Post # 60 - Nemo dat quod non habet

So I woke up the other morning at 5:00 AM to the sound of my alarm clock. I turned it off fully intending to sleep 20 more minutes. I bet you think you know where this is going. Trust me, you don’t. I lost a hide and seek battle with Nehemiah the Cricket the previous morning, and upon sounding off the alarm I could hear him calling to me from the living room. He was up to his old tricks again. In my fatigued stupor I stared at my couch in the living room and decided to make coffee and read for the next 3 hours before I left for school. Nehemiah, I will peacefully catch you and gently release you back into the depths of the front yard from whence you came! This is not a threat, it is a promise.

I’m in Law School now and it has rocked my world. Who knew that reading text after text could be so unappealing to the outside world? There have been many cases I have briefed that have been thought provoking about the human condition, of which I would like to write about later on in life. However I would like to share with everyone the beginning of a case that I found especially entertaining from my Torts class (Farnsworth and Grady. Torts, Cases and Questions. Aspen Publishers, New York. 2009.). Within the text I will add in my real-time thoughts when I read this through for the first time. All credit goes to the authors of this book and the genius’ within the case. It can be found on pages 85-86:

Katko v. Briney

The defendants, Edward and Bertha Briney, owned an 80-acre farm in Iowa with a house on it. [wow, I bet that is very peaceful out there] They did not live there; they used the house mostly for storage. [um, ok, how much land do these guys have?] After suffering a series of trespasses and break-ins at the house, the Brineys boarded up its windows and doors and posted “no trespass” signs nearby. [that is really annoying that they have to go through that kind of effort to protect 80 acres of near emptiness] After still another break-in Edward Briney set a trap in one of the bedrooms. [wow that seems a bit extreme to set a TRAP inside the house. What, are people just animals to be caught in a trap?] He tied a 20-gauge shotgun to an iron bed with the barrel pointed at the bedroom door, then ran a wire from the doorknob to the gun’s trigger so that it would fire when the door was opened. [ hahahahaha what the foxtrot?! We have a winner!] Briney first pointed the gun so an intruder would be hit in the stomach, but at his wife’s suggestion it was lowered to hit the legs. [Well, at least the wife adds some reason to this guy. This sounds like the typical guy-girl relationship: Guy comes up with some ridiculous and crazy idea, immediately acts upon it, and just before he gets himself into a really bad pickle the girl jumps in and, still allowing him to have his fun, makes some necessary precautionary measures to save the guy from disaster] Skipping along down a little further in the reading so you get the idea of what happened…”The plaintiff…entered the bedroom and set off the gun; it removed much of his right leg.” […….*stunned silence*…….. why do I feel like this book is so cold and anti-climactic. To say that “removed much of his right leg” does this story justice is a crime in and of itself, especially when the next line is “The plaintiff remained in the hospital for 40 days.” This guy took a shotgun to the legs in a supposedly abandoned house after setting off a trip wire you only see in movies!

How about Islam? Ok, so let me just semi-briefly comment on the incredible debacle taking place in our nation’s biggest city, New York. Few may remember what happened there a few years back. They elected a Republican mayor.

And moving on.

Seriously though there is a supposed radical Imam that is attempting to have a community center/mosque built near the site of the World Trade Center. Is it important to note that this Imam refuses to condemn HAMAS? Sure. Is it relevant for this issue? No. Let me point everyone to something that is relevant:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

Yes, that is the Constitution. It is the first amendment to be exact. Muslims have every right to erect this building. It doesn’t even matter if it is ONLY a mosque. I don’t care that a community center makes up a large portion of the proposed building. I think it’s great that it is a part of it, but frankly it doesn’t matter. That aspect should not have to be emphasized. Do I think it’s a ridiculous thing to do? Yes, absolutely. Do I think there is insensitivity involved? Yes, absolutely. 3,000 people died. It’s tragic. However, if we attempt to deny American citizens their right to the FIRST amendment, why don’t we just deny the 13th amendment to certain Americans at our leisure? Ugh, for brevity’s sake, build the mosque. Build three mosques if you have the money. It may or may not be a good decision but I’ll fight for their right to do it. They have just as much right to build there as the NRA did to hold their conference in Denver a few weeks after the Columbine tragedy (which they did do).

I am so happy I was able to use the word "erect" in that last paragraph!

Anyway, I must get back to my irregular sleep schedule before my body gets rested or comfortable.

Person of the Week: Combination award goes to Jeremiah and Charity (le wedding…many moons ago) and Ellie and Marijn (le wedding…many moons from now) and Josiah (le pizza plate to the face requiring 9 stitches). Some accuse me of nepotism, but really this blog is just a dictatorship……………where nepotism is rampant.