Criminal Law Outline

Criminal Law Outline Justifications of Punishment 1. Consequentialist Theory a. Activities are ethically right if and just on the off chance that they bring about attractive results b. Depend on hypothesis of utilitarianism to legitimize discipline: Forward looking impacts of discipline. General prevention, explicit discouragement, restoration, crippling 2. Nonconsequentialist Theory c. Activities are ethically off-base in themselves, paying little mind to the results d. Hypothesis of Retributivism: glance back at the mischief and align the discipline to the wrongdoing Theories of Punishment ) Incapacitation: Incarceration to render them innocuous 2) Retribution: aggregate judgment of society weighing down. â€Å"Just Deserts† 3) Rehabilitation: give the criminal aptitudes and qualities to make them a decent resident 4) General Deterrence: hinder different crooks from carrying out violations 5) Specific Deterrence: prevent the rebuffed criminal from future wrongdoings Justific ations for Punishment in Context 1. The instance of Thomas Dudley (Eng. 1884): Stranded adrift for 24 days, 2 men plan and kill a third to eat. Accused of homicide and condemned to death a. Need resistance doesn't apply.Lawfully executing another to spare yourself is just regarding need and self-protection (savagery towards yourself) Retributive in nature 2. Individuals v Suite: Man claimed . 32 gauge gun, not authorized as required by 1980 enactment. Condemned to 30 days in prison b. Standard point of the weapon authorizing law is general discouragement. Decrease of prison time would announce that first time offenses would not bring about prison for first time guilty parties and would pronounce 30 days to be excessively brutal/maltreatment of attentiveness. Maintained to encourage guideline of general prevention governing body planned Standards of ProofProsecution: past a sensible uncertainty (state has high weight b/c honest until demonstrated liable) 1. Curley v US: Judge must in quire as to whether indictment has presented adequate proof with the end goal that a levelheaded jury could conclude that the arraignment has demonstrated its case past a sensible uncertainty. On the off chance that proof sensibly allows a decision of vindication or blame, choice is for the jury to make. Safeguard: by the prevalence of the proof. (self-protection, madness, need) Rule of Lenity When legal plan is hazy, the uncertainty must be settled for the Defendant.US v. Dauray Actus Reus Definition: Voluntary Act, social mischief An intentional demonstration that outcomes in social damage, or an oversight where there is an obligation to act. 1. Considerations don't comprise criminal acts 2. Activities constrained by the state don't establish criminal acts 3. Criminal â€Å"acts† must be intentional 4. No risk for oversight except if there is an obligation to act 5. â€Å"Status Crimes† are illegal Cases Act, not thought 1) Proposition against thought violations Stat e v Dalton: â€Å"act† was the composition of a youngster attack journal. Acquitted.From a discouragement point of view he ought not be liable; from restoration viewpoint possibly. Since system is commonly outfitted to discouragement it was the correct result 2) Hate wrongdoings/discourse Wisconsin v Mitchell: gathering of dark men whips youthful white kid a. Rule: Statutes punishing narrow-minded inspirations (musings) are defended b. Justification: these demonstrations are bound to incite retaliatory violations, so society has a more noteworthy enthusiasm for rebuffing them. Prevention and reprisal legitimize harsher punishments Voluntary, not automatic MPC 2. 01: Requirements of Voluntary Act 1) An individual isn't liable of an offense except if his risk depends on lead which incorporates a deliberate demonstration. (2) NOT intentional Acts: reflex/seizure; substantial development during obviousness or rest; direct during spellbinding; real development that in any case isn 't a result of the exertion or assurance of the on-screen character, regardless of whether cognizant or routine 3) Acting under State Compulsion-Martin v State: tanked on open parkway b/c police brought him there c. Rule: no intentional demonstration where state constrained the activity. d. Method of reasoning: keep the legislature from rebuffing the honest 4) Involuntary Acts-State v.Decina: epileptic who knew about his condition drives and executes kids e. Rule: an automatic demonstration can be deliberate when the individual knew about its probability and neglected to defensively act f. Method of reasoning: it doesn’t matter if an individual is oblivious when the mischief happens as long as the demonstration occurred simply because, during cognizance, there was awful speculation here, foolishness or carelessness in inability to forestall the damage. He intentionally put himself in a circumstance that made a further hazard. 5) Powell v Texas: Powell accused of open inebriat ion g.Rule: Voluntary since he could have forestalled his appearance in open h. Reason: condemning automatic conduct is savage and surprising (8); this wasn’t automatic MPC 2. 