My source is the film Liar Liar
Written by Paul Guay and Stephen Mazur
Released March 21, 1997
Summary: Liar Liar is about Fletcher Reede, a father and lawyer in LA. Despite having a son and having been divorced, he still prioritizes his career over them. Fletcher lies about the reasons for not being able to be with them in favor of rising in his career. Lying has made him a very successful defense lawyer at his firm. The pursuit of his career over family leads to him missing his sons birthday where his son, Max, wishes that his father would be unable to lie for a whole day which comes true. Fletcher discovers his inability to lie and it slowly but surely jeopardizes his career as he is unable to lie for his defendants in court. In the central case of the movie, his client ,Samantha Cole, wants a divorce from her wealthy husband and take as much as she can from him. The issue being that Samantha has signed a prenuptial agreement which is what is being contested in court. Normally Fletcher would be able to lie his way around the case and make short work of it but he is unable due to maxes wish. He resorts to only using the truth and facts of the case which results in him finding her documents had been falsified. Fletcher found out Samantha changed documents about her age when signing the prenuptial agreement in order to get married, she had signed it when she was still a minor, which rendered it void and won fletcher the suit without lying. Samantha decides the money was not enough and wants custody of the children as well which the court allowed. Seeing Samantha’s greed made fletcher realize that, that is not who he wants to be in life and argued with the judge to reverse his decision which results in him being in contempt of court and put in jail. Fletcher is bailed out and chases after Max and his ex wife, promising to change. They decided to give him another chance.
How the story portrayed legal concepts
Although it is a comedy, it does portray legal concepts in an accurate way. The court seemingly followed the rules of a real court, all be it with some liberty for the sake of humor. While the over arching theme is toying with the stereotypical idea of a lying lawyer, it does raise the question of ethnicity in doing so. Fletcher was so good at lying, he rarely ever had to look for the truth. So when the time came where only the truth could be the answer, he struggled to find it. The movie also displayed concepts such as perjury which we have not studied at length in class but the movie does display instances of contempt in court, A way a contract can be come void due to age, custody of children and other instances. It also displays the lawyers role in acting in their clients best interest despite it not being what they want to do. Another thing that stands out is the judges authority in court. The lawyers recognize to listen when he commands it which seems very real.
My reaction to the cultural source.
I thought it was a hilarious and brilliant movie. I thought it portrayed the legal field in a hilarious yet accurate way. It was captivating watching what aspects of the law they humorized and how they managed to make it a workable story. I would definitely recommend this movie to others. I think if i was trying to get someone to take an interest in the legal field, this would be one of the movies i would show them because it uses humor to catch your attention while actually presenting law in a rather real way.
The name of the case i chose is Matter of Marian T. (Lauren R.). This took place on October 14th, 2020. The case is about the adoption of an adult woman who is not capable of giving consent to the adoption due to her disability. This action has worked its way to the court of appeals where the video us taken. The lower courts ruled that Marian did not have the mental faculties to give consent. Caitlin Brennan, council, said that whether or not she has that capacity is not one of the issues they want to bring before the court. The judges however want to press the issue. In a lower court, Dr. Fox tried to argue that while Marian lacks the mental capacity to consent to medical procedures, she is capable of giving consent for other things. However, the lower courts moved on to seemingly agree that Marian lacked the capacity to give consent to adoption. Caitlin Brennan takes the position that the petition made can not go forward due to Marians inability to give consent. The lawyer for the opposition says that Marian can be autonomous and provide consent just not in a conventional “legal” way as we understand it. He also claims Marian can consent nonverbally. Caitlin continues to argue that Marian is an adult not and underage adoptee with the same rights and interests as other adults that must be protected. She continues that nobody should be able to impose a new family structure on her due to her inability to consent.
While watching the case i felt as though the judges were being rather hard on her with their line of questioning. While Caitlin was providing information and citing what statute allows for people to withdraw their ability to consent, one judge quipped and “we would be defining the statute in a way you would disagree with” which i did not think was a good use of court time. I also felt that their line of questioning was pointless, it felt as if a bunch of “what ifs” were being asked for the sake of fun instead of dealing with the case at hand. I personally found Caitlin Brennan’s argument more persuasive. Not only did the lower courts support the opinion but she also had health experts and the legal guardian agree that Marian can not give consent. One thing i did not understand during the hearing was the term “red light”. The judge used that to stop Caitlin from speaking. The term “best interest of the child” also gets tosses around and they don’t really elaborate on it beyond it needing to be decided with discretion.
My research topic is on if whether or not police attacking protesters infringes on their first amendment rights. This topic interests me for a few reasons. one reason being our current political climate with there being drastically different police action taken across country in response to protesters. Another reason being my own curiosity as to what special privilege’s is law enforcement given to violate the constitution.
