-
Yeah, you’ve probably never heard of it.
LOLLLL
LTMC: .1% of the world gets this joke. I am ashamed to say that I am not only part of that .1%, but was wracked verily with hearty guffaws.
We. Are. The point one percent!
Apparently as a matter of English feudal tradition, following the ”livery of seisin” ceremony the children of the grantor / grantee were beaten to ensure that they would remember the occasion.
ENGLAND! FUCK YEAH!
28 April, 2012
Sourced from lawschoolmemes
Originally from lawschoolmemes
Reblogged from letterstomycountry
Tagged as England Property law law school
Notes (48) -
-
Montana high court upholds ban on election spending by corporations
HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court restored the state’s century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights to corporations.
The decision grants a big win to Attorney General Steve Bullock, who personally represented the state in defending its ban that came under fire after the “Citizens United” decision last year from the U.S. Supreme court.
“The Citizens United decision dealt with federal laws and elections — like those contests for president and Congress,” said Bullock, who is now running for governor. “But the vast majority of elections are held at the state or local level, and this is the first case I am aware of that examines state laws and elections.”
The corporation that brought the case and is also fighting accusations that it illegally gathers anonymous donations to fuel political attacks, said the state Supreme Court got it wrong. The group argues that the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, passed as a citizen’s ballot initiative, unconstitutionally blocks political speech by corporations.
…
The Montana Supreme Court said Montana has a “compelling interest” to uphold its rationally tailored campaign-finance laws that include a combination of restrictions and disclosure requirements.
A group seeking to undo the Citizens United decision lauded the Montana high court, with its co-founder saying it was a “huge victory for democracy.”
“With this ruling, the Montana Supreme Court now sets up the first test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy,” John Bonifaz, of Free Speech For People, said in a statement.
-
I have a lifetime appointment and I intend to serve it. I expect to die at 110, shot by a jealous husband.
9 December, 2011
Tagged as Law Supreme Court Thurgood Marshall quotes I AM DYING RIGHT NOW
Notes (30) -
No more corporate personhood in LA
”Thanks to ground work by the U.S. Green Party, the wave of Occupy Wall Street empowerment and Human Rights Alert, today, Los Angeles became the first major U.S. city to vote against corporate personhood and call for a Constitutional Amendment asserting corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights and that money is not free speech. The vote was unanimous.
The unanimous vote was witnessed in Council chambers packed by a standing room only crowd of hundreds of people as well as a overflow room filled to capacity by enthusiastic supporters.
…
The action is in response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that supposedly gave corporations same 1st Amendment protections as people and allows them to spend unlimited funds on campaign finance.
Mary Beth Fielder, Move To Amend - LA founder, who spearheaded bringing the resolution to the LA City Council said, “It’s a great day for Los Angeles and it’s a great day for the United States of America.”
“I hope this is the vote heard around the world and that it will inspire other who want to reclaim our democracy to begin organizing in their communities. Together we can build the grassroots support we need to actually amend our constitution.”7 December, 2011
Tagged as corporatism corporate interest los angeles law video government
Notes (80) -
Breaking: Five US banks being sued by Attorney General
December 1st, 2011 - A lawsuit has been brought against five major American banks today. Attorney General Martha Coakley of Massachusetts filed the legal action today in Suffolk Superior Court. The defendants include Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, GMAC, and Wells Fargo.
“Our suit alleges that the banks have charted a destructive path by cutting corners and rushing to foreclose on homeowners without following the rule of law,’’Coakley said. “Our action today seeks real accountability for the banks’ illegal behavior and real relief for homeowners.”
Continue reading on Examiner.com Breaking: Five US banks being sued by Attorney General - Chicago Feminism
I find it hard to believe that this will go anywhere, but HOLY SHIT I HOPE IT DOES.
Martha Coakley… CONFIRMED FOR BRAWL!
Did I mention that she’s a BU School of Law graduate?
Did I mention that Martha Coakley and Elizabeth Warren are basically HB(s)IC of Massachusetts?
Did I mention that sometimes States are the (virtuous) laboratories of democracy?
2 December, 2011
Sourced from fuckyeahfeminists
Originally from fuckyeahfeminists
Reblogged from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
Tagged as banking Martha Coakley Massachusetts law justice
Notes (282) -
Police power exercised without probable cause is arbitrary. To say that the police may accost citizens at their whim and may detain them upon reasonable suspicion is to say, in reality, that the police may both accost and detain citizens at their whim.
