(29.2.10) "" a criminal offense against a person or property which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against race, religion, ethnic/national origin group, or sexual orientation group.

Consultant: you're welcome. as a first step, our team analyzed the other potential primary contenders. the reality is that with such a strong field, it is going to be difficult to gain the of votes necessary to avoid a runoff—unless you want to go negative from the start. and our opposition research team found plenty of ammunition to do just that.

Based on your approved case, create fictitious digital evidence. you may use logs from your own computer (no personal information) as a guide or search the internet for samples. these samples do not have to be technically correct, but there must be a reasonable presumption that this information would exist, supported by a reference. document who, when, and how the evidence was obtained. remember, you are creating fictitious examples, so refer to prior reading or examples of how digital evidence was collected. if necessary, refer to the "who" as a "systems administrator" and ensure the fictitious person is identified and referenced in your investigation. digital evidence must meet each of the following criteria: some of your digital evidence must be retrieved by computer forensics. some of your digital evidence must be retrieved from log files. digital evidence must contain information to support who, what, when, where, and how the cyber-crime was committed. present digital copies of your evidence in text files, screen shots, or pdfs.

Supreme court. jim, who is a bit eccentric, says that he is fed up with the way a certain employer in his town treats employees and that he is going to sue that employer in an effort to improve matters. jim also says that he is going to start his case at the appellate court level, skipping over all those "lesser" judges. jim says that those justices will surely hear him out and that he will also seek a jury. although he is not a lawyer, jim believes that the offenses of the employer are so severe that the justices will appreciate his attempt to make things better for the employees involved. will jim get a jury at the appellate court level?