Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Whoa! That was humor man! Take a chill pill. It's a joke. But at least you got my point about Clinton and Avanti.
UNBELEAVABLE
- Thread starter Kevin Stenberg
- Start date
Charles Graff
Moderator Emeritus
That is what allot of folks say, when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. For old time sake, I will take you at your word.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
I have a bit of trouble wrapping my head around the "Hippos as humans" concept as well. Bret has spoken of the "Animals as property" idea as his state's laws describe it, and California's statutes are very similar. Chattel property has title, and that title vests upon an owner. In the case of domestic animals--their owners hold title. In the case of feral species, the State holds title. These are generalities, with lots of exceptions.
How a United States Court establishes jurisdiction over zoo animals in Colombia........GMBTA. My guess would be that a seizure order for property under consideration for forfeiture exists in some form, and this court action flows from that.
How a United States Court establishes jurisdiction over zoo animals in Colombia........GMBTA. My guess would be that a seizure order for property under consideration for forfeiture exists in some form, and this court action flows from that.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Just because some federal magistrate issued an order related to a specific case, doesn’t mean that order is law. Congress makes federal law and judges interpret that law.
Nor does it mean the order applies outside of that specific case. I don’t think this is the precedent the plaintiffs make this out to be.
Nor does it mean that magistrate got it right. Judges make mistakes all of the time. That’s why we have appellate courts. If a federal district court judge in Ohio agrees with this magistrate judge AND the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th district agrees with this magistrate judge…..I’ll start to pay attention to this. My guess is a few months from now a district court judge is quietly going to tell this magistrate to start thinking about retirement.
I think that story makes for a good “man bites dog” headline, and I also think this is a tempest in a teapot.
Nor does it mean the order applies outside of that specific case. I don’t think this is the precedent the plaintiffs make this out to be.
Nor does it mean that magistrate got it right. Judges make mistakes all of the time. That’s why we have appellate courts. If a federal district court judge in Ohio agrees with this magistrate judge AND the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th district agrees with this magistrate judge…..I’ll start to pay attention to this. My guess is a few months from now a district court judge is quietly going to tell this magistrate to start thinking about retirement.
I think that story makes for a good “man bites dog” headline, and I also think this is a tempest in a teapot.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
We've "known" each other for about 20 years now, I've even turned to you for Pastoral advice. Do you really think I would insult someone I respect and admire as I do you? No sir! I apologize for the misunderstanding, but in no way would I ever do such a thing to you. The "99.9% of lawyers" joke has been around for as long as I can remember, like all the cops and donut jokes or all the sheep herder jokes. I hope we can virtually shake hands and you'll accept my sincere apology for the misunderstanding.
I still don't think animals are people though!
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
We don't now either.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
I would bet is has something to do with the market value of a hippo. Haven't seen a single one of them on the "Tender Hearts Doggy and Kitty Rescue Shelter" ad's on my FB feed!
Charles Graff
Moderator Emeritus
Consider your hand virtually shaken and there shall be peace between us.
Charles Graff
Moderator Emeritus
Not hippos as humans, but hippos as persons. Person for this purpose is a legal entity and not a biological critter. Under the law corporations are persons that can sue and be sued in court. In this case, so can the hippos. How some court in middle America can enforce it judgments in Columbia is beyond me. BTW...having spend time in Columbia on a number of occasions, I can say Columbia has the best looking women in all of Latin America is not the world. Texas does have it's fair share of beauties'.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is a type of legel fiction. The Magistrate is allowing the hippos to be "people" (Not humans) for the purpose of obtaining tesimony in a foreign legal action.
Not to get too far into the weeds here, but the lawsuit is actually in Columbia. The Animal Legal Defense Fund (who appear to be a group of idiots with way too much time and money on their hands) want to take depositions from two experts in Ohio.
“…The testimony of Animal Balance’s wildlife experts, Dr. Elizabeth Berkeley and Dr. Richard Berlinski, will be used to bolster support for the PZP contraceptive to prevent the hippopotamuses who live in the Magdalena River from continuing to grow the population without slaughtering them.”
It would seem to me that the Animal Legal Defense Fund [ALDF] would not need to use the power of the federal government to force these two doctors to give testimony in the U.S.A. that would later be used in lawsuit in Columbia. This seems to be more show than necessity.
