|
|
Join us each Tuesday as Bob Ingersoll analyzes how the law
is portrayed in comics then explains how it would really work.
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
THE LAW IS A ASS for 01/09/2001
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 77
Originally written as installment # 66 and published in Comics Buyer's Guide issue # 622, October 18, 1985 issue
Before any of you get upset by the final section of this column, in which I called a collection of Steve Ditko's recent--and to his mind, anyway--serious efforts humor stories, just remember this humor is subjective. One man's magnum opus is another man's Opus the Penguin.
******
"The Law is a Ass"
Installment # 77
by
Bob Ingersoll
Today, we have a little humor.
No, that doesn't mean that I'm finally going to put some jokes into the column. It means that through the auspices of kind readers, who sent me copies of old stories, I have three humor comic stories to write about.
Dana Gabbard of Los Angeles sent me the first story. Well, not the actual story, but a photostatic copy of the story. Yes photostatic, you think I want Xerox's lawyers on my case? The story in question is "The Golden Helmet," one of Carl Barks's Donald Duck stories. I'd like to be able to tell you where this story first appeared. The bad news is the copy that Dana sent me didn't include the issue number. The good news is we have the Iinternet; obviously otherwise you wouldn't be reading this on-line column. The even better news is that some Internet sites are actually useful. Sure there are 1,753 sites dedicated to posting vidcaps of all of Demi Moore's nude scenes, but there are also sites like--Hey, Justin, can I mention other web sites here?--the Grand Comic Book Data Base Project at www.comics.org. Believe me, this is a useful site, and I'd be saying that even if my brother weren't one of its original driving forces. As the name implies, this site is a working, searchable database of comic-book stories. Lots of comic-book stories. Lots and lots of comic-book stories, all searchable. If one goes there and enters, for example, "The Golden Helmet" in the appropriate search field, one finds out that this story was printed in Dell Comics's Four Color Comics # 408, the July 1952 issue. Which means, not only did I find out where this story first appeared, it's only a few months older than me.
In"The Golden Helmet," Donald working in a museum finds an old deerskin map and ship's log in a Viking long ship on display in the museum. The log claims that in the year 901 A.D., Olaf the Blue, a Viking explorer, landed on the coast of North America. To prove that he landed there Olaf, buried a golden helmet on the coast of Labrador.
Now, and here comes the tricky part, when Olaf landed in Labrador, he did so under the "Code of Discovery," a law passed in 792 A.D. when the rulers of all the nations gathered and wrote, "Any man who discovers a new land beyond the seas shall be the owner of that land, unless he claims it for his king." Frankly, I've never heard of this Code of Discovery. Is it a real historical law, or is it something Barks made up for the story? I tried typing www.codeofdiscovery.com in my browser's address line, but that didn't take me anywhere. I tried a Google.com search on "the Code of Discovery," but a google was how many zeroes my search gave. Any history buffs out there who can answer this question?
Personally, I tend to doubt that there ever really was a Code of Discovery, as opposed to something Barks made up. Under the Code, if a person finds a new land and doesn't claim it for his king, he gets to keep it for himself. Do you have any guess as to the life expectancy of anyone who discovered a new land and kept it for himself instead of claiming it for his king? Snitches in the Witness Rejection Program have better odds.
Anyway, Olaf didn't claim North America for his king. So under the Code of Discovery North America belongs to him. The comedic complications arise when Azure Blue, who claims he is the eldest descendant of Olaf, comes on the scene with his attorney, Lawyer Sharky. As Olaf's eldest descendant, Azure is also Olaf's heir and the owner of North America by right of inheritance. Azure intends to find the golden helmet, which will prove that Olaf owns North America, and, because he is Olaf's heir, claim his property.
Naturally, Donald challenges Azure's claim. How can Azure prove that he is Olaf the Blue's nearest of kin. Sharky answers, " 'Flickus, flackus, fumdeedledum!' which is legal language for 'How can you prove that he isn't?'" Shows you how well I studied Latin in law school. I though it said something about noisy lighters. Anyway, with that compelling argument Azure takes the map and sets out to find the golden helmet.
The rest of the story details Donald and the kids' race to the coast of Labrador to beat Azure to the helmet and undo his claim to the helmet; but the rest of the story doesn't deal with the legal questions posed in the set up, so let's move onward. I don't want to down play this story, folks. It's neat stuff. In turn Azure, the custodian of the history museum where Donald found the map, Donald himself and finally Sharky come to possess the golden helmet. With it they can become the heir of Olaf, the Blue and rightful owner of North America, because, "Flickus, flackus, fumdeedledum!" how can anyone prove they're not?
