f/k/a . . . the archives

November 27, 2004

faith-based law exams

Filed under: — David Giacalone @ 9:19 am

 


                                                issue-spotting for faith-based law schools 



Earlier today, ethicalEsq hijacked this website in order to discuss religious law schools  

(see our previous post), raising the ire of the customarily stoic haikuEsqThankfully,

Prof. Yabut came out of retirement to compose the following exercises in issue-spotting.

Go, ahead, test your legal knowledge and your faith.

 

 

Family Law:  In the case of Joseph of Nazareth v. B.V. Mary, the husband is suing for

divorce and custody of the couple’s infant child, Jesse.  Petitioner claims that Respondent

will not fulfill her marital obligations and has been seen in the company of Three Magi, using

frankincense. Respondent counters that Joseph is not the biological father of the infant and

married her knowing of her condition and commitments; she refuses to speak the name of the

purported father.  DNA evidence is not admissible in this jurisdiction.   Should the divorce

be granted, which party should have custody, and is another Visitation appropriate?

 

  Landlord-Tenant  In the matter of Noah v. Al. God,  Plainitff seeks injunctive relief to

bar eviction, as well as compensation for lumber delivered C.O.D. to his residence.  Defendant

states that He wishes merely to relocate the Noah family for their own safety, due to various

“acts of god”.  Defendant stipulates that Noah has engaged in no proscribed conduct.  Noah

points to various covenants in existence, and pleads in the alternative for damages to cover moving

expenses, as well as pain and suffering, and 40 days lost wages.  For additional facts see

The Preservationist.   Discuss the legal and equitable issues raised, and possibilities for

alternative dispute resolution.

 

Criminal Law:  Defendant Ham Sandwich has stolen a handful of wafers from the sanctuary

of St. Peter’s Catholic Church.  Citing the Doctrine of the Real Presence, the prosecutor is

seeking an indictment for kidnapping.  Public Defender Smythe has been unable to persuade

the D.A. that the crime is, at most, petty larceny of a slice or two of bread.



  • If indicted, defendant plans to argue that the mandatory confession imposed by the local 

    police violates the privilege against self incrimination



  • Under recent precedent in this circuit, Original Sin statutes have been allowed to override 

    the Presumption of Innocence.




  • If convicted of the most serious charge, Defendant will argue that eternal damnation is

    both cruel and excessive punishment, even if included in current Sentencing Guidelines.


Assume that Sandwich has been convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to the maximum

sentence.  State whether you are representing appellant or respondent, and brief this matter

to the High Court. 

 


Constitutional Law:  Assume that you are the presiding judge at trial in either

(1) Tenn. v. John Scopeswhich is being prosecuted under the Tenn. Evolution Statutes or (2) U.S.

v. The DaVinci Code, which has been placed on The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited

Books).  Motions to dismiss have been filed by godless rationalist defense counsel.  Give ‘em hell.

 

 


Additional Credit:  Succintly answer the following questions (the Truth and nothing but the Truth).



  1. Compare FDR’s attempt at court-packing with John Paul II’s appointment of 96% of voting


  2. members of the College of Cardinals, which will choose his successor.

  3. Why didn’t Noah’s children violate consanguinity laws when they re-populated the planet?

  4. Did the High Court rule correctly when it rejected application of NY’s

    Buster’s Law (making intentional injury to animals a felony) in In re 18 Sacrificed Goats?


  5. During Cross Examination, can you ask ”Have you stopped burning your witches, Sir?”?


  6. Do the Chosen People have a valid claim for breach of covenant?


  7. If the water used was not local, were your state’s wine regulations violated at the Cana Wedding?


  8. Is the Fifth Commandment void for vagueness?


  9. Why is stare decisis inapplicable to the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 – 7). Do you think we can get Professors Althouse and Bainbridge to grade these papers?

 


today even the pigeon
says a prayer…
first winter rain


 







a hot bath
a prayer
then cherry blossoms!



 Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue     

 

           # Posted by David Giacalone on 11/24/04; 9:20:47 PM

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress