Post #514 AMERICAN “SNAKE-OIL” JURISPRUDENCE

We have, at last, decided to no longer silently, contain our disappointment and outrage, at the continual misleading and distorted treatment of our statutory and precedential law, as related by the popularly celebrated “legal experts,” regularly appearing in the mass media.

Fundamentally, there is no more vital and useful function of an attorney, than to professionally and accurately, render his best advice, on the vast compendium of the (sometimes, enigmatic) law, as decreed in our Statutes and decided by judicial precedent.

Regarding two legal subjects, selected for this writing, we would challenge any lawyer, notably including television’s, pedantically smiling, renowned and authoritative experts, borrowed from the oaken and hallowed halls of Harvard, Stamford or Columbia Law Schools, to discern any degree of error, in our following legal critique.

Non- Disclosure Agreements regarding Trump Illegal Assignations:

The public media, has, on numerous occasions, presented to the public, its fallacious view, that a great many of the paid escorts (prostitutes) with whom Donald J. Trump had illegally, paid sexual relations, were legally prohibited from the revelation of the facts and circumstances of their respective assignations, because of their previous execution of a “Nondisclosure Agreement,” executed by them. This perverse understanding of Contract Law, remarkably, has not been criticized by anyone, inclusive of the celebrated legal icons.

It has universally and eternally, been a precedential and fixed part of Anglo-American Jurisprudence, that contracts, involving criminality or immorality, are and have never been, enforceable. A written Agreement concerning prostitution, or any other, illegal or societally disapproved activity, such as, gambling, usury, and the like, is not worth the paper, on which it has been, unprofessionally and unethically, construed.

Non-disclosure Agreements, in fact, were devised and, properly have their context, in the world of trade and commerce, and purposed to prevent the unauthorized revelation, of proprietary business information, such as design, formula, process, and private customer lists.

Advance Written Waiver of Liability, for Trump’s June rally:

Every freshman law student is taught, and knows, that Releases from liability, executed in advance, are voidable (“unenforceable”). As illustration, A, intending to take B, as a passenger in his automobile, in A’s trip from NYC to Albany, requests of B a General Release from liability, should they be involved in an auto accident. Should there actually be an accident, the executed and notarized, Release, is of absolutely no legal consequence. The same legal impediment applies, for reasons of sane public policy, to advance Releases of liability for any tort or negligent liability.

Why is the public being knowingly, misled?  Is it an unrelated circumstance, that the above two misadvised, matters concern Trump? Why no critical comment from the (non-partisan) media established, legal gurus?

Additionally, does it seem at all appropriate, to mislead the (already misguided) Trump partisans, into the risk of danger, of a potentially lethal illness (without legal remedy), at his ill-timed rally?

We welcome and would sincerely appreciate, explanatory or critical comment.

-p.

Published by

plinyblogcom

Retired from the practice of law'; former Editor in Chief of Law Review; Phi Beta Kappa; Poet. Literature Student and enthusiast.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s