Totally Unspiritual Post of the Week, #5

This week's unspiritual post is making up for a little lost love. I actually am putting up TWO things for your viewing pleasure.

The first is something you might just want to print out right now: the official rules to calling "shotgun" in a car. All my friends and coworkers can consider themselves warned: I am now going to be a rule-nazi (or 'gaper,' as you'll read in the rule book) when it comes to claiming shotgun.

You can find the link to Shotgun Rules here.

Some of my favorite rules include:
The Deed Must Be Done Before Shotgun May Be Called
For these rules to work properly, it is essential for you to understand and accept the concept of the "Deed". Shotgun may only be called after the "deed is done". Simply stated, the deed is any activity or objective that directly precedes the ride in the automobile. The deed can be anything ranging from a visit at a friend's house, to a shopping trip at the mall, to a visit to the Grand Canyon. We cannot stress how important this is because this establishes a Shotgun-calling time frame that ensures everyone has an equal chance of recognizing when to call Shotgun. There is no crime greater than calling Shotgun on Monday in reference to the ride to the concert on Friday. Some people choose to play this way, and they are fools.

Significant Others
This is the most important exception. If a significant other (SO) is included in the group of automobile passengers and this person is the SO or potential SO of the driver, then they get automatic Shotgun privileges.

The Barefoot Rule
Since you must be outside to call Shotgun, some people will just grab their shoes, jump outside, and call Shotgun before putting their shoes on. This has been deemed "gaping", and is not a legal procedure. You must have your shoes on, if you choose to wear any, before you may call Shotgun.



The second post comes my way via a good friend I have in law school at Northwestern right now, to whom I will assign the alias "Rick Miltimore" to protect his identity. "Rick" is studying feudal property law, and was working on a class-action lawsuit involving a counterfeit shipment of goat dung when he came across a very interesting case:

Today I found a case from 1971 whereby a Pennsylvania man sued Satan (and his Staff) basically for interfering with his constitutional rights. At first the court worried that they couldn't obtain jurisdiction (because the Plaintiff never alleged that the Defendant lived in the jurisdiction) but then found an unofficial report of a trial wherein Satan, acting as Plaintiff, filed an action of mortgage forclosure in New Hampshire. Here is a brief excerpt from the case summary:

"Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis on a complaint filed against defendant chief fallen angel. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had threatened him, caused him misery, impeded his course in life, and generally precipitated his downfall, which injuries, plaintiff alleged, rose to constitutional dimension.

Stating its reservations regarding whether the alleged interferences with plaintiff's life stated a claim for which relief could be granted and questioning whether the court could obtain jurisdiction over defendant chief fallen angel, the court denied plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court explained that the complaint failed to allege facts, at least as to defendant's residence within the district, which would support jurisdiction. The court noted an unofficial report of a prior appearance by defendant in a United States court as a party plaintiff, but questioned whether this was enough to establish jurisdiction by estoppel. Additionally, if it allowed the present action, the court stated that it would then face the issue of whether it would be better maintained as a class action. The court found the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 appeared to be met, but questioned whether plaintiff was an appropriate representative of the putative class. Finally, the court noted that the complaint lacked instructions for service of process, leaving the court no choice but to refuse plaintiff's prayer for relief."

FYI - Under Counsel where it says "Pro Se," that means P represented himself. I'm shocked he couldn't find a lawyer to prsoecute his case, but I guess there was a conflict of interest.

On that note, do you ever worry about your government or the people you share your voting rights with? -Rick

You can download the entire case summary here.

I'm so disappointed to see that these hard earned tax dollars weren't even enough to bring a legitimate lawsuit against Satan himself. I mean, if there is good documentation on anyone doing bad stuff, it's got to be him.

Corrie and I return from our one-year anniversary weekend on Monday night. I should have some great pictures to post Tuesday when I return, but until then, be... well, just be.