If these two doctors do not wish to give testimony, I’m not sure why compelling them to give testimony will be helpful to the ALDF case. And if they are willing to give testimony, then why does the ALDF need to use the court to compel the testimony?
This is the federal code section they are using: 28 U.S.C. § 1782
The text can be found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1782
I don’t see this magistrate’s order surviving a challenge in a higher court.
The article can be found here:
Not to get too far into the weeds here, but the lawsuit is actually in Columbia. The Animal Legal Defense Fund (who appear to be a group of idiots with way too much time and money on their hands) want to take depositions from two experts in Ohio.
“…The testimony of Animal Balance’s wildlife experts, Dr. Elizabeth Berkeley and Dr. Richard Berlinski, will be used to bolster support for the PZP contraceptive to prevent the hippopotamuses who live in the Magdalena River from continuing to grow the population without slaughtering them.”
It would seem to me that the Animal Legal Defense Fund [ALDF] would not need to use the power of the federal government to force these two doctors to give testimony in the U.S.A. that would later be used in lawsuit in Columbia. This seems to be more show than necessity.
If these two doctors do not wish to give testimony, I’m not sure why compelling them to give testimony will be helpful to the ALDF case. And if they are willing to give testimony, then why does the ALDF need to use the court to compel the testimony?
This is the federal code section they are using: 28 U.S.C. § 1782
The text can be found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1782
I don’t see this magistrate’s order surviving a challenge in a higher court.
The article can be found here:
Last edited:
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Exactly. With due respect to the lawyers out there that are above such things, there are plenty that see $$$ in things like this. It's simply how they make their living. I hear their advertisements on the radio several times every hour. I've said for years that we normal run of the mill type folks see the law as a set of rules and limits. The not so admirable type of lawyer sees the law as a tool to make his living with. Congress is full of such critters.
While I understand the idea Charles is pointing out, I also feel I should point out that corporations are made up of people, actual human beings. An animal or piece of real estate, a song, a book, an idea- that is property. This calling an animal a "person" is the type of thing that requires a mind more suited to abstract thought and machinations than I am comfortable with. A man has to know his limitations, and when there's not a darn thing he can do to change the situation.
Last edited:
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
If you read the story I linked in post #32, from that source it looks like a bunch of animal rights activists in Columbia are suing the Columbian government on behalf of the hippos. The lawyers in Columbia, or their American counterparts, want to take testimony of two experts in Ohio.
I don’t see any money at stake here, in fact they seem to be spending money and there’s no financial gain at the end of this. It just looks like a bunch of PETA types concerned about some hippos.
I’m not sure why this activist group needs to force these experts to testify. It would seem if these experts had favorable evidence, they would simply agree to a deposition?
One possibility is the Animal Legal Defense Fund [ALDF] knew this magistrate judge was a liberal (her background suggests this) and they “found” two experts in Ohio in the hopes the matter would end up in front of this particular judge. This may simply be a stunt to obtain that headline grabbing ruling.
I don’t know, just speculation on my part.
I don’t see any money at stake here, in fact they seem to be spending money and there’s no financial gain at the end of this. It just looks like a bunch of PETA types concerned about some hippos.
I’m not sure why this activist group needs to force these experts to testify. It would seem if these experts had favorable evidence, they would simply agree to a deposition?
One possibility is the Animal Legal Defense Fund [ALDF] knew this magistrate judge was a liberal (her background suggests this) and they “found” two experts in Ohio in the hopes the matter would end up in front of this particular judge. This may simply be a stunt to obtain that headline grabbing ruling.
I don’t know, just speculation on my part.
Charles Graff
Moderator Emeritus
Corporations are very interesting non-biological critters. The very concept evolved from old "joint stock companies" whereby multiple investors pooled their assets to take a flyer at making money and were issued shares of stock commensurate with their individual investments. Thereby the need arose for a legal entity that could buy, sell, invest, sue and be sued under it's own name. Investors would not get far if every one of them had to sign off on every action taken. So the Corporations became legal entities, legal persons if you will.
