Mildred and Richard Loving Photos Released

Newly discovered photos of Mildred and Richard Loving taken in 1965 have been made public. The Lovings were the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case that struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws. The photos were discovered during the making of a documentary, The Loving Story, due for release in February.  Click here to see the newly released photos.

Featured case: Loving v. Virginia.

The video below is a new release of a live performance of Nanci Griffith's musical tribute to the Lovings.

Law Music Video: We The People (Constitution Song)

This week's installment in the "Law Music Videos" series is We the People (Constitution Song) written and produced by Sandy Wilbur and performed by sonme talented youngsters from Cambridge Central School (NY?). Law music videos played before your class starts will positively contribute to learning.

The Negotiable Paper Bunch

It's a writing
Pay to order or bearer
Signed by the maker or the drawer
An unconditional promise to pay
A sum certain
In currency
On demand or at a definite time

It's a writing
Pay to order or bearer . . .
Oh, well - you'll get it after you watch the video.

Thank you, Sabrina Ursaner, for sharing you ditty with us on the internet.  Please visit Sabrina's YouTube channel and her Blog.



Brday Bunch theme:



Another Negotiable Instrument Song:

Law Lessong - Employment-at-Will

The next installment in the “Law Lessong” series is Employment -at-Will Song.  This simple video and song from a Power Point presentation helps students consider the issues of the Common Law doctrine of employment-at-will. Reference is made to the limited whistleblower protection under the Common Law  and the public policy exception to Employment-at-Will.

Learn more about Law Lessongs from the post found here.  More videos may be found at my youtube channel. Please feel free to use them in the classroom or as assignments or in any way that they work for you as an educational resource.

"Judicial Activism:" Overreaching Courts or Protection Against Tyranny of the Majority?

The election season has the potential to provide a trove of video clips raising issues about the proper role of courts in America. In the clip below, Republican Presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum criticizes the US Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut as inappropriate "judicial activism."  This clip can be a good discussion starter.

After students learn the case, what is their reaction? Is it, "Good grief, where does the Supreme Court get off creating a right of privacy!"  Or is it, "Thank goodness that the Supreme Court recognized that there is a right of privacy!" When the "people" of the great state of Connecticut (in the body of the elected representatives in the state legislature) vote to criminalize the use of contraception, is this an example of the "people" properly establishing the limits of acceptable conduct or is it the government overreaching into the very places where government should never venture? Should the Court have deferred to "the will of the people" of Connecticut or did it properly act to protect the people of Connecticut from the tyranny of its elected officials?

Does the Ninth Amendment's  reservation of rights to the people mean that only legislatures may determine the extent of those rights or is this the inherent function of the courts?

More Law/Justice Disconnect

In 1998, David Messenger of Chaplin, Connecticut bludgeoned his pregnant wife to death in front of their 5 year old child. He was subsequently found not guilty of manslaughter by reason of insanity and committed for 20 years to the custody of the State of Connecticut Psychiatric Security Review Board.  As the PSRB considers releasing Messenger into a halfway house to complete his sentence, the Hartford Courant reveals that Messenger posseses significant financial assets; including, incredibly, a portion of the $425,000 proceeds from the settlement of the wrongful death case filed against him by his wife's estate!  In the loopiest of legal loopholes:

State Probate Court Administrator Paul Knierim said there is nothing in the probate statutes that prohibits people found not guilty by reason of insanity from remaining as beneficiaries of the estates of their victims.

Is the court devoid of equitable powers to remedy this travesty?  The Courant article reports further:

And because David Messenger voluntarily gave up his parental rights to his son, after he killed his wife, the boy wasn’t eligible to challenge Messenger’s standing as the beneficiary of the estate.

Once again, how can this be?  The son is still a beneficiary of his mother's estate.  Why can't he challenge the status of other beneficiaries? If this article and the scenario that it paints is perplexing to legal professionals, how must it be perceived by the general public?

The law is not inherently equal to justice. Justice must be avidly pursued by a vigilant society.

The following video was posted on YouTube in 2008 by the family of Messenger's victim:

Civil Disobedience Exposes Law's Injustice

In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, below are a couple of videos celebrating the acts of civil disobedience performed by the Freedom Riders in Jackson, Mississippi in 1961. These, and other acts of peaceful civil disobedience help expose and publicize the injustice of segregation law to the nation and its national government.

The law is not inherently equal to justice. Justice must be avidly pursued by a vigilant society.