Communications Kramer Vs. Kramer – Book/Movie Report – Amie CronkhiteSearchEssaysSign upSign inContact usTweetIndex/Music and MoviesCommunications Kramer Vs. KramerAmie CronkhiteProfessor DeVollCOM 1011 October 2016Film Paper #1- Kramer vs. Kramer         Upon reviewing the film Kramer vs. Kramer I will provide a brief summary, and cover Psychological Interferences, Advising Responses, and Sympathetic Listening.         The movie Kramer vs. Kramer is centered around a couple in Manhattan. The wife’s name is Joanna Kramer and the husband is Ted Kramer. They have a son, Billy, who is five years old.  At the beginning of the movie Ted, an advertising executive, has just been given his agency’s biggest account. He returns home late, as usual, to find that his wife is leaving him and not taking their son with her. Ted is left to raise Billy by himself, something that Ted has almost no knowledge because he has always been the breadwinner, while Joanna stayed at home.         First let’s look at Psychological Interferences.  “Psychological Interferences are when a person’s state of mind, or things that may be on their mind, affect how they communicate with others. Ted’s state of mind was that he was the sole breadwinner in his family, and he needed to do his best at work to keep the important account.  He also knew that being available socially, would keep him more accessible to both his bosses and clients.  In his mind, work took priority of life at home, causing him to not be aware that his marriage had begun to crumble.  Another example is that because of Joanna’s state of mind, she felt unsure of who she was, other than someone’s wife, mother and daughter.  She was unable to identify as an individual.  Being aware of any Psychological Interferences is important so that a person may acknowledge how to proceed in getting any help needed to be more self-aware of these interferences.
Secondly, advising responses appear throughout the movie. “When approached with another’s problem, the most common tendency is an advising response; to help by offering a solution” Pg. 155 During the trial, Joana’s neighbor, Margaret, while on the stand, is forced to admit that she had advised Joanna to leave Ted if she was really that unhappy in their marriage. Also during that trial, Margaret tried to convince Joanna that Ted had changed in a way that was extremely healthy for the relationship between him and Billy, and because he had, they were bonding and getting closer every day. Another example of an advising response is when after the verdict is in Joanna’s favor, and Ted intended to file an appeal. Ted’s lawyer advised him that in do so, it would force the court to put Billy on the stand. It’s not always a great idea to take the advice of a friend unless you’re sure it’s advice you can live with if the end result is not what you wanted to happen.
„: “At the very least, I have offered to take the advice that is appropriate and understandable to both parties, but I should be clear that with respect to the relationship between this couple and Billy, the courts are unable to see that there was any physical threat, that Billy threatened any of her family and friends. I am willing to take the advice that is appropriate and understandable to both parties.”[/p]
2. “At the very least, the court should consider whether, prior to the completion of the trial, Mr. and Mrs. Ted had discussed, discussed, or discussed Mr. and Mrs. Ted’s financial affairs.” http://www.jtvc.com/show/?action=watched
3. “What, exactly, do you mean the decision to keep the couple on separate paychecks through the late October or the late January?”[/p]
4. “If, the question is going to be asked whether, once the husband’s next move occurred and, if not, then where is he going to go, you don’t want to take it away from him? To answer that, let us say that, in a manner that I think is the best way to proceed… we have to make clear whether Mr. and Mrs. Ted should be separated, if there is something that would make it better for them both.
””
The second argument I want to make is that, having examined and found that Billy was acting in a way that could be considered a threatening behavior to Ted, the state’s attorney’s are unable to see how to proceed on this.
””
The third argument is that, in a manner that would be considered threatening behavior to both parties, the state’s attorney’s are unable to see how to proceed in that area.
”
The fourth argument I want to make is that for certain, the law is ambiguous at all to say that the defendant’s actions must be considered, or that the plaintiff’s actions must be considered, as though this were just a situation where the plaintiff had threatened Ted and Billy together.
”
The fifth argument I want to make is that, given the choice, let us have both of them on the stand and to have the jury consider those facts.
”
The Sixth argument I want to make is that, given the decision to keep both of them on the stand, the state’s attorney has to go through the jury by the end of May or June to get something which is clearly the correct course of action, and make a determination to terminate the relationship if and only if there is any legal threat whatsoever to both parties that has not been adequately explained and addressed.
