Don't Look Cheap by Buying Fakes

Browse the internet for your favourite designer or top brand fashion clothing or watch and you will be bombarded with links to sellers of fake/counterfeit goods, the world over. In fact studies have shown that almost 80% of all designer clothing and watches offered for sale on the internet are fake.

In many countries including U.S.A, Australia, U.K, Canada, Germany, italy and France it is a criminal offence to sell, supply, import,manufacture or distribute fake/ counterfeit goods. Businesses found to be in breach of their national counterfeit laws face large fines and possible imprisonment for those in charge of the business. Customers found to be purchasing fake/counterfeit goods also face having the item confiscated and possible fines , so is it really worth it to buy that fake Omega watch or Fake Ed Hardy Hoodie, I think not.

Counterfeiting clothing, handbags and watches is a well organised business , normally conducted in regions where labour is cheap, such as China. These counterfeiting operations are also known to be part of large organised crime syndicates so by buying that fake watch or fake Gucci bag, in a sense you are supporting criminal activity overseas and engaging in criminal activity yourself. Again, not worth the risk.

Now we come to the issue of quality, is a fake watch, bag or piece of clothing as good as authentic versions. All you need to do is browse the net again to see millions of complaints from people who either knowingly or unknowingly purchased counterfeit goods. Time and time again you will read that the quality is poor and the item simply fell apart, soon after the purchase was made. There are many reasons a real Tag Heur watch, authentic Gucci bag or genuine Ed Hardy clothing is not cheap, it is of the best quality construction, the materials used in manufacturing are of the highest quality, you are buying a limited piece made buy people that receive proper wages. Fakes are of poor construction, using poor quality materials and are generally made buy poor people that are paid peanuts.

Whilst it is true that we all want to look good and we can't all afford designer clothing etc, it does not make it OK to buy counterfeit goods, thereby supporting criminals and risking prosecution ourselves. If you can't afford the real thing, don't buy fakes as there are many other great options that will allow you to look good , on a budget. If you can afford it, then great, buy the real deal, get quality and be safe in the fact that you are doing what is right.

Criminal Damage - Straight From the Streets

Established in 1991 in London's East End they set out from the start to tap into every trend, then give it its own unique touch to create something new and fresh. Their designers work under minimal constraint, allowing creative freedom to rule the day, resulting in innovative designs that speak from the streets with a rich heritage to fall back upon. The results are some of the most powerful eye-catching pieces to enter the menswear arena at the moment.

A lot of people have come across Criminal Damage because of their influence within the music scene, it was a relationship that started during the 90s, which was a hotbed of creativity blended with a new, fresh urban/street scene - the brand tapped into this vast resource and positioned itself in a world that was greatly appreciative. This is a situation that is still as fruitful now as it ever was, with high profile celebs still investing in the brand and being photographed wearing their designs onstage and off.

Back in '91 the East End of London wasn't quite the creative, cultural hub that it is today but since they are still based there they can bask in the reflected glory that this area of the capital is beaming out right now. Interestingly, the Shoreditch scene is known for being a real representation of youthful creative energy, direct from the street - which falls directly in line with the ethics of Criminal Damage.

Street wear is enjoying a resurgence almost at the same level of the 90s heydays right now, this is creating a generation of connoisseurs who only buy into brands with a hefty reputation. With so much choice they can afford to be picky, selecting only the freshest pieces from collections that are progressive and putting out the strongest collections of the season. Judging from the latest releases from Criminal damage they fall into the bracket of a brand worth spending some money on. They're not a one trick pony either as they put out a varied array of apparel from varsity jackets to shirts - all with the same level of attention to detail put into the design process.

We've all heard about the testing financial times we're in, but let's face it - if brands don't cut it right now then they will sink into obscurity and potentially not come back. Doesn't look like there's any such fears for Criminal Damage, I'm expecting to see them around for a good many years yet.

I am a regular writer and blogger with a general interest in men's fashion, my major interests include men's designer clothing and labels such as Criminal Damage Clothing make their way to my articles often.

Criminal Defendants on Trial - Raising Minor Defenses

Defenses to the charges are always an appropriate area to explore and raise early in the litigation process. Some of them will require special documents to be filed and witnesses to be listed in a timely fashion or they will be deemed waived by the court. Examples of defense claims that will need to be proved affirmatively at trial in order to be complete defenses and that raise other considerations for the Defense include:

"The police got me to sell drugs I didn't even want to do!"

"Sure, I broke in and shot the man, but I had been drinking whiskey all day. I got myself so drunk that I didn't know what I was doing!"

"I did it because those guys were going to kill me and my wife if I didn't!"

Scenarios depicting some of these less frequently raised defenses are presented so you can better understand the terminology and significance of these affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense is one that must be disclosed to the prosecution before trial and it requires the Defense to offer proof through testimony or real (physical) evidence at trial.