01: Voluntary, automatic, oversight, ownership * Involuntary: Convulsion, moving while oblivious or sleeping, lead during mesmerizing, or a development not a result of the exertion or assurance of the on-screen character; Voluntary characterized by the negative * Omission: obligation for an exclusion can't emerge except if the exclusion is made adequate explicitly in the language characterizing the offense, or an obligation to perform is forced by law. Ownership: D probably known about belonging for adequate period to have been capable 2 end it Status Crimes-Criminalizing a status disregards eighth Amendment: Cruel and Unusual 1) Robinson v California: man with track marks accused of opiates expansion a. Rule/Rationale: The demonstration of utilizing opiates can be condemned; habit can’t. Crimina l punishments may not be delivered upon an individual for INVOLUNTARY acts. 2) Powell v. Texas: a constant alcoholic was accused of being smashed in open b. Rule: open intoxication isn't a status wrongdoing since it is PUBLIC. c.Rationale: sentenced for being D. I. P. not constant heavy drinker. Volitional demonstration of deciding to drink without keeping oneself from being out in the open is adequately proximate to the untouched demonstration of going out while alcoholic to give the express an ACT to rebuff. 3) Jones v City of Los Angeles: rebuffed conduct on walkways every minute of every day which vagrants can’t stay away from. d. Rule: it is unlawful to rebuff acts emerging out of an automatic status on the grounds that these demonstrations are likewise fundamentally automatic. Oversights 1) Omission can be an actus reus where there is a legitimate obligation to act, and D was genuinely equipped for acting. mens rea, causation, simultaneousness despite everything require d) a. Agreements for care b. Uncommon connections c. Legal obligation d. D made the danger of mischief e. D deliberately expected consideration (particularly on the off chance that others are kept from giving consideration) 2) People v Beardsley: man and lady become inebriated over end of the week, she secretly takes morphine and passes on after D offered her to another person to let her work it off f. Rule: no legitimate obligation existed in light of the fact that none of the 5 above were available. g. Method of reasoning: a legitimate obligation isn't equivalent to an ethical commitment; associates aren’t close enough socially to make a lawful obligation without one of the abovementioned. ) Commonwealth v Howard: mother neglected to forestall her daughter’s torment and murder by an outsider h. Rule: guardians have a lawful obligation to ensure their youngsters unique relationship I. Reason: guardians can be legitimately compelled to act; moreover, the oversight was the immediate reason for the demise (clinical declaration). 4) Commonwealth v Pestinikas: couple contracted to think about elderly person for $300/mo j. Rule: inability to think about another is just a penetrate of a legitimate obligation when the guardian has embraced the obligation of care through agreement or willfully k.Rationale: the oversight in circumstance of obligation caused hurt D could have forestalled. Mens Rea Definition The specific mental state accommodated in the meaning of an offense. Method of reasoning for Requiring Mens Rea Deterrence or Utilitarian Justification: you can't deflect somebody who doesn't have a blameworthy brain. Retributive Justification: â€Å"Just Deserts. † You ought not rebuff somebody who is ethically guiltless. MPC v Common Law Equivalents of Mens Rea MPC 2. 02(2)| Common Law| Purposefully: cognizant article to commit| Intent-characteristic and likely auses| Knowingly: mindfulness; generous certainty| Knowledge-mindful of the reality , or effectively trusts it exists, including stiff-necked blindness| Recklessly: cognizant dismissal of predictable hazard abstract norm. Mindfulness. | Concepts of â€Å"recklessness† and â€Å"negligence† are regularly embodied| Negligently: ought to have known about hazard and dismissal it-sensible individual would have been awareNo differentiation b/n general, explicit intent| Distinction b/w general, explicit intent| CL: Uses the idea of mens rea in numerous terms: Willfully, mischievously, vindictively, purposely, deliberately, negligently.No consistency across states as to definitions MPC: 4 mental states that are exactly characterized. On the off chance that no psychological state is referenced in a resolution, read in foolishly. Demonstrating â€Å"Intent†, customary law-characteristic and plausible outcomes principle 1. Regina v Cunningham: Son in law took gas meter to sell; relative was presented to coal gas. a. Vindictiveness implies (I) a real goal to do the specific sort of mischief that was in certainty done or (ii) carelessness with regards to whether such damage ought to happen or not (anticipated hazard; proceeded in any case) 2.State v Fugate: D shoots and murders storekeeper in the wake of constraining him into cellar. b. Purpose can be surmised from orderly conditions and composite picture created by proof, including instrument used to deliver demise and the way of causing a deadly twisted. c. Expectation to murder might be assumed where the regular and plausible outcome of an illegitimate demonstration is to create demise. 3. Predictability Issues: If hurt is so predictable as to nearly be sure to happen, aim can be found. Demonstrating â€Å"Knowledge†, customary law-determined visual deficiency 1.US v Jewell: an individual demonstrations purposely for precedent-based law if th

