>
> Whatever the original case may have said, there are a billion cases
saying it now. jks
===============
Therefore it must be true.
The circularity of the law is a magisterial thing.......
"True" --you gonna get metaphysical on me? Legally, "true" means that it's a rule the courts will enforce.
For example, case I'm working on, uninterpreted statute (the new Sarbarnes-Oxley law) , the text says, to be protected the whistleblower must reasonable bellieve that he conduct he blew the whistle on cosntituted a violation of, and lists several sections of Title 18, referring to mail and wire fraud, securities and bank fraud. Read literally, that means the whistleblower must know that the misconduct he reported constited mail fraud, for example. Now probably he doesn't. But I tell you there is no court in the country that will read the statute that literally. The courts will say that it really means, so long as a reasonable lawyer with a good background in the white collar crime statutes would reasonably believe that the conduct constituted a violation of the named sections. So the literal meaning of the statute is legally "false," if you think it useful to talk that way. What can I tell you. Mainly the client wants to know, what will the courts and agen! cies do?
If the corporate personhood rule wasn't adopted in the case that is usually cited as its origin, it was adopted in subsequent cases. To avoid circularity, it has to start somewhere.
Ian
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