For some years after my retirement from the church, I taught Legal Studies at our local branch of Univ. of Texas. From time to time, I would have Mexican lawyers (lawyers from Mexico) take my courses. It was very interesting as Mexico's law is based on the Napoleonic Code and not English Common Law. In Mexico they have "Anonymous Societies" which is their version of corporations. One Mexican Lawyer told me his prof at Univ. of Mexico told him they were like the Canterbury Ghost, you could see it, but it was not really there.
The really fun part of American Corporations is when one of them is found guilty of a crime, who goes to jail? There is lots of finger pointing and disputes about who made the decisions and who did the deed. Fun...fun...fun!
Is the law abstract? I guess that depending on who you ask, and what is considered to be abstract. American law has about 2,000 years of history behind it beginning with Roman law. In that length of time, things can take allot of twists and turns and can seem utterly opaque to many folks.
I hold that it has a logic and language of it's own. Folks who do math tell me the same thing. I don't do or speak math and think numbers were created in Hell. The Devil created math to bumfuzzle and confuse people like me.
Addendum: When I received my Law License (1967) it was illegal for Attorney's to advertise. We took high profile cases, often for very little money, just for the media exposure. At that time, Attorney's made a decent living but nobody got rich. A decade later, law school started cranking out lawyers like an assembly line. There was more lawyers than work for them to do. The pie slices became thinner and thinner. Lawyers had to become creative and come up with new causes of action and things to sue about. Thus was born "Enterprise Litigation", like the Starship that "boldly went where no man had gone before". Rules were changed to allow advertising and lawyers became predatory and even cannibalistic.
Law is not the only profession that has gone through drastic change. Take a look at Medicine. Doctors have found ways to create more revenue and run more patients through in less time. Good old Marcus Welby is long gone. Medicine is now a high dollar business. I dare say that many trades and professions are not what they were in years gone by.
Bottom Line.....Lawyers and indeed the law itself exists became humans refuse to live together peacefully and treat each other fairly and justly. I have spent my life trying to help people untangle their lives legally, morally and spiritually.
For some years after my retirement from the church, I taught Legal Studies at our local branch of Univ. of Texas. From time to time, I would have Mexican lawyers (lawyers from Mexico) take my courses. It was very interesting as Mexico's law is based on the Napoleonic Code and not English Common Law. In Mexico they have "Anonymous Societies" which is their version of corporations. One Mexican Lawyer told me his prof at Univ. of Mexico told him they were like the Canterbury Ghost, you could see it, but it was not really there.
The really fun part of American Corporations is when one of them is found guilty of a crime, who goes to jail? There is lots of finger pointing and disputes about who made the decisions and who did the deed. Fun...fun...fun!
Is the law abstract? I guess that depending on who you ask, and what is considered to be abstract. American law has about 2,000 years of history behind it beginning with Roman law. In that length of time, things can take allot of twists and turns and can seem utterly opaque to many folks.
I hold that it has a logic and language of it's own. Folks who do math tell me the same thing. I don't do or speak math and think numbers were created in Hell. The Devil created math to bumfuzzle and confuse people like me.
Addendum: When I received my Law License (1967) it was illegal for Attorney's to advertise. We took high profile cases, often for very little money, just for the media exposure. At that time, Attorney's made a decent living but nobody got rich. A decade later, law school started cranking out lawyers like an assembly line. There was more lawyers than work for them to do. The pie slices became thinner and thinner. Lawyers had to become creative and come up with new causes of action and things to sue about. Thus was born "Enterprise Litigation", like the Starship that "boldly went where no man had gone before". Rules were changed to allow advertising and lawyers became predatory and even cannibalistic.
Law is not the only profession that has gone through drastic change. Take a look at Medicine. Doctors have found ways to create more revenue and run more patients through in less time. Good old Marcus Welby is long gone. Medicine is now a high dollar business. I dare say that many trades and professions are not what they were in years gone by.
Bottom Line.....Lawyers and indeed the law itself exists became humans refuse to live together peacefully and treat each other fairly and justly. I have spent my life trying to help people untangle their lives legally, morally and spiritually.
Last edited:
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Waste of time Charles. Humans are, for the most part, bent on self destruction to one degree or another. It takes a far better man than I am to try anymore. "Once burned, twice shy" is for beginners. Get burned a thousand times and you just give it up!
