Another blog!

That's amazing!

Hold on a minute

Wait, let me get this straight--someone that works for the U.S. government upheld the Bill of Rights?!?

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken apparently did just that.

Does everyone remember the Brandon Mayfield story from a few years ago? The Feds conducted illegal searches on his home and office because they thought he might be connected to the Madrid train bombings.

This classy judge lady said that that wasn't cool.

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.

By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."


Our Founding Fathers can roll a little bit less than usual in their graves tonight.

Lisboa says:

Is this of equal magnitude?

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070924/NEWS03/70924075

Monday, 09/24/07

Court: engagement rings must go back to giver

By SHEILA BURKE
Staff Writer

Don’t hock that engagement ring just yet.

If you don’t get married, you’re not entitled to keep the ring, the Tennessee Court of Appeals said Monday.

In a ruling that appears to be the first appellate decision of its kind in the state, the court said that if the wedding is canceled, the person who gave the engagement ring is entitled to get it back.

“In summary, we hold that an engagement ring is given in contemplation of marriage, and as such, is impliedly a conditional gift,” the unanimous opinion, written by Judge Charles D. Susano, said.

If the marriage doesn’t take place, “the engagement ring goes back to the one who gave it.”

The decision stems from a legal battle over an engagement ring that began in a Knox County court. The ruling involves a woman who is a reporter for WSMV in Nashville.

On Christmas Day 2005, Jason Crippen placed an engagement ring on Catharyn Campbell’s finger and proposed marriage.

After the couple broke up, Crippen asked for the ring back; Campbell would not give it to him.

The opinion doesn’t describe the ring or give its value.

Crippen’s attorney, Adam Priest of Knoxville, said he couldn’t give the value of the ring without permission from his client.

Crippen sued Campbell to get the ring back, but a Knox County circuit judge said she was entitled to keep it because it was a gift.

Campbell would not comment after the ruling Monday, but her attorney said he was disappointed that the appeals court didn’t consider the ring a gift.

“I believe this gift took on unique and special meaning considering it was a Christmas Day gift,” attorney James K. Scott said.

The Court of Appeals ordered Campbell to return the ring.


--Lisboa

Post A Reply:





Sorry, but before you can reply you must either log in or sign up.