Thursday, March 24, 2005

Morals- Holmes would be pissed

Here are some thoughts on the law and morality- semi serious topic. lighter stuff to follow later.

Holmes says “nothing but confusion of thought can result from assuming that the rights of man in a moral sense are equally rights in the sense of the Constitution and the law." (P. 141 supplement).

Holmes also says “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law."

The law is not about grafting morals and values on to society until the end of time. It is not about fighting injustice. It is about what the courts will do when faced with a binary decision between Plaintiff (Prosecution) or Defendant. Our function as lawyers is to try and predict the prophecy and influence it in one direction or another, depending on who is footing our bill.

This brings me to Aiken's law review article.

The study of justice and injustice is not a legal study it is an exercise in philosophy, something that Plato sat around thinking and pondering about. Justice is an artificial human construct to do with right and wrong. The law is something that allows us to live in communities peaceably and it has to do with permissible (legal) and impermissible (illegal). As Holmes infers above, something illegal is not always morally wrong and something legal is not morally right.

Justice is easily changed, differs from person to person, but the law applies to us all. Each person may have a sense of justice (some people may not), but all are equally bound to the law. I am not saying that the law and justice do not over lap or coincide, but they function independently of each other. Today it is illegal to kill another person, tomorrow who knows? But on both days it remains an injustice, at least to me. The law has nothing to do with morals, I, for one, refuse to put the "law" on such a pedestal to give it divine power. It is a human construct subject to mistakes, change, and revision.

As for social justice, people are free to attempt to graft their views onto society and I support that. These Social Change Provocateurs should not however, delude themselves into thinking that they are codifying a universal truth. They are grafting onto others their view of social justice, if that view passes the muster test of congress or the judicial system it becomes law. But as soon as it is law, it loses it moral flavor, it becomes as benign as tax statutes, some arbitrary thing (rule) all will follow because it is law (the courts will hurt them if they do not), not because it is the right thing to do. However, to those who want to do so, I think it would be more productive to attempt change with the other branches of government, not the judiciary.

Yits. Out.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

An idea worth passing on

Finally! I am sure you all recognize this language "USER AGREEMENT

PLEASE READ THIS USER AGREEMENT AND THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS SITE. Your use of this site is expressly conditioned on your acceptance of the following terms and conditions. By using this site, you signify your assent to these terms and conditions. If you do not agree with any part of the following terms and conditions, you must not use this site."

Admit it you read it and ignore it along with everything else that comes after it. After all it is all legal gobbly-goop, a bunch words strung together to make some lawyer somewhere happy. In fact even if you have no life and decide to read it you probably aren't going to understand that indeed you are about sign over your first born child, all the sperm from your left testicle (if female all eggs in your right ovary), and your cowboy boots. Most importantly somewhere in there it is going to say that the webstie people are not responsible for anything- I think this is best descibed as the "hooker's warranty"- you put your member in here at your own risk, the garage owner is not responsible or liable for damage resulting from use.

well these folks are out to change the internet (not the hooker's)- go suppor them http://www.fairterms.org/

yits.
I hearby disclaim any damage done to your intellect from continued reading of any shit that I write.

Serious legal schoalrship.

The following is serious legal scholarship for those that are interested. As for our recent lack of posts on the state of the universe, please send all blame to lenford, I hold him personally responsible.
god save the queen-bee, 'cause without her there is no honey.
yits.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

I wish my grandparents were this cool

78-year-old woman faces charges over marijuana stashed in freezer
01/03/2005 12:06:00 AM


DANVILLE, W.Va. (AP) - A 78-year-old woman faces drug charges and authorities are searching for her 72-year-old boyfriend after police found about a half-kilogram of marijuana stashed in a freezer on her property
State police arrested Mollie Williams last week after responding to a dispute between her granddaughter and the granddaughter's husband, who were arguing over drugs. Police learned the man allegedly had bought marijuana from Williams, state police Cpl. Larry O'Bryan said Monday.

Armed with a search warrant and a drug-sniffing dog, troopers went to Williams' residence near Danville. The dog led troopers to a freezer in an outbuilding where the marijuana, worth an estimated $4,000 US, was hidden under frozen meat and other food, O'Bryan said.

Williams was jailed and later released on $15,000 bond. Her live-in boyfriend, Jack White, who was recovering from heart bypass surgery, was given the opportunity to turn himself in but failed to do so, authorities said. He remained at large Monday.

"They appear to be the typical grandma and grandpa individuals. However, they sell marijuana," O'Bryan said.

The granddaughter was charged with possession of marijuana and released on bond.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Treatment of Sperm

This post will detail some of the differences between the way American and Canadian jurisprudence deals with male ejaculate, affectionately known as semen or spunk.

The difference is that Americans treat spunk as a something that is given as a gift and Canadians see it as a weapon capable of inflicting emotional and physical harm. The following cases illustrate this difference.

In Chicago, a man sued his former lover who "secretly kept his sperm after oral sex and used it to get pregnant". The court ruled that he had delivered his sperm and as such it was a "gift" that she could use as she saw fit. Notice that no intercourse was had.

In Canada, the relevant case is R v. A.B. In that case the accused AB and the complainant HR were "romantically related". On a particular evening they were in HR residence and in her bed. And at some point AB ejaculated onto HR face. AB was subsequently charged with assault.

Now stepping back and taking stock, in one case make ejaculate was a gift and in other a weapon used to inflict physical and emotional harm. Also note that in both cases the ejaculate occured on the facial area.

I think this difference in jurisprudential views is a direct result of the weather difference; in those cold Canadian winters the lower temperature leads to increased viscosity of the spunk. The relatively heavier mass makes it more dangerous and as such its' classification as a weapon.

yits.
relevant links and info:
1.
2003 ABPC 180
2. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/24/sperm/index.html