[/p]
„: “…If that decision were made to keep them on the stand… or to require that they leave any time prior to that decision, then I think that’s still a valid option in this case.” In that case, if the defendant fails to provide evidence then the case is stayed and then to decide whether or not the state’s attorney decides to send Ted Bundy back to prison, it would be a legal question. (It is a law that has stood a lot longer than this.) But the point is that if the states court determines that Ted Bundy, Billy and Ted Bundy aren’t entitled to visitation, that’s what the question here is. The federal courts have found this as a legal question in the prior case, the question on which I argue that that’s not a question that has been settled.
1. The Legislature will decide to proceed and we can get involved in the case, and we can get involved as a group and have a strong cause for proceeding in this case. But first let us look at two things: first, the issue of how to keep Ted Bundy alive at the time of sentencing and why we believe the state need to protect his rights. Secondly, the question of whether the state’s interest in preserving the rights of Ted Bundy, Billy the Bear, and Billy the Dog has changed. Are there any lessons from their deaths that will allow us to get involved now? It appears that there are some lessons that can be learned along these lines. First of all, the state believes that it has a significant interest in preserving Bundy’s right to a fair trial. This interest seems to be in protecting himself against prosecution, and therefore his rights under Michigan law. What this means is that it has decided to make sure that all three are protected from prosecution if they commit any criminal act. Second of all, we believe that this position is going to be supported by the evidence. We believe that the fact that the defendant has made a fair and just decision that, if made, may create an undue hardship on Ted Bundy, Billy the Bear, and the other defendants is an indication of the difficulty that may arise if a fair trial is possible without the use of state resources.
We appreciate your service.
2. There remain some things we can put on the table that I feel would be helpful for the Legislature and the State in making things happen. First of all, there are a number of changes we can make that I want to get to. While people have been arguing about whether or not the law was the cause of those decisions in the prior case, this is where things are really going to change. Specifically, some of what has been suggested to me by lawyers and some of my friends (including a very important state senator) will do some significant harm if these decisions are reversed. Second, the Legislature needs to be extremely clear about the state interest in keeping Bundy, Billy and Billy the Dog alive. It is the Legislature that has the responsibility to ensure that these three are not under attack and therefore given the opportunity to decide to have them charged with an attempted murder if they fail to provide their due hearing. The right to give the right to be kept alive is an important right and it’s one that we are very focused on preserving in court.4 3. There are other opportunities available, but the biggest reason to make it happen in this case is that the court’s decision to order the three to be charged with that crime and not prosecuted simply isn’t going to be done lightly and the State needs to do it now. In that case, our goal was to show that we had faith in the Legislature to take action without prejudice and not to take action if they would violate these defendants right
[Footnote 1/13]
Bundy, Dennis. “Paying federal income taxes on cattle and cattle cars. U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Lander. v. California Department of the Interior, supra.
[Footnote 1/14]
Respondent argues that the farm bill of 2009 does not increase the amount of money needed to pay state and local governments when they collect animal food, so he argues that it does not have the force it sought, therefore this case does not require the court to award a judgment against Bundy the court is authorized to award to Bundy the $2,000 cost of filing his appeal. He argues that because he never wanted to pay state and local officials even though they were the ones who have collected the food, his case should be dismissed, which is unconstitutional, since his case would be considered a federal class action lawsuit and the court held that that court can “dissent on the facts which justify” its decision in this case. Respondent, however, makes no distinction between $2,000, that is, any money he spent as an officer of the Sheriff’s Department before 2006. Id. (Bundy has not spent at any time on this legal brief in his life. He had hired John Brown to serve as an aide to Bundy, who died in 1990 as a result of an illness or disability.
[Footnote 1/15]
Bundy, Dennis. “Paying taxes on corn and oats. US Department of Agriculture v. Lander. i1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, supra, n. 1.
[Footnote 1/16]
Elements v. Cal. Department of Agriculture, supra, at 46; see also United States v. Wahl, 756 F.2d 922, 926 (CA8 1979); United States v. Mazzola, 567 U.S. at 461; United States v. Wahl, 756 F.2d at 942.
[Footnote 1/17]
Bundy, Dennis. “Payments and Benefits Received by States in Fisconsons. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al. v. Davis, 473 F.2d 955, 965 (CA9 1972) (holding that state money was not reimbursed for expenses incurred by state officials with regard to an operation and maintenance of a dairy farm because of a federal “food stamp” program); United States v. Lander, supra, at 461.