My wife is trying to find my Academy picture, back when I was a idealistic young guy that was out to save the world. I will contrast it with the last pic for my ID before retirement after 20+ years of trying to save people from themselves and each other. Pretty stark contrast.
On corps, I thought one of the main reasons to incorporate was to shield the people involved from criminal and civil penalties!
My wife is trying to find my Academy picture, back when I was a idealistic young guy that was out to save the world. I will contrast it with the last pic for my ID before retirement after 20+ years of trying to save people from themselves and each other. Pretty stark contrast.
On corps, I thought one of the main reasons to incorporate was to shield the people involved from criminal and civil penalties!
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I can understand the need to form corporations, the costs to undertake some ventures would often be impossible without a group of investors. Multiple investors can create a larger pool of capital than a single investor AND the risk is spread out over a greater number of people. Corporations such as the Dutch East India company or the British East India Company may have had some government influence, but they also had a large number of private investors. That model of a group of private individuals risking money to make more money has been very successful.
I understand the need for the law to classify a corporation as a “person” to hold a group of people (shareholders and boards of directors) responsible for the actions of the corporation as whole. If there was no way for the courts to hold corporations accountable, the corporations would operate above the law. Despite what some misguided people believe, corporations are very much held accountable under the law.
Setting that aside for a moment. I’m not sure a group of Hippos in Columbia qualifies as an entity that can ultimately be a defendant or a plaintiff in a civil suit. I think the Animal Legal Defense Fund [ALDF] did some venue shopping and found a particularly stupid and liberal (that may be redundant) federal magistrate. They then “found” two experts they wanted to dispose that just happened to be in that magistrate’s district. Then they got the headline they were after.
I understand the need for the law to classify a corporation as a “person” to hold a group of people (shareholders and boards of directors) responsible for the actions of the corporation as whole. If there was no way for the courts to hold corporations accountable, the corporations would operate above the law. Despite what some misguided people believe, corporations are very much held accountable under the law.
Setting that aside for a moment. I’m not sure a group of Hippos in Columbia qualifies as an entity that can ultimately be a defendant or a plaintiff in a civil suit. I think the Animal Legal Defense Fund [ALDF] did some venue shopping and found a particularly stupid and liberal (that may be redundant) federal magistrate. They then “found” two experts they wanted to dispose that just happened to be in that magistrate’s district. Then they got the headline they were after.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Bret, I disagree that the Main Reason to form a corporation is to shield the people involved from civil and criminal penalties. While a corporation may shield its investors from some personal liability, the existence of a corporation doesn’t make the members untouchable under the law. If a corporation goes bankrupt or a judgement is obtained against the corporation, the private property of individual shareholders will probably not be at risk. But under criminal law, members of a corrupt organization may have even greater exposure to punishment than individuals. Look at any state or federal RICO prosecution and you’ll find the arm of the law easily reaches into the corporation.
Corporations are not good or evil unto themselves, but people can be good or evil. Corporations are nothing more than a group of people than band together with the goal of making a profit.
Corporations are not good or evil unto themselves, but people can be good or evil. Corporations are nothing more than a group of people than band together with the goal of making a profit.
Charles Graff
Moderator Emeritus
You qualify for the title of being burned out, happens to allot of people in allot of fields. I am thoroughly familiar with what humans do to themselves and each other, but I don't agree with your general assessment. I always try and remember that I am a human also. I am one of them, so how can I stand apart and have such a dark view of others, when I am included in the group. I am not a superior human, I may try harder that some, but that is the best I can say for myself. I did not come into this world better equipped to deal with life than anybody else.
At this point, I am tempted to talk about the role personal faith takes in life, but I would have to get into some pretty serious theology and religious stuff. That is beyond the desired purview of this board, so I won't go there. I don't always follow rules, but in this case I helped make them and should abide by them.
In general, the liability of corporations is limited to it's assets which can be considerable, plus they all carry oodles of insurance. As a general rule, individual stockholders are not liable for the torts or crimes of the corporation. I said as a general rule, because where the stockholders are instrumental in the commission of the torts or crimes, the law can "pierce the corporate veil" and go after the individual stockholders and their assets as well. A corporation is not the ballistic shield most folks think it is.
Last edited: