I was spending time down on a beach with my friend after a night of drinking. We were minding our own business and hanging out, just trying to sober up...being silly. This guy came out of nowhere and sat down on the rocks next to us. He was in his early 20s or so. Scrawny and awkward. He told us that he graduated from college when he was 16 and was involved with law. He asked me if it would be inappropriate to ask to hold my hand and I told him he couldn't. We parted ways and I gave him my email because I was drunk and I thought he was pretty hilarious. I was just expecting a bunch of socially awkward e-mails. Never did I expect what I got the next day and for the next 2 months after this night. Read some of them attached here. A couple days ago I was in walmart when this same guy came up to me. I didn't recognize him at first until he made a comment about all the rings on my fingers. That night on the beach he had commented on them, and in an e-mail he questioned the reasoning behind wearing so many of them. He linked it to being involved with terrible men in the past. He handed me a white envelope and told me it was an invitation. He told me to think about it and then walked away.
My Personal Philosophies of the Principle of Consent
Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law. Below are some of my personal philosophies of the principle of consent. There are three basic ideas to understand consent: 1) the right to refuse to express consent; 2) clearly defining consent, and 3) the right to revoke consent at any time. 1) Right to Refuse Consent A person has the absolute right to refuse to express consent to any activities. 2) Clearly Defining Consent What is consent? Consent is not a waiver of free will. I define consent as the free exercise and enjoyment of a person’s free will. The decision to express consent is as much of an exercise of autonomy as the decision to not express consent. Consent may not be induced by duress, deception, coercion, or intimidation. Consent can not be “given” because consent is not a relinquishment of one’s free will to another person. Consent can only be expressed or freely exercised and enjoyed. When a person decides to exercise their autonomy to express consent, free will is always retained by the person exercising consent, which is why that person has the right to revoke consent at any time. 3) Revocation of Consent Understanding revocation of consent is one way that a woman could separate the men from the boys. Under my philosophy, any person has the right to revoke consent at any time. The exercise of revoking consent is an exercise of free will. The right of revocation of consent is the right of a person to continue to exercise their free will that is always retained by the person expressing consent.
Sincerely,
" "
Note: This document is sort of an except from one of the books that I have written called A Synapse of Decency that is about advocating for the rights of women under various laws, including, but not limited to, the Violence against Women Act under Title 42 of the United States Code as well as the right to be free from unlawful gender discrimination under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment through Article VI § 2 of the United States Constitution; Article I § 2 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois; Konstitutsiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Konst. RF] [Constitution] art.19; Article 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 1 § 1, para. 2 of the Constitution of the State of Georgia; Article III § 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines; Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft [BV], Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse [Cst] [Constitution] April 18, 1999, SR 101, RO 101, art. 8 (Switz.); Article II § 1 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and Article 1 § 6-A of the Constitution of the State of Maine.
Copyright © * *. 2014. All rights reserved.
A Constitutional Ode to * *
friend may redress a constitutional transgression under Title 42 USC § 1983, If she satisfies the “clearly established” standard of qualified immunity
The 1st Amendment protects both express and symbolic speech. The 1st Amendment freedom of expression applies to recreating at a public beach.
The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches of your humble abode. The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable motor vehicle stops on the road.
The 5th Amendment is the right to remain silent and be free from self-incrimination. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment protects against unlawful discrimination.
The 8th Amendment guarantees the right to be free from excessive bail. Is an exercise of habeas corpus a demand that you want your body out of jail?
The Comity clause protects against nonresident discrimination of interstate travel. For having out-of-state plates, why should Americans be beaten and forced to eat gravel?
Does the 9th Amendment provide for the right to be treated with human dignity? The 9th Amendment was a work primarily of James Madison during the 18th century.
How many constitutional rights can Sally now name using her wonderful brain? Wilt thou grab a magnet, and place this ode on your refrigerator in name of town
Unpublished work © " ". 2014. All intellectual property rights reserved.
The Brimstone Mystery of Death by Fickle Vanity
Unpublished work © * *. 2014. All intellectual property rights reserved.
Let’s pretend that you, as the reader, are an American man named Jacob. You have a wife and three children. All of the bedrooms are on the 2nd floor of your house, and you routinely check the fire detectors every six months. As a family, you have an emergency plan for if there is ever a fire in your house. If a fire occurs, you have promised to be responsible for making sure that you and your three children are able to exit the house safely. Since you take on this responsibility of the children’s safety, you make the false presumption that your wife can escape a fire safely by herself. One frightful night while your family was asleep, one of your kid’s toys was left too close to the radiator in the living room, which caused a fire. After the ignition of the fire, it took 15 minutes for the fire detectors to finally activate. You wake up, and you can see that your wife is awake. You tell your wife to leave the house, and she responds by saying, “Okay.” You successfully move the three children, the pet parakeet, and yourself out of the house safely. You expect that your wife made it out of the house, but she didn’t. When you realize that your wife is still inside the house, the fire has already engulfed the property. An hour later, the fire chief comes up to you and tells you that your wife is dead. The fire chief stated that your wife’s body was charred, and she had more jewelry around her than an Egyptian mummy. At this point, a tsunami of grief pierces your soul. You immediately remember the day, years ago when you promised your father-in-law that you’d keep his daughter safe when you had asked for his blessing to marry her. Your mind is instantly thrown into a miasma of guilt for her accidental death. Even though you knew it was an accident, you tell one of the first responders that you felt responsible for your wife’s death because as a man of chivalry, you felt responsible for the well-being of every member of your family. Two weeks later, the police arrest you for the murder of your wife as well as for the crime of arson.
