Attorneys and Barristers of the Lounge

[Ephraim Tutt]

Lazy Hazy Sundays

A lazy Sunday was enjoyed in the company of my other half sipping on a wonderful Pan Terra 2009 Reserve Pinot Gris while listening to these classic albums:

The Pan Terra is sourced largely from the Adelaide Hills and is a wonderfully dry, full bodied, spicy mix of lychee and Mediterranian herbs with a crisp finish.

Wine, music and someone you love - Oh perfect day.

Cheers to you all.

 

[MisterCairo]

Criminal law, on both sides of the aisle, is all about finding a story that fits the facts and selling that story to the jury. That's why I find it so fascinating.

I gather from the tape Bryant had a passenger, depending on what Bryant's story is his/her testimony will be crucial for the prosecution as the video itself can be interpreted a number of ways.

The passenger was his wife.

 

[C-dot]

The passenger was his wife.

Then it makes no difference: According to Canadian law, an individual cannot testify against his or her spouse in a criminal proceeding except if the spouse's liberty or health is under question or the spouse brings about the charges - I believe it's called "spousal incompetency." This is the same as the US's "spousal privilege" law, where one can refuse to testify under the 5th amendment. (I know you all know this, but I like to be clear )
Although, I understand many states have added exception clauses, such as for domestic violence.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Ye Gods C-dot! You guys still have the spousal privilege law??

 

[C-dot]

Ye Gods C-dot! You guys still have the spousal privilege law??

In most cases, yes lol However, it does not apply to events before a couple were married, common-law marriages, and spousal abuse. It's a good law in theory, but it's too easy to abuse; For example, the case of a Hell's Angel member who married his girlfriend before a trial, to prevent her from being subpoenaed as a witness for the crimes he was charged of.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Historic cases

Who can guess what these chaps have in common - and what contribution the long wigged one (Judge Charles Pratt, 1st Earl of Camden) made to the rule of law throughout the common law world?

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

A kindly gift

I'm in a temporary office at the moment as our building is being refurbished and I'm waiting to move into my new digs. In the clean-up some kind soul stumbled upon an unused hat stand - the only one in the building - and decided it belonged in my office.

 

[C-dot]

That's a great hat stand! It adds charm to an otherwise corporate office, eh?

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Yes indeed C-dot! It's amazing how civilsed an office looks with the addition of a hat stand. I recommend it!

I love the new hairdo by the way.

The Bar Association is quiet at the moment - and noone has tried their hand at my legal history poser above. So...let me buy you a drink. I know a really nice Tasmanian Sauv Blanc that's sure to please.

 

[C-dot]

Thank you Ephraim I think that hairdo came out quite well!

As for your poser, I'll tell you what I know over our wine:

Charles Pratt ruled that the raid of John Entick's home by Crown Officers searching for evidence of political subversion were unlawful and without authority (Entick vs. Carrington, 1765). His ruling was vital in the creation of search warrants. He also made a major speech on the American Crisis of 1774 in protest of the New England Trade and Fishery Bill.

Do correct me wherever I'm wrong, I don't have my textbook handy so I'm writing from memory lol

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

From memory C-dot? They teach the great case of Entick v Carrington in US law schools??

Excellent!

Pratt was a pioneer of civil liberties. From that particular case came a founding principle of the rule of law. I'll fill in the details later when I've more time - unless one of our Bar colleagues beats me to it!

Needless to say, it's one of my favourite historic cases. And speaking of which...that's a good theme for a thread. Name your favourite cases, ancient and modern.

 

[C-dot]

I'm not actually in law school, since I'm only going to be a Paralegal, but this case was referenced in one of my textbooks talking about search warrants. My knowledge actually comes from classes I took on American History (which incidentally, I won academic awards for). US law schools I'm sure teach it, since Pratt was key in New England Colonial history.

One of my favourite cases of all time is Hall vs. Jagger. Jerry Hall filed for divorce from Mick Jagger in 1999 after his affair with Luciana Gimenez, which produced a child (confirmed to be his by DNA). Jagger’s lawyer argued that her case for divorce couldn't stand because their lavish Hindu marriage ceremony in Bali was not legal in the UK, and Hall could not produce a marriage certificate. To prove they had been a couple, she would have to produce enough witnesses to span their 22 year long partnership. In the end, Jagger settled on Hall for 12.5 million pounds, which allegedly made no dent in his bank account.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Today's serious lawyer hat - Mallory

And a serious lawyer face to match:
[/IMG]

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Favourite Cases - Entick v Carrington

Following on from the above:
Back in 1762 the Government of The United Kingdom was having trouble dealing with annoying things like freedom of speech. A hack writer of dubious credentials named John Entick, an associate of John Wilkes, had been writing some unkind things about Lord Halifax and the red-faced peer of the realm wanted him stopped.

Consequently, Nathan Carrington, being the King's Chief Messenger, was dispatched in the company of some burly colleagues to search Mr Entick's home for evidence of sedition. They entered Entick's home 'with force of arms' and proceeded to locate and make off with a pile of his writings and personal papers.

Entick charged them with unlawful entry and the matter was brought before Lord Camden, Justice Charles Pratt, for judgement. His Honour's decision in favour of Entick has often been summarised in the following terms:

If you are a citizen of this land you can do anything you like - unless the law prohibits it. But if you are the Government, you can't do anything at all - unless the law provides for it.

It is a principle that forms the basis for the limiting of executive power and was influential in the formation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Justice Pratt was an early hero of civil liberties. When, in 1763 a member of Parliament, John Wilkes, was arrested for seditious libel, Justice Pratt freed him on the basis of parliamentary privilege. Two years later as a member of the House of Lords, he voted against taxation of the American colonies as, in his Lordship's view, taxation required representation.

A tip of the vintage hat to Lord Camden I say! Let's toast his memory with a peppery South Australian Shiraz!

 

[carebear]

The very foundation of classical liberalism, the individual and their rights have absolute primacy.

Freedom is the default for the individual. Whatever is not expressly forbidden is expressly permitted.

Conversely, regulation is the default of government. Whatever powers are not expressly enumerated are expressly forbidden.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Today's Lid - Stetson Stowaway crushable

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

The very foundation of classical liberalism, the individual and their rights have absolute primacy.

Freedom is the default for the individual. Whatever is not expressly forbidden is expressly permitted.

Conversely, regulation is the default of government. Whatever powers are not expressly enumerated are expressly forbidden.

Yes indeed Carebear.

And where would our liberal democracy be today without the antics of Entick and the pronouncements of Pratt?

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Lawyers in Lids

Pedigreed Thoroughbred

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Wine of the Day

Last summer I picked up a case of First Creek 2006 Artisan Verdelho. Yesterday, being Sunday, Mrs Tutt and I enjoyed the last bottle of this wonderful drop over lunch. Largely drawn from the Hunter Valley in New South Wales, it's a full-bodied, fruit driven wine with a hint of musk and a long dry finish. Brilliant - and an extra year in the wine nursery has only concentrated its wonderful flavours.

In fact, I like it so much I think I'll shout the bar! Any takers?

The pic below is of a more recent vintage:

 

[tortswon]

Verdelho is, for me, a problematic wine. I like it as an aperitif without food. I have yet to find a food that pairs better with Verdelho than anything else. That said, if you have a beautiful hot day, particularly with Gibraltar in the background, Verdelho can display some magic. For me, its lack of food friendliness eliminates it from being a serious part of my wine rotation. Best, Sam