The Jmu Mailroom Case

THE JMU MAILROOM CASE If you anticipate that your mail should accompany a similar â€Å"speedy delivery† made well known via postal carrier Mr. McFeeley of Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, you might be disillusioned throughout the following scarcely any weeks. While mail conveyance isn't definitely more slow than typical, representatives in the JMU postal help distribution center can offer a few reasons why they are experiencing difficulty conveying mail as quickly not surprisingly. Most of the five-part team who work in the distribution center, presently situated on South Main Street opposite Duke’s Plaza state they are disturbed in light of the fact that postal assistance the board didn't consider their sentiments before tossing changes at them. We were counseled, yet they didn’t take anything we said into account,† said Eric McKee, a postal help worker who works in the stockroom. Changes have included moving the distribution center to a structure a sh ort ways from grounds which comprises of a storm cellar without running water or washroom offices. Workers must stroll outside to the front of the structure so as to utilize restrooms. McKee, alongside another conveyance representative who wished to stay mysterious inspired by a paranoid fear of losing his employment, whined of the â€Å"great physical stress† engaged with conveying the enormous tubs of mail as opposed to conveying mailbags that can be tossed over the shoulder. As per another worker who wished to stay anonymous, notwithstanding the physical pressure, the tub-conveyance framework eases back up mail conveyance significantly. The representative said by throwing mailbags over the shoulder it was simpler to convey enormous heaps of mail, something almost outlandish with the tubs. As per Terry Woodward, chief of postal administrations, the change from mailbags to containers came the day after the distribution center change area. The progressions were achieved to oblige the developing volume of mail that has come because of the expanding quantities of offices and understudies in the college, Woddward said. Conveying the mail with the tub framework rather than a pack framework decreases steps, Woodward stated, subsequently speeding the conveyance time. While Woodward recognized that the changing framework is the reason for mail lull, he said he anticipates that conveyance should accelerate as representatives become acclimated to the new framework. The distribution center used to be situated in a trailer behind Anthony-Seeger Hall. The new area is a five-to brief drive to grounds, which workers state hinders their conveyance time significantly. One conveyance laborer said the move has realized â€Å"new obstacles,†, for example, trusting that a train will cross before him. The office had to get off grounds Aug. 3 when the Facilities Management Department assumed control over the trailer postal administrations used to possess close to Anthony-Seeger Hall, Woodward said. Woodward said he anticipated that underlying opposition should the progressions by postal representatives, yet trusted the laborers would keep a receptive outlook while giving the new framework time to streamline. â€Å"There’s surely been some resistance,† Woodward said about postal employees’ responses to the changes. One such instance of obstruction may have achieved the terminating of Troy Munford, a late spring postal help worker who said the new framework is â€Å"unmanageable. † Munford claims he was terminated for â€Å"insubordination† by Sonja Mace, activities supervisor for the postal assistance, when he revealed to her the framework wasn’t working and attempted to organize a gathering between the heads of postal administrations and the representatives. Munford said that after he advised Mace â€Å"you vowed to put forth a strong effort and clearly your best wasn’t great enough,† Mace â€Å"stomped her foot . . . nd stated, ‘you’re terminated. ’† Due to Munford’s terminating around fourteen days prior, a few workers were reluctant to stand up or have their names imprinted in the paper for dread they may likewise lose their positions. By rolling out the improvements, Mace â€Å"has multiplied, if not significantly increa sed, the workload† of the representatives, he said. ‘I’m simply worried for the individuals who are still here,† Munford said. He said he is apprehensive some of them â€Å"will hurt themselves in the end, because of the physical trouble of the activity. † Mace would not remark on any staff issues with respect to the change.

When Subordinates Procrastinate Are You to Blame - Focus

When Subordinates Procrastinate â€" Are You to Blame - Focus Have you run the numbers on the cost of replacing an employee? The price of recruitment, employment, and training of new personnel is now estimated to be between 40% and 150% of the former employee’s salary. It’s an expensive proposition to replace an employee who leaves, retires, or is terminated for poor performance. While you cannot control retirements, you may want to look carefully at reasons for turnover, especially in the case of performance terminations. Poor performance usually means that the employee fails to complete task assignments correctly and/or on time. Often, this is a case of procrastination, but there are many reasons for this behavior. Managers need to be certain that they have not been at least somewhat responsible for it. Questions to Ask Yourself First 1. Do you give orders with no room for sharing ideas or for any “back and forth”? While this may be seen as the most efficient way to get things done, it can also kill an employee’s motivation and cause procrastination. If employees are provided the means to share ideas and to discuss how tasks may best be accomplished, they will be more invested and have more enthusiasm for their work. 2. Do you fail to communicate information and news about the company to your employees? There is always a strong rumor mill among employees. If that rumor mill spreads “bad news” â€" company profits down; possible layoffs; a buyout or a merger â€" employees will slow down and tasks will not be accomplished on time. Being open and honest with subordinates gives them “ownership” in the company’s successes and its troubles, and they will want to keep productivity high. 3. Are you holding subordinates accountable for their task responsibilities? When tasks are assigned to team members, each team member needs to verbally commit to completing them and to completing them on time. Team members should also be made aware that there are consequences and rewards. An environment of accountability must be established and maintained. 4. How do you reward team members for a job well done? Even if its just public recognition, people need to feel appreciated and valued. Many companies build in incentives if productivity exceeds deadlines. And they make the effort to track employee productivity and happiness through the use of digital tools designed just for that. Niko-Niko and Culture Amp are just two of these feedback apps that have hit the market. 5. Do you tell yourself that every person on your team is replaceable? Even in a difficult job market with a surplus of job seekers, remember how expensive it is to replace an employee. And every “hole” that is created in the team means that others have to pick up the slack until a replacement is hired and trained. Bad for morale and bad for productivity. If you’re certain that the above conditions are not an issue, it’s time to dig a bit deeper. Here are two more questions to ask yourself that may reveal causes of procrastination and malaise among your team members. 6. How are you developing, assigning, and monitoring tasks? You have team members with different strengths, challenges, levels of maturity, and talents. Good managers know their team members well. And as tasks are developed and assigned, each team member’s individualities must be considered. To assign without careful consideration is to set a project and team members up for failure. Procrastination is often the result of misassignment of task responsibilities. Some may believe that their tasks are without real merit and can be put off until the 11th hour, setting everyone back. Others may feel that their responsibilities are too cumbersome and too challenging. Even getting started on these tasks can be a scary notion. 7. How are you presenting long-term complex projects to your team? To provide comprehensive and long-term task assignments for the entire project at once can  be overwhelming. As a result, only the most confident, mature, and highly motivated members of your team will be able to deal with them. Many of your otherwise  talented and capable team members may not be able to  take a large complex task and break it down into smaller chunks, set their own timelines and benchmarks for completionâ€"especially not without  support  or  encouragement. Being overwhelmed in this way can turn many employees into procrastinators. So What Can You Do? If your team is facing a large long-term project there are a number of simple but powerful steps you can take to keep spirits and productivity in your team high: 1. Break It Down Avoid creating a single gigantic  project board with innumerable tasks. Instead, consider sharing  a mind map with the team where you provide an overview of the entire project  including its goals and milestones. If youre using Kanban software such as MeisterTask, you can then  create multiple smaller project boards, corresponding with  individual stages or areas of the project. See also: How to connect your mind maps with your project boards 2. Work in Sprints Set monthly, bi-weekly or even weekly deadlines  to accurately track progress and detect delays in the project schedule right away.  A process that has proved very effective  in this context is Scrum, where work is split into small, concrete deliverables which are completed within short fixed-length iterations. 