Childe Hassam-Fifth Avenue in winter, 1919 pic.twitter.com/08aR2lrYBB
— Margaret Alcantara (@marga_alca) October 4, 2016
— Linda Nowlan (@Linda_Nowlan) January 2, 2017
— James Marvin Phelps (@jmpphotography) December 10, 2016
Science in the modern world has many uses; its chief use, however, is to provide long words to cover the errors of the rich.
~G. K. Chesterton. Gilbert Keith Chesterton, KC*SG (1874 – 1936) was an English writer. He wrote on philosophy, ontology, poetry, plays, journalism, public lectures and debates, literary and art criticism, biography, Christian apologetics, and fiction, including fantasy and detective fiction. Chesterton is often referred to as the “prince of paradox.” Time magazine, in a review of a biography of Chesterton, observed of his writing style: “Whenever possible Chesterton made his points with popular sayings, proverbs, allegories—first carefully turning them inside out.”
We have lost the art of living, and in the most important science of all, the science of daily life, the science of behavior, we are complete ignoramuses. We have psychology instead.
~D.H. Lawrence. David Herbert Lawrence (1885 – 1930) was an English novelist, poet, playwright, essayist, literary critic and painter who published as D. H. Lawrence. His collected works represent an extended reflection upon the dehumanizing effects of modernity and industrialization. In them, Lawrence confronts issues relating to emotional health and vitality, spontaneity, and instinct.
Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.
~Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist who developed the general theory of relativity, effecting a revolution in physics. For this achievement, Einstein is often regarded as the father of modern physics and the most influential physicist of the 20th century. While best known for his mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2 (which has been dubbed “the world’s most famous equation”), he received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.” The latter was pivotal in establishing quantum theory.
You beat time on my head
With a palm caked hard by dirt,
Then waltzed me off to bed
Still clinging to your shirt.
Plaintiff alleged that Satan caused his misery and downfall.
~United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971)
Gerald Mayo filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He alleged that “Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff’s downfall” and had therefore “deprived him of his constitutional rights.”
This is prohibited under several sections of the United States Code. Mayo filed in forma pauperis; that is, he stated that he could not afford the costs associated with his lawsuit and that they therefore should be waived.
In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge Gerald J. Weber first noted that the jurisdictional situation was unclear. While no previous cases had been brought by or against Satan and so no official precedent existed, there was an “unofficial account of a
trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff,” a reference to the short story “The Devil and Daniel Webster.”
Judge Weber suggested that the defendant (who
had claimed in that story to be an American), should he
appear, might have been therefore estopped from
arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction. In this context,
the Court noted that Satan was a foreign prince, but
did not have occasion to address whether, if sued as a defendant, he would be able to claim sovereign immunity from suit.
Judge Weber also wrote that the case was appropriate for class action status, and that Mayo had met three of the four required elements for a class action (commonality, numerosity and typicality), but it was not then clear that Mayo could properly represent the interests of the entire (immense) class (the adequacy element).
In conclusion, though, the Court refused the request to proceed in forma pauperis because the plaintiff had not included instructions for how the U.S. Marshal could serve process on Satan.
In Zanzibar Shipping v. Railroad Locomotive Engine Number 2199, 533 F. Supp. 392 (S.D. Tex. 1982 ), a case involving the collision of railroad train with ship, in footnote 1, the Court noted as follows: “Upon discovery of their mistake, one of the train’s crew was heard to exclaim in referring to their conductor, ‘Well, I guess she’s really gonna catch it this time.’ (See testimony of Scott Manning and Plaintiff’s Exhibit 389.).”
The plaintiff filed suit after allegedly sustaining injuries during his employment as a shiphand on a tug boat. Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss the case. After submitting written
briefs and having oral argument, the court handed down
its written ruling, as follows:
Defendant begins the descent into Alice’s Wonderland by submitting a Motion that relies upon only one legal authority . . . Plaintiff responds to this deft, yet minimalist analytical wizardry with an equally gossamer wisp of an argument, . . . naturally Plaintiff also neglects to provide any analysis whatsoever . . . . Instead, Plaintiff “cites” to a single case from the Fourth Circuit. Plaintiff’s citation, however, points to a nonexistent Volume ‘1886‘ of the Federal Reporter . . . and neglects to provide a pinpoint citation for what, after being located, turned out to be a forty-page decision. . . . (What the . . . )?! The Court cannot even begin to comprehend why this case was selected for reference. It is almost as if Plaintiff’s counsel chose the opinion by throwing long range darts at the Federal Reporter (remarkably enough hitting a nonexistent volume!) . . . Despite the continued shortcomings of Plaintiff’s supplemental submission, the Court commends Plaintiff for his vastly improved choice of crayon— Brick Red is much easier on the eyes than Goldenrod, and stands out much better amidst the mustard splotched about Plaintiff’s briefing . But at the end of the day, even if you put a calico dress on it and call it Florence, a pig is still a pig.
. . .
It is well known around these parts that [Plaintiff’s] lawyer is equally likable and has been writing crisply in ink since the second grade. Some old
timers even spin yarns of an ability to type. The Court
cannot speak to the veracity of such loose talk, but out
of an abundance of caution, the Court suggests that
Plaintiff’s lovable counsel had best upgrade to a nice
shiny No. 2 pencil or at least sharpen what’s left of the
stubs of his crayons for what remains of this heart-
stopping, spine-tingling action . . . In either case, the
Court cautions Plaintiff’s counsel not to run with a sharpened writing utensil in hand—he could put his eye out.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted. Case dismissed.
~Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp., 147 F.Supp.2d 668, 670 (S.D. Texas 2001)