Look, read the story. You won't be sorry. It's got to be twice as good as whatever mutant book Marvel put out this week and three times as good as whatever mutant book comes out next week. Maybe more.
End of plug. Now back to the law.
Our first question is this: is the Code of Discovery still enforceable so that Azure Blue could use it to claim he owned all of North America? Of course not. Even if it did exist, and even if it's never been repealed (which is the reason that the story gave for the law still being enforceable) it ain't worth the paper that whatever mutant book Marvel put out this week is printed on. First of all, when the various component countries of North America won or were granted their independence, all other claims went out the window. You see, the component parts had won their independence from whatever country had the most valid prior claim to it. I don't care how they got that valid claim, maybe they took it in a war. Maybe they bought it from Olaf. Maybe someone filled an inside straight. The point is that the entire world recognized another claim as being more valid than Olaf's, and then recognized that America won its independence from whatever claimant or claimants the entire world recognized as being more valid than Olaf. All of which means that Olaf had nothing to pass on to his heirs.
Second, this Code of Discovery hasn't been enforced in centuries. Under a legal concept called latches, a law which hasn't been enforced in a long time, even if it is still on the books, is deemed to be stale and no longer enforceable. Whatever reason existed for the law to be valid is obviously no longer in existence, because if the reason did exist, someone would have tried to enforce it sometime. Thus, in order to keep laws fresh, old and stale laws which no one has tried to use in a long time are deemed to have been repealed by non-use. Would that we could get the same courtesy from Dunkin' Donuts.
Our second question is: even if someone had the helmet, would that be enough to prove that he was the owner of North America? In other words, would his claim to be Olaf's heir hold up, until someone proved he wasn't?
If you answered "no" again, you're doing great. In a law suit the person asserting the positive has the burden of proving that the positive exists. What do you mean, "What does that mean?" I thought it was very clear. It means that the litigant who is asserting some fact is true in order to support his claim is the one who must prove that the fact is, in fact, a fact. His opponent doesn't have to prove that the fact isn't true. Example: a man who seeks to claim under a will on the ground that he is an heir of the testator must prove that he is an heir; he must offer evidence establishing his lineage. The estate doesn't have to prove that claimant isn't an heir. In other words, Azure would have to prove that he was Olaf's heir, Donald wouldn't have to prove that Azure wasn't. So Lawyer Sharky's compelling argument isn't. Despite the fact that it's in mock Latin, it's just so much fumdeedledum. It is, in fact, just plain dumb.
Actually, there is one correct legal point in the story. It accurately portrayed how international law is created. All the nations meet and sign treaties which are to have the force of law between them. Unfortunately, the story neglected one important aspect of international law, one which gives us yet another reason why Azure's claim under the Code of Discovery would not stand up in court. The story forgot that for the Code of Discovery to be enforced, the nations of the world would have to honor their treaties; something they do with the all the dependability and frequency of Danger Girl.
Before we move on, Dana wanted me to comment on the satire of lawyers as portrayed by Sharky. I had no problems with it. Sharky was the prototypical shyster lawyer you always see in satires. A managing partner of the firm Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe. (Of course I know that's an old joke, but remember the proverb, "Jokus, laughus, nova," which means "There's no such thing as an old joke, because there will always be a new audience for it." Can I help it if none of my readers, or any reader for that matter, is young enough to be the new audience for that particular joke?)
No, I had no problems with Sharky. Just so long as everyone remembers that he was a satirical figure and not representational of the entire field. Not all lawyers are like Sharky, just as not all phone solicitors are pains in the neck...
Well, not all lawyers are like Sharky, anyway.
******
Alan Hose of San Francisco sent me the next humorous story. It's called "Trial and Error" and can be found in issue # 138 of Life With Archie, October, 1973. (Assuming, of course that said comic can be found. A dubious proposition considering the average comic book store stocks back issues of the Archie comics every time a new issue of Danger Girl comes out.)
In the story, Mr. Lodge is on trial for bribing Senator Becroft. The Senator, himself, has been conveniently missing for ten days, while on a hunting trip wasn't available to deny that a bribe was offered. Archie is called as a prosecution witness and testifies that one day he saw Lodge give an envelope to Becroft. Immediately, Archie's friends denounce him as a traitor and a fink, who has sold out his girl friend's father. Fortunately, Senator Becroft shows up in the nick of time--not to mention the second to last page--and testifies that what Lodge gave him in the envelope was a deed to four hundred prime acres for a county youth camp. Becroft goes on to detail how he and Lodge were acting to circumvent some greedy land developers and preserve some of our natural forest land.