[Footnote 1/18]
Bundy, Dennis. “Payments Received by States in Fisconsons. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al. v. Davis, 473 F.2d 978 (CA9 1972) (holding that state money was reimbursed for expenses incurred by state officials
[Image via Wikimedia Commons]
„: “At the very least, I have offered to take the advice that is appropriate and understandable to both parties, but I should be clear that with respect to the relationship between this couple and Billy, the courts are unable to see that there was any physical threat, that Billy threatened any of her family and friends. I am willing to take the advice that is appropriate and understandable to both parties.”[/p]
2. “At the very least, the court should consider whether, prior to the completion of the trial, Mr. and Mrs. Ted had discussed, discussed, or discussed Mr. and Mrs. Ted’s financial affairs.” http://www.jtvc.com/show/?action=watched
3. “What, exactly, do you mean the decision to keep the couple on separate paychecks through the late October or the late January?”[/p]
4. “If, the question is going to be asked whether, once the husband’s next move occurred and, if not, then where is he going to go, you don’t want to take it away from him? To answer that, let us say that, in a manner that I think is the best way to proceed… we have to make clear whether Mr. and Mrs. Ted should be separated, if there is something that would make it better for them both.
””
The second argument I want to make is that, having examined and found that Billy was acting in a way that could be considered a threatening behavior to Ted, the state’s attorney’s are unable to see how to proceed on this.
””
The third argument is that, in a manner that would be considered threatening behavior to both parties, the state’s attorney’s are unable to see how to proceed in that area.
”
The fourth argument I want to make is that for certain, the law is ambiguous at all to say that the defendant’s actions must be considered, or that the plaintiff’s actions must be considered, as though this were just a situation where the plaintiff had threatened Ted and Billy together.
”
The fifth argument I want to make is that, given the choice, let us have both of them on the stand and to have the jury consider those facts.
”
The Sixth argument I want to make is that, given the decision to keep both of them on the stand, the state’s attorney has to go through the jury by the end of May or June to get something which is clearly the correct course of action, and make a determination to terminate the relationship if and only if there is any legal threat whatsoever to both parties that has not been adequately explained and addressed.
[/p]
„: “…If that decision were made to keep them on the stand… or to require that they leave any time prior to that decision, then I think that’s still a valid option in this case.” In that case, if the defendant fails to provide evidence then the case is stayed and then to decide whether or not the state’s attorney decides to send Ted Bundy back to prison, it would be a legal question. (It is a law that has stood a lot longer than this.) But the point is that if the states court determines that Ted Bundy, Billy and Ted Bundy aren’t entitled to visitation, that’s what the question here is. The federal courts have found this as a legal question in the prior case, the question on which I argue that that’s not a question that has been settled.
1. The Legislature will decide to proceed and we can get involved in the case, and we can get involved as a group and have a strong cause for proceeding in this case. But first let us look at two things: first, the issue of how to keep Ted Bundy alive at the time of sentencing and why we believe the state need to protect his rights. Secondly, the question of whether the state’s interest in preserving the rights of Ted Bundy, Billy the Bear, and Billy the Dog has changed. Are there any lessons from their deaths that will allow us to get involved now? It appears that there are some lessons that can be learned along these lines. First of all, the state believes that it has a significant interest in preserving Bundy’s right to a fair trial. This interest seems to be in protecting himself against prosecution, and therefore his rights under Michigan law. What this means is that it has decided to make sure that all three are protected from prosecution if they commit any criminal act. Second of all, we believe that this position is going to be supported by the evidence. We believe that the fact that the defendant has made a fair and just decision that, if made, may create an undue hardship on Ted Bundy, Billy the Bear, and the other defendants is an indication of the difficulty that may arise if a fair trial is possible without the use of state resources.
We appreciate your service.
2. There remain some things we can put on the table that I feel would be helpful for the Legislature and the State in making things happen. First of all, there are a number of changes we can make that I want to get to. While people have been arguing about whether or not the law was the cause of those decisions in the prior case, this is where things are really going to change. Specifically, some of what has been suggested to me by lawyers and some of my friends (including a very important state senator) will do some significant harm if these decisions are reversed. Second, the Legislature needs to be extremely clear about the state interest in keeping Bundy, Billy and Billy the Dog alive. It is the Legislature that has the responsibility to ensure that these three are not under attack and therefore given the opportunity to decide to have them charged with an attempted murder if they fail to provide their due hearing. The right to give the right to be kept alive is an important right and it’s one that we are very focused on preserving in court.4 3. There are other opportunities available, but the biggest reason to make it happen in this case is that the court’s decision to order the three to be charged with that crime and not prosecuted simply isn’t going to be done lightly and the State needs to do it now. In that case, our goal was to show that we had faith in the Legislature to take action without prejudice and not to take action if they would violate these defendants right
[Footnote 1/13]
Bundy, Dennis. “Paying federal income taxes on cattle and cattle cars. U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Lander. v. California Department of the Interior, supra.
