The common law had a rule that you couldn’t complain about an injury you invited by consent. That rule, summarized in the Latin maxim “volenti non fit injuria” roughly translated as, “there’s no injury to a willing person”. Hence, when two boxers meet in the ring and fight, neither is charged with crimes of assault or battery nor can either fighter claim damages for personal injuries against their opponent because they consented to … Read more
Aug 19, 2015
A Problem of Consent: Why Can’t an Attorney be Held to Their Word? Why Can’t an Attorney Consent to Arrest?
Aug 17, 2015
“…I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”
For most of us life rarely works out according to a plan. As an old proverb states, “man plans, God laughs”. We still make plans for future events which matter to us because experience teaches us that it makes sense to do so and because we anticipate, or at least hope, that planning will lengthen the odds of a successful or … Read more
Aug 12, 2015
In Davis v. Cox, 183 Wn.2d 269 (2015), the Washington Supreme Court held that Washington’s Anti-SLAPP Law, RCW 4.24.525, violated the state constitutional right to jury trial of civil cases and the First Amendment right to petition government under the United States Constitution. As this note will briefly show, the court’s rationale in Davis for invalidating the Washington law is equally applicable to the analogous Oregon Anti-SLAPP Law.
Summary of the Washington and Oregon Anti-SLAPP … Read more
Aug 11, 2015
Some might think that trial by combat is now only useful for Monty Python and other comic skits. But take a look at paragraph 26 of this pleading filed recently in a New York case where the defendant, a Staten Island attorney, “. . . demands his common law right to Trial by Combat as against Plaintiffs and their counsel . . . .”
The ensuing paragraphs of the pleading outline the author’s historical argument … Read more
Aug 6, 2015
Can You Sell Yourself Into Slavery? A “Financial Slave” Sues His Dominatrix and Prompts the Question
In Orlando, Florida a “financial slave” has filed suit claiming that his dominatrix abused their professional relationship. The news story is here.
The 68 year old plaintiff claims that his dominatrix took unfair advantage of his diminished mental capacity during the four years of their relationship while also asserting that financial slavery services by such BDSM “professionals” are not “illegal”. The plaintiff thus ignores the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution which … Read more