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 haikuEsq. Thankfully,
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 Scopes, which 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).
Compare FDR’s attempt at court-packing with John Paul II’s appointment of 96% of voting
members of the College of Cardinals, which will choose his successor.
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?
During Cross Examination, can you ask “Have you stopped burning your witches, Sir?”?
Do the Chosen People have a valid claim for breach of covenant?
If the water used was not local, were your state’s wine regulations violated at the Cana Wedding?
Is the Fifth Commandment void for vagueness?
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