3. Walk Around Provide an  environment in which team members feel comfortable requesting assistance and support as needed. LBWA (leadership by walking around) is one way to establish a “helping” relationship with subordinates. Having informal individual conversations, making offers to help, encouraging and praising, and refraining from criticism or pressure during this activity, adds to the comfort level. When subordinates feel comfortable, they are much more willing to present issues and problems they are having. 4. Meet One-on-One Schedule regular  meetings not just with the whole team but with individual team members. Individual meetings with your procrastinators are not for brow-beating and criticism. They are to provide the support and incentives for the employee to keep moving. And if you meet individually with every team member, the procrastinator(s) will not feel “singled out” for their shortcomings. Can You Save Them All? Even following  all of the steps above will not guarantee you 100% engagement and productivity from all team members. Dont make the mistake of pigeonholing those procrastinators! There are four common types of procrastinators*, and only one of them  really deserves a boot. The Perfectionist: These are usually talented and capable people and you don’t want to lose them. The key to up a perfectionists productivity is often just  a little more oversight:  Simply keep a closer eye on their work. Once you  determine that it  meets your expectations, direct them on to the next task, even if they are not 100% happy with the result themselves. The 11th Hour Sprinter: It’s nerve-wracking to know that you have a team member who constantly pulls  all-nighters at the last minute to meet their deadlines; however, if the deadlines are consistently met, you may simply need to find a way to deal with your jitters (and ensure that there is always an ample supply of coffee on hand). The Overwhelmed and Perhaps Scared: This is the team member who will need the most encouragement and support from you. By breaking long-term assignments into smaller chunks, you are serving this procrastinator well. And when tasks are completed well and on time, this individual needs that public praise. This is the procrastinator who will evolve as s/he gains confidence. The Lazy One: Some  employees are simply  lazy and will not be truly motivated by incentives, consequences or rewards. Unfortunately, there is  very little you can do to alter this behavior, and whats worse is that such employees can cause conflict and anger among other team members,  thus negatively impacting on the productivity of the whole team. This is the procrastinator you will most likely need to terminate and replace. *Inspired by Steve Marrs list in Managing the Procrastinator This is a guest post by John Unger. John is a UK native writer, idea guy and difference maker. He’s interested in business, innovations, and success, so he mostly covers these topics in his articles. You can get in touch with him via Twitter or Google+. Boost your teams productivity. Try MeisterTask Its free! Try MeisterTask When Subordinates Procrastinate â€" Are You to Blame - Focus Have you run the numbers on the cost of replacing an employee? The price of recruitment, employment, and training of new personnel is now estimated to be between 40% and 150% of the former employee’s salary. It’s an expensive proposition to replace an employee who leaves, retires, or is terminated for poor performance. While you cannot control retirements, you may want to look carefully at reasons for turnover, especially in the case of performance terminations. Poor performance usually means that the employee fails to complete task assignments correctly and/or on time. Often, this is a case of procrastination, but there are many reasons for this behavior. Managers need to be certain that they have not been at least somewhat responsible for it. Questions to Ask Yourself First 1. Do you give orders with no room for sharing ideas or for any “back and forth”? While this may be seen as the most efficient way to get things done, it can also kill an employee’s motivation and cause procrastination. If employees are provided the means to share ideas and to discuss how tasks may best be accomplished, they will be more invested and have more enthusiasm for their work. 2. Do you fail to communicate information and news about the company to your employees? There is always a strong rumor mill among employees. If that rumor mill spreads “bad news” â€" company profits down; possible layoffs; a buyout or a merger â€" employees will slow down and tasks will not be accomplished on time. Being open and honest with subordinates gives them “ownership” in the company’s successes and its troubles, and they will want to keep productivity high. 3. Are you holding subordinates accountable for their task responsibilities? When tasks are assigned to team members, each team member needs to verbally commit to completing them and to completing them on time. Team members should also be made aware that there are consequences and rewards. An environment of accountability must be established and maintained. 4. How do you reward team members for a job well done? Even if its just public recognition, people need to feel appreciated and valued. Many companies build in incentives if productivity exceeds deadlines. And they make the effort to track employee productivity and happiness through the use of digital tools designed just for that. Niko-Niko and Culture Amp are just two of these feedback apps that have hit the market. 5. Do you tell yourself that every person on your team is replaceable? Even in a difficult job market with a surplus of job seekers, remember how expensive it is to replace an employee. And every “hole” that is created in the team means that others have to pick up the slack until a replacement is hired and trained. Bad for morale and bad for productivity. If you’re certain that the above conditions are not an issue, it’s time to dig a bit deeper. Here are two more questions to ask yourself that may reveal causes of procrastination and malaise among your team members. 