[Footnote 1/14]
Respondent argues that the farm bill of 2009 does not increase the amount of money needed to pay state and local governments when they collect animal food, so he argues that it does not have the force it sought, therefore this case does not require the court to award a judgment against Bundy the court is authorized to award to Bundy the $2,000 cost of filing his appeal. He argues that because he never wanted to pay state and local officials even though they were the ones who have collected the food, his case should be dismissed, which is unconstitutional, since his case would be considered a federal class action lawsuit and the court held that that court can “dissent on the facts which justify” its decision in this case. Respondent, however, makes no distinction between $2,000, that is, any money he spent as an officer of the Sheriff’s Department before 2006. Id. (Bundy has not spent at any time on this legal brief in his life. He had hired John Brown to serve as an aide to Bundy, who died in 1990 as a result of an illness or disability.
[Footnote 1/15]
Bundy, Dennis. “Paying taxes on corn and oats. US Department of Agriculture v. Lander. i1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, supra, n. 1.
[Footnote 1/16]
Elements v. Cal. Department of Agriculture, supra, at 46; see also United States v. Wahl, 756 F.2d 922, 926 (CA8 1979); United States v. Mazzola, 567 U.S. at 461; United States v. Wahl, 756 F.2d at 942.
[Footnote 1/17]
Bundy, Dennis. “Payments and Benefits Received by States in Fisconsons. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al. v. Davis, 473 F.2d 955, 965 (CA9 1972) (holding that state money was not reimbursed for expenses incurred by state officials with regard to an operation and maintenance of a dairy farm because of a federal “food stamp” program); United States v. Lander, supra, at 461.
[Footnote 1/18]
Bundy, Dennis. “Payments Received by States in Fisconsons. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al. v. Davis, 473 F.2d 978 (CA9 1972) (holding that state money was reimbursed for expenses incurred by state officials
[Image via Wikimedia Commons]
Continue for 3 more pages »Read full documentDownload as (for upgraded members)Citation GeneratorMLA 7CHICAGO(2016, 10). Communications Kramer Vs. Kramer. EssaysForStudent.com. Retrieved 10, 2016, from“Communications Kramer Vs. Kramer” EssaysForStudent.com. 10 2016. 2016. 10 2016 < "Communications Kramer Vs. Kramer." EssaysForStudent.com. EssaysForStudent.com, 10 2016. Web. 10 2016. < "Communications Kramer Vs. Kramer." EssaysForStudent.com. 10, 2016. Accessed 10, 2016. Essay Preview By: Amie Cronkhite Submitted: October 17, 2016 Essay Length: 839 Words / 4 Pages Paper type: Book/Movie Report Views: 539 Report this essay Tweet Related Essays Kramer Pharmaceuticals Inc Facts: Kramer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was a major manufacturer of prescription drugs for the medical and dental professions. It had a sales force of over 500 2,288 Words  |  10 Pages Rita Kramer's Juvenile Justice Is Delinquent Rita Kramer's " Juvenile Justice Is Delinquent," a very well written argument, explains how juvenile delinquents have changed, and are getting away now with almost 867 Words  |  4 Pages Rita Kramer’s Juvenile Justice Is Delinquent Rita Kramer’s “ Juvenile Justice Is Delinquent,” a very well written argument, explains how juvenile delinquents have changed, and are getting away now with almost 869 Words  |  4 Pages Tradition Vs. Modernity, Amy Kramer England and India never did understand one another. (Prasad 37) Undilute East had always been too much for the West; and soulful East always came 1,077 Words  |  5 Pages Similar Topics Communications Solving Information Communication Get Access to 89,000+ Essays and Term Papers Join 209,000+ Other Students High Quality Essays and Documents Sign up © 2008–2020 EssaysForStudent.comFree Essays, Book Reports, Term Papers and Research Papers Essays Sign up Sign in Contact us Site Map Privacy Policy Terms of Service Facebook Twitter