Dye, Brent E. “NORTHERN KENTUCKY LAW REVIEW.” Northern Kentucky Law Review , chaselaw.nku.edu/content/dam/chase/docs/lawreview/v32/nklr_v32n2.pdf.
My source is a law review article. In the article, police clashed with anti-abortion protesters in Kentucky who were protesting using graphic images of mutilated fetuses. this allegedly causes some drivers to be distracted (without having caused an accident) but was brought to the attention of the police. The police had asked them to either move their protest away from the road or remove the imagery of fetuses. The protesters refuses both and were arrested under the cities loitering ordinance. The protestors brought the department to court and the court favored the police and granted them qualified immunity. I believe the authors main point is that the police need the necessary permission of qualified immunity in order to keep the public at peace. It is abundantly clear that the author of this reviews favors the police in this case. The authors conclusion agrees with the outcome of the case on the basis that the protesters first amendment rights were not violated and the police were correctly given qualified immunity because they were trying to uphold public safety.
I agree with the authors view point of this outcome with some exception. I agree in this instance that the imagery the protestors showed to drivers passing by could have potentially caused as accident which is a public safety danger. However, i do not agree with the arrest of the protestors and forceful removal of them. When the protestors tried to sue the police argued for qualified immunity. However, Qualified immunity for law enforcement sounds like a blanket get out of court free card for law enforcement which is not good. It allows them to violate a citizens rights and avoids law suits under common law. Also Law enforcement should not be allowed to use something like “loitering” as an excuse to arrest protestors.
“In Frye, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly held that because the police officers had a significant interest in upholding public safety, they did not violate the protestors’ First Amendment rights when the officers placed reasonable restrictions as to where the protestors could display their highly graphic and offensive signs.” This quote from the author clearly indicates his bias. I do not like his use of the word “correct” in this article because for the study of law, this should not be read as an opinion piece. The first amendment does allow for reasonable restriction such as time and place, however the officers used a claim of loitering to arrest the protestors which i do not think should be allowed.
Trump mob bear maces and attempts to start fights with woman, when she tries to present evidence to Police they dismiss her. from PublicFreakout
This is a video showing trump supporters harassing a young woman inciting physical violence with her. When cops are presented evidence of this, they maintain a blasé attitude and refuse to act even when presented with clear evidence of illegal actions. This is inexcusable in a supposedly democratic nation, these caravans of viscous supporters (regardless of party affiliation) is reminiscent of ISIS caravans traversing the middle east. It is rather scary to see this happening in some areas which could discourage people from voting altogether to avoid these types of people. I hope that when this election ends, the heavy polarization of people dies down as well.
We did not simply lose an Icon with the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, we lost a star that burnt out too soon in time when light is needed most. I believe that these words accurately portray what she meant to Women, Progressives and the U.S. Legal system. As emotional as that sounds, it is my opinion that the current political landscape is hell on earth with Ginsberg having been one of the few representatives moderates such as myself can latch on to. I find it ironic that i write this today, on the day of her replacements (Amy Barrets) hearing who many believe to signify a roll back in women’s equality. In “Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Supreme Court’s Feminist Icon, Is Dead at 87” By Linda Greenhouse, and published by the New York Times. Linda writes a reflection of Ginsberg’s life and the impact she has had on our legal system. The cases she had won for women’s rights would unthinkable if they had happened fifty or more years ago. She made it her mission to carry the burden of gender equality in a heavily male favored system on her back which is nothing short of saintly. Truly an outstanding woman and one i hope inspired others to try and take up her mantle.
2.0 – Communications Homework
0.25 – Feed puppies and kitten
0.25 – get mail
0.25 – Get in car/head to office
1.75 – Help Father Unit at real estate office
This assignment did have me glancing at the clock more than usual. I do not really have an issue recording things in this manner or in an even more detailed fashion. I don’t find it fun or boring, maybe unnecessary unless its needed for record keeping or something of the sort. The way i spent my time was not really surprising, everything seemed pretty typical. unless i have something scheduled such as work, classes, meetings or appointments, my time is available for my needs or others outside of that.
So if i understand this correctly, the plaintiffs argument was thrown out due to lack of personal jurisdiction because they tried to sue the hotel company in the supreme court of queens county New York when the husband was injured in the company’s hotel in Virginia. Does this mean the whole case is dismissed or can it be retried in another court? Would personal jurisdiction have been granted if they brought their suit to a Virginia court house? Also how can a hotel be held liable for a guests injury in a shower? so many questions!
The Law firm I would like to work at is the Law firm of Adam Kalish located at 182A 26th St, Brooklyn, NY 11232. It is a private firm. They practice business and corporate law, Real Estate law as well as criminal law. It is a Law firm led by Attorney Adam Kalish who held the position of special counsel to the New York state senate financial committee.i would like to work there specifically because of real estate law. They specialize in representing the property owners in disputes with tenants and renters. My family owes properties in New York so this interests me heavily. the The link to their website is this https://www.kalishlawnyc.com/