminary memorandum that is relevant for all assignments in this course:From: Boss Partner To: Newbie Date: 01/02/YR03 Re: Welcome! Dear Newbie: First, welcome to the firm of Aberdeen, Bernanke and Claustraphobic, situated here in lovely downtown Fresno, California. I understand that you’re going to spend your first day filling out forms and getting acclimated and settled in, but when you’re ready to start working, take a look at the rest of this letter, which will introduce you to our client, Jane Johnson. Jane Johnson lives in Portland, Oregon. A few years back, Jane used to sell stuff on ebay for a living. But she got a bad online reputation because of a few bad reviews that were posted online about her by her disgruntled customers. After these reviews steadily decreased her customer base, she was eventually forced to go out of business. Based on this experience and her bitterness against online websites that are devoted to allowing consumers who are upset to anonymously and maliciously post reviews about producers, Jane came up with a new idea for how to make money. She decided to create a new website that would be the devoted to allowing service providers and other sellers to complain about customers that they didn't like. Because Jane knew of a popular website devoted to allowing customers to complain about service providers called “pissedconsumer.com” she decided to call her own site “pissedproducer.com.” On April 15, YR-01, she posted her homepage which contain the following message: This website is devoted to allowing the producer to fight back. While there are myriads of websites out there devoted to allowing malicious crybaby consumers to launching cowardly attacks against hard-working producers behind the safety and anonymity of their own computers, this website levels the playing field. Producers are encouraged to post feedback about consumers that other producers should be wary of. Producers may post stories about deadbeat buyers, customers who leave unwarranted negative reviews or anything else that other producers might want to be aware of. Consumers have many outlets to complain about us hard-working producers and so it's only fair that they be subject to the same kind of public scrutiny for their wrongful actions. However, false information of any sort may not be posted on this website. Moreover, pissedproducer.com does not warrant that any information posted by any third party on this website is true. The posted content is solely the responsibility of the party who posted it and in no way will pissedproducer.com assume any responsibility for any negative review posted by any person on this site. 2 This site was an instant hit as within months, thousands of companies posted reviews about customers who had failed to pay their bills, made false and malicious complaints against them and committed other malfeasance. On July 18, YR-01, Jane added a feature to the website that allowed producers to upload multimedia files that portrayed poor consumer behavior. Using this feature, users of the website are able to upload audio and/or video files that show interactions with consumers even if the consumer did not know that he or she was being recorded. Jane also began requiring all would-be posting produces to fill out a form with basic information about them and the customer they were complaining about, and evidence they have of the incident. One of the required boxes that had to be checked was whether the producer had a video or pictures of the customer's bad behavior. Although Jane sometimes used the information provided to weed out crackpots, she also used the information to generate more interesting and exciting postings through audiovisual content. Thus, whenever a producer checked the video box, the website automatically opened up a pop-up box encouraging the producer to also post the video or pictures. Jane did not, and still does not charge any sort of fee to the user or to the poster of any information. However, in August of YR-01, Jane began selling advertising on the website. Within two months, the website was generating tens of thousands of dollars of advertising revenue each month. Today, the website generates almost $30,000 of advertising revenue each months and Jane's business is worth in excess of $1 million according to her estimate. On June 12, YR-02, Brenda James, who owns an auto repair garage here in Fresno, posted the following review about Douglas Smith on pissedproducer.com: Douglas Smith came into my shop the other day with his beat up old YR-09 Toyota Corolla for an oil change and a diagnostic, since his check engine light was on. After a thorough diagnostic, I informed him that his catalytic converter needed to be replaced or his car would not pass its next inspection. He asked me for an estimate and I told him that it would cost approximately $800 to replace the converter and that I would throw in the oil change for free. He agreed. When I finished the job, I gave him a bill for $808 and he then claims that he had never agreed to pay that much. When I reminded him about the earlier estimate, he denied that he had agreed to allow me to go ahead with the work. I told him I would not return his car without payment and he then cursed at me but give me his credit card which I promptly processed. The next week, I found that the scoundrel had disputed the credit card charge, claiming that I had forced him to make the charge by threat of withholding his car and that he had never agreed to the work and the first place. He also complained about me to the Better Business Bureau even though I had done absolutely nothing wrong. I was forced to spend many hours defending myself both in the credit card dispute and to the Better Business Bureau all because one bitter customer’s false accusations. 