pageok
pageok
pageok
From a California Court of Appeal Opinion:

The pop culture allusion seems a little forced, even given the "planet" in the litigant's argument; still, it struck me as worth passing along:

At the outset, we note that we decline to elaborate on many of Calvin's "issues" raised in his briefs that are utterly without support. For example, Calvin goes on at some length in both his opening and reply briefs to contend all of California's statutes which have been codified in the various codes are void under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, arguing that only common law exists and therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction to determine any of the marital dissolution issues in this case. Although a court could well engage in some scholarly analysis of the plenary power of the California Legislature to enact laws and the irrelevance of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to any examination of the validity of the California codes and the trial court's jurisdiction, we decline the opportunity to do so. Propositions raised in the briefs which are patently absurd do not require in-depth analysis or discussion.

This is also particularly true for Calvin's argument, contrary to his contention the California codes are invalid, that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is the "supreme codified law of the planet" which makes his separate claim to all property in this dissolution matter superior to any purported community property claim. With apologies to the former television series Star Trek, we decline "to boldly go where no [rational analysis] has gone before." (Star Trek: Episode Introduction monologue.)

In re Marriage of Ross, 2007 WL 1632365 (Cal. App. June 7).

Dave N (mail):
The California Court of Appeal's message was, with all due respect to Almond Joy and Mounds:

"Sometimes you deal with a nut, sometimes you don't"

(And this time they did).
6.8.2007 6:43pm
Armen (mail) (www):
Captain Planet shall take care to faithfully execute the UCC...and recycling.
6.8.2007 6:48pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
They'd better be careful with any less than respectful references to Star Trek. That could be criminal blasphemy.
6.8.2007 6:51pm
Guest101:
Pop culture references in judicial opinions are almost always a bad idea, and "almost" might be too generous. Also, was the citation really necessary? Like most jokes, it's even less funny when you have to explain it. Not that it was funny in the first place.
6.8.2007 6:58pm
Hoosier:
I fear the results when the pop-culture of my generation--viz., Gen-X--begins to influence judicial opinion.

E.g., this sort of finding:

"I find it hard, it's hard to find. Oh well, whatever. Nevermind."
6.8.2007 8:18pm
Cornellian (mail):
With apologies to the former television series Star Trek, we decline "to boldly go where no [rational analysis] has gone before." (Star Trek: Episode Introduction monologue.)

I'm not sure the Court has properly blue booked that reference.

I sure wish the defendant had been someone named "Hobbes."
6.8.2007 8:27pm
Fub:
From the opinion:
... his contention the California codes are invalid, that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is the "supreme codified law of the planet"...
For background in the "legal theory" for this assertion, see this 2002 report on the "redemption" movement, or this more recent article by one such theoretician.

NB the disclaimer at the bottom of the latter page.
6.8.2007 10:55pm
Edward A. Hoffman (mail):
Those who want to read the opinion can find a pdf version here.
6.9.2007 12:08am
Dave N (mail):
Fub--I read the latter link, and I don't think I have ever read anything more delusional than your freedom-school.com link.

Thanks for sharing. And I meant that sincerely. What a bunch of whack-jobs--particularly his explanation of the conspiracy. Supposedly finding out the secret because he was lecturing the jury on the law as an expert witness.

The scary thing is that there are people who believe that kind of crap.
6.9.2007 1:41am
Opus:

we decline "to boldly go where no [rational analysis] has gone before." (Star Trek: Episode Introduction monologue.)


Is this the sort of thing that needs a specific citation, especially since you've already identified the source - "the television series Star Trek" - generally?
6.9.2007 2:16pm
Fub:
Dave N wrote at 6.9.2007 12:41am:
The scary thing is that there are people who believe that kind of crap.
This genera of belief has been around at least for decades, morphing as particular beliefs spread among various social movements or groups. For example: one such set of beliefs fluoresced significantly with the rise of the so-called "militia" groups in the 1980s. But the beliefs and variants are more widespread than just those groups.

Sometimes the beliefs and theories are propagated by professional hucksters, and sometimes by sincere but deluded amateurs. There is probably an entertaining treatise on the history of these legal theories, just waiting for the right author.
6.9.2007 4:03pm
NickM (mail) (www):
My favorite is the theory where "bar" is an acronym for British Accreditation Registry and all lawyers are secretly agents of the Queen, and therefore, by the "original Thirteenth Amendment" are barred from citizenship - and no lawyers can be judges.

Nick
6.9.2007 5:05pm
Dave N (mail):
I also like how freedom-school.com turned my scroll down bar red and blue. I am sure that has "legal" significance too. Though I have no idea what it is in their whackjob world.
6.9.2007 9:55pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
That wasn't a full-fledged UCC-wacko site. If it were, it would have explained the fringed-flag 'theory', as well. (A corollary to the 'theories' on the site is that if there are fringes on the flags in the courtroom, that 'proves' that it's an admiralty court. It's jurisdiction-by-decoration.)
6.10.2007 6:08pm
Fub:
David M. Nieporent wrote t 6.10.2007 5:08pm:
That wasn't a full-fledged UCC-wacko site. If it were, it would have explained the fringed-flag 'theory', as well.
You're right that it doesn't present each and every possible symptom of fully fluoresced UCC wackosis. I almost commented on the missing fringed flag symptom as a caution. I think that these legal theories morph from adherent to adherent; some details disappear and some new ones appear. This particular one primarily presented the "beat a traffic ticket with the UCC" theory, though it did broach the "admiralty court" theory.

I think that the meme that the UCC has replaced the constitution had its origin in single line of wry humorous dicta in an otherwise run of the mill contracts case years ago. Back when I first heard of these UCC theories, I actually found and read the case. Forgot the cite though. It might be easier to track down these days with LEXIS or similar searches.

I also think it's likely that most of the bases of all these theories can be found in perfectly legitimate sources, perfectly bizarrely misunderstood or misinterpreted. That includes the fringed flag jurisdiction by decoration.
6.10.2007 11:14pm