At trial, a D grade pathologist for the prosecution testified that you strangled your wife to death and then set the house on fire in an attempt to conceal and destroy the body. A fire investigator concluded that there was foul play because the fire had multiple areas of origin around the living room. As the trial progressed, the statements that you made to the first responder were admitted into evidence due to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Rule 803(2) of the Maine Rules of Evidence. The first responder testified that you had confessed to murdering your wife, and the Law Court believed it on appeal. Your public defender failed to object to the issues that should have dismissed the charges all together because your public defender was too busy unsuccessfully objecting to the admission of photographic evidence of your wife’s charred body. Your public defender failed to object to the qualifications of the prosecution’s D grade pathologist, failed to object to the alleged confession, and failed to object to the fire investigation report. You are sentenced to prison for 30 years. The public defender that represented you eventually died of pancreatic cancer, years later without ever fettering out the truth. Let’s say that you are still incarcerated to this day because public defenders are not required to understand pathology nor fire investigation procedures. When a person is called a criminal monster for eons, it becomes a tragic self-fulfilling prophecy. Now, how can readers prevent this from happening? This book exists because the author hopes that public defender ignorance of fire investigation pathology will be reduced to the furthest extent possible. [Freeze Time]
Let’s freeze time. Let us rewind the scenes. Let’s rewind back to the fire at the point when you tell your wife to leave the house, and she says, “Okay.” After that, you leave the bedroom to find the kids, but what is your wife doing instead of exiting the house? Why wasn’t your wife able to exit the house when you were able to move everyone else out safely? After you left your bedroom, your wife thought that she had time to save all of her jewelry and heirlooms of antiquity! The first floor was an inferno. The second floor was filling with toxic smoke, yet your wife was too concerned with saving her jewelry to realize that she only had seconds to exit the house safely. Your wife didn’t even make it out of the bedroom before she collapsed from smoke inhalation, had a laryngeal spasm, and then died from the fire. This was not a murder. This was an accidental death due to fickle vanity!
[Freeze Time]
Let’s freeze time again. Let’s rewind back to when you were making an emergency exit plan with your family in the event of a house fire. During the emergency exit plan discussion, you begged your wife to promise to abandon all of her worldly possessions if there was ever a house fire. Now, the wife did not like this idea because she was secretly consumed by fickle vanity, even though she made a wedding vow to abstain from fickle vanity. With all of your vast wisdom and knowledge, you come up with a way to compromise with your wonderful wife. You first suggest that your wife leave her jewelry in a safety deposit box at the local bank. The wife responded by saying that she doesn’t trust banks. Rather than becoming frustrated, you bring your wife to a large store, and you buy her a $200 fire safe with a receipt and an iron-clad express lifetime warranty. The wife loves her new-used fire safe. The wife leaves her photo albums and her jewelry in the fire safe, so she won’t have to worry about them in case of a house fire. [Freeze Time]
Now, let’s fast-forward to when the fire chief walks up to you in another scenario outcome where your wife safely leaves the house fire because she had left her jewelry behind in a fire safe.
Instead of being told that your wife is dead, the fire chief approaches you and says that he has recovered the fire safe in one piece. The author asks the reader the following: Isn’t buying a fire safe much better than being accused of murdering your beloved wife?
Point #1: Be attentive to the fickle vanity because it could ruin your life really quickly.
Point #2: The public should encourage pathologists to become as educated as possible about fire-related deaths. When pathologists have misinformation or a lack of information about fire-related deaths, this is where wrongful convictions may occur to people who are given lengthy sentences. Point #3: The author has no reason to question the validity of any pathologist who actively did his/her homework in medical school and who is intrinsically motivated to continue to do exemplary work performance. However, nowadays, do pathologists take the effort to provide truthful expert testimony?
TL;DR: Awkward genius kid approached me on the beach one night while I was drunk and I gave him my email. He's been writing me emails for 2 months now without a response from me. He has strange lawyer code throughout some of his e-mails. He approached me one day in walmart and handed me an envelope with a formal request to dinner and a really socially awkward disclaimer about who he was and just how incredibly innocent he was. At the top of the page, it said Title 42 USC 2000aa(c). What does this mean? Am I being followed?
Submitted October 01, 2014 at 08:23AM by honeyglow http://ift.tt/1vvzK0A TwoXChromosomes
No comments:
Post a Comment