· Entrapment

A teenager walks home from school every day. He never has done drugs or alcohol. One day a brand new fancy car pulls up. The driver is dressed in the latest style of expensive clothes. He has plenty of cash. He begins describing to the teenager how he got into a new business and now, after only a couple of weeks, he is rich. In the backseat are two gorgeous girls dressed with the latest fashions. "I have an opportunity to share only with you," he says. The teenager is going home to an old, rundown trailer and may not have much to eat as his grandmother cares for him and has no money. Here the teenager who would have never thought about selling drugs is being enticed to commit a crime using emotional lures.

If the driver of that car is a police officer, this could be the basis of an entrapment defense. Entrapment is inducing, enticing or encouraging a person to perform an illegal act which they never would have done it but for the recruitment. The defendant is entrapped if:

- he/she was induced to commit a crime that otherwise he/she would have never committed; and
- he/she engaged in the criminal conduct as a direct result of the inducement; and
- the inducer is a law enforcement officer or a person cooperating with the police.

Entrapment is another defense where the jury is told that the defendant did indeed commit the crime (i.e. delivered the cocaine). However, that defendant would not have done it if the police hadn't recruited him/her.

The Defense attorney must fully develop the surrounding facts tying the police activities into the enticement of the defendant. If he was predisposed to sell drugs and was actively asking around how to get some cocaine to sell to his known buyers when he met up with the cop, then there would not be any entrapment.

· Voluntary Intoxication

Before discussing the voluntary intoxication defense, it should be noted that most states have done away with it by statute. Historically, when the defendant was charged with a specific intent crime and had chosen to get himself extremely intoxicated, this factor could negate the specific intent element of the crime. In other words, voluntarily getting intoxicated could work as a complete defense.

For instance, let's say the defendant is charged with battery. Battery occurs when the defendant "intentionally touches or strikes the victim against his will." This is a specific intent crime meaning that the State must prove that the defendant intended to touch or strike as an essential element of its case in chief. Where the defendant has gotten himself so drunk that he couldn't even put one foot in front of the other, how can the State prove he intended anything? Theoretically, it cannot. Since the State cannot prove this essential element of the crime, they cannot prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, voluntary intoxication is a complete defense to the crime of battery. The same analysis holds for any crime that requires the State to prove that the defendant intended to do the act.

A victim might testify that the defendant didn't need to drink an entire fifth of whiskey and take two Valium pills. He did it of his own accord. He intended, if you will, to get himself drunk. He proceeded to beat the victim within an inch of his life. What if the intent was a premeditated design to kill the shop keeper in an intentional murder case? Should the defendant's voluntary drinking and drug spree be a defense? Should he be favored by his own wrongful act? The various State legislatures don't think so today. Voluntary intoxication as a complete defense is an item of legal history.

· Duress or Necessity

"I am telling you officers, I would never have committed this crime except that Billy held a gun to my head and Bobby had my child tied up in the field out back." Sounds like duress. Sounds like a complete defense. Did the defendant act out of duress or necessity in committing the crime? The judge will instruct the jury, "It is a complete defense to the crime (i.e. forgery of documents) if the defendant acted under duress. In order to find duress the jury must consider these six elements:

- Defendant reasonably believed a danger existed which he did not cause;
- That danger threatened significant harm to himself or others;
- The threatened harm must have been real, imminent and impending;
- There was no way to avoid the danger but by committing the crime;
- The crime must have been committed out of duress to avoid the danger;
- The harm avoided must have been greater than the harm of the crime committed.

It can easily be understood how tough it is to prove the elements of duress in order to be in a position to argue that the only reason the charged crime was committed was because the defendant was under duress. Once proven, duress is a complete defense to the crime charged.

· Independent Act

Three guys drive to the supermarket. The driver remains with the car because all of the parking spots are taken. The other two go inside and begin to shop. They get bread and cold cuts and beer and push their cart to the line. While one is paying for the party items the other pulls out a gun and robs the checkout clerk of $347. What do you think the driver and the party pack purchaser will argue when they are charged with the armed robbery? Will they say, "Hey, we were just shopping. We had no idea that Buster had a gun. We never discussed robbing the money and had no idea what he was up to."

In this trial, the judge will instruct the jury that they must consider whether the act of Buster's action was an independent act where he acted on his own. If the defendant raising this defense can show three things, he must be found not guilty. If the defendant raising this defense can show three things that form an independent act, he must be found not guilty. These include:

- This defendant did not intend this crime to occur;
- This defendant did not participate in the criminal act;
- This criminal act was not a reasonably foreseeable

act contemplated by this defendant.

Proof of an independent act is a complete defense to the crime charged.

In summary, four of the less frequently raised affirmative defenses that might be raised by the Defense in an appropriate case are: entrapment, voluntary intoxication, duress and independent act. Remember, in order to be able to argue at closing argument that one or more of these defenses apply, the Defense Attorney must be able to point to specific facts supporting these defenses from the record of the case. If the Defense proof is strong enough, the Court may give a directed verdict in the form of a Judgment of Acquittal either at the close of the State's case or at the close of all of the evidence.