3 Brenda also posted a video from a camera that overlooks the waiting area of her garage. The camera is in plain view, although, because it is in an innocuous location, it is possible that customers did not know that they are being videotaped when they speak to Brenda or whomever is working as cashier as Brenda's garage. The video that Brenda posted is of Douglas Smith in a heated exchange with Brent. Throughout the discussion, Douglas appears to be angry and several times yells obscenities in the direction of Brenda. Brenda then posted Douglas Smith's home address and telephone number and for kicks, the make and model of Douglas’ car and his license plate number. On July 2, YR-02, Douglas was told by a friend about the post that Brenda had made about him. Furious, he immediately sent an e-mail to info@pissedproducer.com demanding that the entire post about him be deleted immediately. Jane wrote him back a polite e-mail wherein she suggested that he take advantage of a feature of the website that allows consumers to refute the allegations against them on the same page on which the allegations appear. She also politely refused to remove Brenda's post, explaining to Douglas that Brenda's post does not violate any site guidelines or rules. On November 20, YR-02, Douglas (through his attorney, Pete Bull), filed a lawsuit against Jane personally and against the business pissedproducer.com in the federal district court for the Eastern District of California (here in Fresno), alleging Defamation, two separate Invasion of Privacy causes of action -- (1) Publication of Private Facts, and (2) Appropriation of Name or Likeness (the appropriation count both under the common law and under California statute- California Civil Code §3344), and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Jane was properly served with the complaint on November 22. On November 27, YR-02, Jane called us and asked her to help her defend against this action. She told us that since the action is in Fresno, she wants attorneys from Fresno to represent her. She came down to our office for a meeting on November 29 and formally retained our services. On December 6 (less than a month ago), we asked for and received from Plaintiff's attorney an extension of sixty days to answer or otherwise move with regard to the Complaint. First and foremost, it's ridiculous for Jane to have to come all the way from Portland to Fresno to have to defend against this action. Arguably, Jane never set foot in California and Douglas should have to sue her, if at all, in Oregon. Although that would mean that we cannot handle the case since we are not licensed to practice law in Oregon, we do owe it to Jane to consider whether we can have the case dismissed here in California on jurisdictional grounds. Anyway, for now just get settled into your office and think about this case a little bit and I’ll be in touch with your shortly with more information and maybe a request or two (or six).

In 500-750 words (not including the title page and reference page), develop an evaluation plan to be included in your final evidence-based practice project. Provide the following criteria in the evaluation, making sure it is comprehensive and concise:Describe the rationale for the methods used in collecting the outcome data.Describe the ways in which the outcome measures evaluate the extent to which the project objectives are achieved.Describe how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the evidence. Address validity, reliability, and applicability.Describe strategies to take if outcomes do not provide positive results.Describe implications for practice and future research.Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.Upon receiving feedback from the instructor, refine "Section G: Evaluation" for your final submission. This will be a continuous process throughout the course for each section.Below is the previous section please use this information in section G Evidence Based Practice Proposal- Section F Implementation PlanSettingThis EBP project is proposed to take place in a small rural critical access hospital emergency department providing care 24 hours each day and 365 days each year. The proposed service area includes 1 county in rural Georgia and 2 adjacent counties also in rural Georgia. ParticipantsThe participants will be those patients > 18 years of age presenting to ED triage with possible sepsis and NEWS score of > 3. The project will compare electronic medical records (EMR) of pre- implementation (before protocol initiation) with those EMRs from post- implementation. This will involve identification, initial contact and nurse compliance with sepsis protocols. An approval form for the implementation will be obtained from administration prior to the implementation. All patients < 18 years of age will be excluded. The project sponsor