—
Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment, 58 Minn.L.Rev. 349, 395 (1974). This comment was quoted by Justice Douglas in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), which inadvertently extended the “reasonable suspicion” standard of Terry v. Ohio to border patrol stops for immigration enforcement purposes.
Terry allows police to “stop and frisk” a citizen upon “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is armed or about to engage in a violent crime. The Court in Terry justified its ruling by claiming that a “stop and frisk” is a less invasive search than that allowed during an arrest supported by probable cause. The decision was a rare miss for the Warren Court on Fourth Amendment issues, and unfortunately, a costly one.
The hole in the Terry Court’s logic is that these types of searches can establish probable cause by virtue of items discovered on the person of the “friskee;” in other words, the current legal standard for search and seizure of one’s person is basically something less than probable cause, by virtue of the Terry decision.
The Reasonable suspicion standard also strains the practical application of the Court’s decision in Florida v. Royer, in which they claimed that an individual is free to ignore a police officer who lacks probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The problem with this logic, of course, is that the average citizen, when confronted by a police officer, has no idea what the police officer may have seen (or thought they saw), and is therefore ill-suited to determine whether the police officer actually has reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Since a police officer that ‘believes’ they have reasonable suspicion will inevitably try to physically detain you anyway, the rational thing to do is obey the officer’s commands, regardless of whether they actually do have reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
This is why the reasonable suspicion standard essentially allows police officers to stop whomever they choose, for basically any reason: law enforcement officials have inherently coercive authority that compels lay citizens to cooperate. A private citizen, when confronted by a police officer, is essentially caught in a Pascal’s Wager: cooperate, and hopefully things work out. Don’t cooperate, and you risk being physically restrained, or inflaming the officers’ sense of discretion, potentially resulting in additional exposure to legal sanctions. The Court has continually and systematically refused to recognize the inherently coercive nature of the authority invested in law enforcement officials, and has thus repeatedly maintained that people are free to ignore the police, while ignoring how completely irrational it is to do so under most circumstances.
(via letterstomycountry)
28 November, 2011
Sourced from letterstomycountry
Reblogged from letterstomycountry
Tagged as violence police state law constitution
Notes (14) -
It is reasonable, in every sense of the word, to believe that a member of the highest court in the land should know how to properly disclose almost $700,000 worth of income,
—
House Rep. Louise Slaughter, discussing Clarence Thomas’s failure to report $700,000 worth of income in disclosures required under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Slaughter has been joined by a number of house members in calling for investigations into Thomas’s financial activities.
If they do investigate, I hope they call it the “Slaughter Commission.” Too perfect.
(via letterstomycountry)
30 September, 2011
Sourced from letterstomycountry
Reblogged from letterstomycountry
Tagged as clarence thomas politics supreme court law
Notes (6) -
PORTLAND, Ore. — Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, “now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”
…
“For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised,” she wrote.
-
reinventionoftheprintingpress:
The Senate joined the House Thursday night in passing a bill that would give the nation’s patent system its first overhaul in more than 50 years.
The America Invents Act, H.R. 1249 — which cleared the Senate in a 89 to 9 vote — would change the U.S. from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file patent system, a move proponents say would bring the U.S. patent system closer to systems already used by most of the rest of the world.
“We can no longer stand on a 1950s patent system and expect our innovators to flourish in a 21st century world,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), an author of the bill, argued from the Senate floor. “Let’s unleash the genius of the American people and our inventors in the United States of America.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), however, took to the floor in the moments leading up to the vote to argue that the reform would stack the patent process in favor of large, well-funded corporations.
“This isn’t a patent reform bill,” said Cantwell, with frustration evident in her voice. “This is big corporation patent legislation that tramples on the rights of small inventors. … It is siding with corporate interests against the little guy.”
Cantwell had offered one of three amendments to the bill, which were defeated earlier in the day.
Though I do NOT have even a basic understanding of patent law, this reform is , on its face, disappointing to me.
8 September, 2011
Sourced from reinventionoftheprintingpress
Reblogged from reinventionoftheprintingpress
Tagged as Capitalism Congress Instead of leaving the house I'm just going to read more Foucault and legal briefs related to intellectual property law Intellectual Property Law Patent United States Jobs Speech Obama
Notes (19)