The charges are dropped and Mr. Lodge is freed. Outside he berates the other kids for mistreating Archie. Archie testified truthfully as to what he saw, and "that's what our court system is all about!" (Cue the background orchestra to play the Battle Hymn of the Republic here.)
Aside from the fact that this story tries to teach its intended youth audience an important lesson in civic responsibility, very little can be said about its portrayal of our legal system. It asks us to assume that a prosecutor would proceed with a bribery case against a prominent industrialist with no more evidence than that said industrialist was seen giving an envelope to a senator. No evidence as to what was in the envelope. No other evidence linking the industrialist to a possible bribe. In fact no evidence of a bribe at all. In fact, no evidence. It was, as the song says, plenty of nothing. So much nothing, in fact, that all the senator had to do was say the envelope had a deed in it not a bribe, and the case fell apart. I guess it was a case of "Flickus, flackus, fumdeedledum!" could the DA prove it wasn't a deed?
I'm sorry. Prosecutors are elected officials. And if they want to stay elected, they don't risk looking foolish to the electorate by bringing bogus, easily-destroyed cases based on evidence flimsier than a Victoria's Secret fabric swatch. Okay, Hamilton Burger kept getting elected despite how foolish Perry Mason made him look week after week, but remember Burger won half his cases, the ones that followed the cases he tried against Perry; the ones where he had an in-court confession to bolster his case. But no other prosecutor is going to get reelected by looking foolish. Moreover, prosecutors also won't risk losing campaign possible contributions from wealthy industrialists by subjecting them to criminal prosecutions with cases so weak that Baby Bop could beat them.
Another great moment in legal nonsense occurs when the prosecutor is making an argument to the jury, "Do we see a pattern emerging? A pattern of payoffs? Collusion? Bribery of public officials?" The defense counsel objects and the judge rules as follows, "Sustained! Mr. Prosecutor, I would caution you to bear in mind the laws of libel."
Laws of libel? Libel?
We have a judge who doesn't even know the difference between libel and slander. Libel is a defamatory statement which is written down, slander is a defamatory statement which is spoken. The prosecutor's words were spoken, so he had to be worried about slander laws not the libel laws.
Actually, no he didn't, because the judge forgot another important legal point; things said in a court of law and which are a part of a case are absolutely privileged against slander actions. This policy is created so that all parties and witnesses in a law suit will be able to talk freely without having to worry that they will be sued later for defamation of character. Courts hold freedom of expression in a trial higher than anything else including the fact that someone got his feeling hurt by something a witness said. You got that? Anything said in court that is a valid part of the case being tried is not subject to the laws of slander and is not actionable.
Besides, this was a criminal prosecution for bribery, so of course the prosecutor is going to accuse Lodge of bribing Senator Becroft. What did the judge think the prosecutor was going to say, "Mr. Lodge is a just peach of a guy who couldn't possibly bribe anyone and I don't even know why we're all here today?"
Laws of libel, indeed!
******
Moving on to our last humor story. Robin Snyder sent me for my perusal one of the "Mr. A" stories in The Ditko Collection.
Humor stories?
You betchum, Red Rider.
I've got the whole Ditko Collection. I even made the mistake of reading it in one sitting. Ditko may have meant them to be serious, but these hopelessly overwritten, overblown morality plays in which every common, uneducated street punk or mugger is capable of making elaborate speeches about how his needs are more important than anyone else's to justify his criminal acts and which are responded to in kind by Mr. A's, "There is no grey, just black and white, you're either good or bad, and if you step on a crack and break your mother's back, I'm going to pulp you," make me laugh uncontrollably. The characters in a Mr. A story are preachier than Captain America, have all the dimensions of a piece of string, and are as one-sided as a game of "Horse" between Larry Bird and my father.
Story after story all the same and all uproarious. My favorite has to be the last one in the collection, the one which ended with a standard-sized panel of a guy giving a long speech, so long, in fact, that one huge word balloon filled up the panel, leaving no room for any actual art other than a tiny stick figure of the speaker down in one corner, no more than a quarter of an inch in height. I'm telling you, this book is a hoot! Just don't read all the stories at one sitting, like I did. That way lies permanent brain damage.
BOB INGERSOLL
<< 01/02/2001 | 01/09/2001 | 01/16/2001 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