will avoid any manipulation, participant’s privacy and confidentiality will be protected completely any information that is obtained will be for the purpose of selecting subjects.TimelineThe timeline for the project will be 16 months’ implementation, and data collection of EMRs for the same amount of time.ResourcesPutting evidence- based research into practice requires a number of resources for effective implementation. These resources aid the healthcare professional in getting to know the answers to important questions. There will be a need for funding resources such as education and personnel, equipment such as computers and labels, educational materials and information technology.Methods and InstrumentsData collection will be from EMRs pre- and post- implementation by chart review. Data will be entered into a purchased and downloaded Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and compared.InterventionThis will be a multi-faceted project. With first step being the identification and appraisal of best available evidence pertaining to the care of patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in the ED. Sepsis screening tools will be added to the computer system to include the NEWS score which will trigger activation of the steps included in the sepsis protocol including activation of code sepsis alert, moving the patient immediately to an ED bed, blood samples being drawn for cultures, CBC, CMP, chest radiograph, and alerting the ED physician of potential sepsis for implementation of the sepsis care bundles described in the SSC guidelines of 2012. All nurses, lab and radiology personnel, and physicians will be trained and educated on all protocol steps.Data Collection PlanData collection will be from the EMRs pre-and post-implementation. Data to be collected includes, chief complaint on arrival to triage, age > 18 years, NEWS score, SIRS criteria, sepsis screening information, and nurse compliance with sepsis care protocol components. Primary data results are nurse compliance with sepsis care bundle components, secondary data to be compared are mortality rates, ICU admissions, and length of stay. All due diligence will be taken to ensure that information will be kept private and confidential. All data will be managed and maintained by the project manager. Data analysis will be entered the SPSS for statistical analysis. Utilizing a chi square test of independence to calculate screening compliance pre-and post- implementation. Secondary analysis will include examining compliance impact on the secondary data on pre-and post- protocol implementation patients whose EMR indicates a diagnosis of sepsis.Strategies to manage barriersThere are a variety of strategies that are utilized in overcoming barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practice, there is need for formal evaluation to ascertain the impact on the proposed change, knowledge, attitude and skills of nurses are identified as the main barriers to EBP in sepsis care included in this is the lack of baseline knowledge of sepsis care, lack of triage recognition and delay of diagnosis leading to decrease protocol use and poor patient outcomes. Utilization of online systems to obtain databases with appraised evidence to enhance the awareness along with education and training on good communication. A commitment must be made to advance evidence-based practice and allocate efficient resources for implementation. FeasibilityEvaluation of the feasibility of the implementation of the EBP practice focuses on the knowledge, skills, personnel cost and computer related cost. Clinician knowledge and skills indicate that they are prepared to get the research into practice. Personnel costs are justified in that there will be staff employed to ensure the effective implementation of the plan. All special lab labels will be used to identify stat lab tests for sepsis patients ensuring that results are obtained in < 1 hour as recommended in the SSC guidelines. Computer related costs will be incurred with the purchase of SPSS program, and the addition of the NEWS score trigger and are justified in their necessity for the project. Plan to maintain, revise, extend or discontinueHere the project team will evaluate the efficacy of the timely implementation for the ED sepsis care protocol. If the proposed ED sepsis care protocol is ascertained as ineffective, it shall be discontinued. The project manager anticipated providing the required education and training to identify the any needed revisions early to ensure implementation of the best evidence- based sepsis protocols. There will be ongoing education and updates as needed to ensure that all practitioners are using all the best evidence in practice and all protocols remain up to date. Extension of the implementation period is not anticipated now due to the extended length of the current plan, any possible need for extension will be assessed later.

Analyze and prepare a comprehensive summary of Estates, the Gift Tax, and Trusts. Be sure to expound on key attributes related to each body. Define the role of each and how it relates to the Federal Transfer Tax system (Estates & Gift Tax).undefinedPrepare a 2 to 4 page Word document detailing the information above. Save the file as Analysis of Estates, Gift Tax, & Trusts. Submit under Assignment 4.