6. How are you developing, assigning, and monitoring tasks? You have team members with different strengths, challenges, levels of maturity, and talents. Good managers know their team members well. And as tasks are developed and assigned, each team member’s individualities must be considered. To assign without careful consideration is to set a project and team members up for failure. Procrastination is often the result of misassignment of task responsibilities. Some may believe that their tasks are without real merit and can be put off until the 11th hour, setting everyone back. Others may feel that their responsibilities are too cumbersome and too challenging. Even getting started on these tasks can be a scary notion. 7. How are you presenting long-term complex projects to your team? To provide comprehensive and long-term task assignments for the entire project at once can  be overwhelming. As a result, only the most confident, mature, and highly motivated members of your team will be able to deal with them. Many of your otherwise  talented and capable team members may not be able to  take a large complex task and break it down into smaller chunks, set their own timelines and benchmarks for completionâ€"especially not without  support  or  encouragement. Being overwhelmed in this way can turn many employees into procrastinators. So What Can You Do? If your team is facing a large long-term project there are a number of simple but powerful steps you can take to keep spirits and productivity in your team high: 1. Break It Down Avoid creating a single gigantic  project board with innumerable tasks. Instead, consider sharing  a mind map with the team where you provide an overview of the entire project  including its goals and milestones. If youre using Kanban software such as MeisterTask, you can then  create multiple smaller project boards, corresponding with  individual stages or areas of the project. See also: How to connect your mind maps with your project boards 2. Work in Sprints Set monthly, bi-weekly or even weekly deadlines  to accurately track progress and detect delays in the project schedule right away.  A process that has proved very effective  in this context is Scrum, where work is split into small, concrete deliverables which are completed within short fixed-length iterations. 3. Walk Around Provide an  environment in which team members feel comfortable requesting assistance and support as needed. LBWA (leadership by walking around) is one way to establish a “helping” relationship with subordinates. Having informal individual conversations, making offers to help, encouraging and praising, and refraining from criticism or pressure during this activity, adds to the comfort level. When subordinates feel comfortable, they are much more willing to present issues and problems they are having. 4. Meet One-on-One Schedule regular  meetings not just with the whole team but with individual team members. Individual meetings with your procrastinators are not for brow-beating and criticism. They are to provide the support and incentives for the employee to keep moving. And if you meet individually with every team member, the procrastinator(s) will not feel “singled out” for their shortcomings. Can You Save Them All? Even following  all of the steps above will not guarantee you 100% engagement and productivity from all team members. Dont make the mistake of pigeonholing those procrastinators! There are four common types of procrastinators*, and only one of them  really deserves a boot. The Perfectionist: These are usually talented and capable people and you don’t want to lose them. The key to up a perfectionists productivity is often just  a little more oversight:  Simply keep a closer eye on their work. Once you  determine that it  meets your expectations, direct them on to the next task, even if they are not 100% happy with the result themselves. The 11th Hour Sprinter: It’s nerve-wracking to know that you have a team member who constantly pulls  all-nighters at the last minute to meet their deadlines; however, if the deadlines are consistently met, you may simply need to find a way to deal with your jitters (and ensure that there is always an ample supply of coffee on hand). The Overwhelmed and Perhaps Scared: This is the team member who will need the most encouragement and support from you. By breaking long-term assignments into smaller chunks, you are serving this procrastinator well. And when tasks are completed well and on time, this individual needs that public praise. This is the procrastinator who will evolve as s/he gains confidence. The Lazy One: Some  employees are simply  lazy and will not be truly motivated by incentives, consequences or rewards. Unfortunately, there is  very little you can do to alter this behavior, and whats worse is that such employees can cause conflict and anger among other team members,  thus negatively impacting on the productivity of the whole team. This is the procrastinator you will most likely need to terminate and replace. *Inspired by Steve Marrs list in Managing the Procrastinator This is a guest post by John Unger. John is a UK native writer, idea guy and difference maker. He’s interested in business, innovations, and success, so he mostly covers these topics in his articles. You can get in touch with him via Twitter or Google+. Boost your teams productivity. Try MeisterTask Its free! Try MeisterTask