February 13, 2007

Forward

by PG

I'm still trying to cope with the idea that there's a "Supreme Fashion Court" at the University of Chicago, but OK:

IN THE SUPREME FASHION COURT
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL DISTRICT

People of the University of Chicago Law School, plaintiff,
v.
Lior Jacob STRAHILEVITZ, defendant.

FASHION CRIME COMPLAINT

Citation 1 G.Q. 1 (2007)

The People of the University of Chicago Law School, through the Justices of its Fashion Court, state and allege the following:

1. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, that defendant is an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School.

2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, that defendant teaches the legal subject of Property to Class of 2009 sections A, D, and E in Classroom III on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays of the University of Chicago Winter Quarter.

3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that basis alleges, that defendant did, on the 29th of January 2007, wear a grossly unmatched tie and shirt combination to his employment, to wit: a white dress shirt with vertical dark-blue stripes and a baby-blue tie with diagonal stripes.

4. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein each and every allegation of ¶¶ 1-3 of this Amended Complaint.

5. As a result of the actions described in ¶¶ 1-3 of this Amended Complaint, plaintiffs’ sense of vision was gravely offended and an otherwise hair-raising and exciting lecture on the history and constitutionality of zoning regulations was disrupted.

6. As a result of the actions described in ¶¶ 1-3 of this Amended Complaint, the defendant is alleged to have perpetrated the fashion crime of aggravated sensory assault against the plaintiffs.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendant as follows:

1. Declaratory relief in the form of declaring the defendant to be poorly dressed;

2. The penalty of death by wood-chipper against the defendant’s offending tie;

3. A two-week probationary period, to be supervised by a duly appointed probation officer of the Court; and

4. Court costs, to include one beer for each Justice at the next Bar Review.


Dated: _______________ By: __________________________

Hon. Joshua B. Elkins
Chief Justice
Supreme Fashion Court
Law School District
University of Chicago

And the response from the professor, who perhaps was focused on his driving to the exclusion of his clothing:
IN THE SUPREME FASHION COURT
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL DISTRICT

People of the University of Chicago Law School, plaintiff,
v.
Lior Jacob STRAHILEVITZ, defendant.

Defendant’s Answer

Citation 1 G.Q. 1 (2007)

Defendant Strahilevitz hereby invokes his constitutional right to a trial by a jury of his peers, and responds to the Fashion Crime Complaint as follows:

1. Defendant admits that he is presently an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

2. Defendant admits that he teaches the legal subject of Property to, inter alia, Class of 2009 sections A, D, and E in Classroom III.

3. Defendant denies that he did, on the 29th of January 2007, wear a grossly unmatched tie and shirt combination to his employment. Defendant further denies that on said date he wore a white dress shirt with vertical dark-blue stripes and a baby-blue tie with diagonal stripes. In actuality, the shirt stripes were brown, dark gray, and powder blue. The necktie in question displayed navy blue, Tahoe blue, white, and Cape Code gray stripes. Defendant further denies that he owns any baby-blue ties.

4. Defendant denies that plaintiffs’ sense of vision was gravely offended. To the extent that some plaintiffs suffered such aesthetic harms, they are not actionable. See, e.g., Wernke v. Halas, 600 N.E.2d 117 (Ind. App. 1992). Defendant further asserts that during Property class on January 30, 2007, several of the plaintiffs admitted that they approved of the ensemble in question. Defendant further asserts that a disappointingly large number of prospective plaintiffs were inexplicably absent from class on January 29, 2007, and could not possibly have suffered any damages. Defendant denies that he delivered an otherwise hair-raising and exciting lecture on the history and constitutionality of zoning regulations on January 29, 2007. Defendant does not lecture. Defendant uses the Socratic method.

5. Defendant denies having perpetrated the fashion crime of aggravated sensory assault against the plaintiffs.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant further asserts the following affirmative defenses:

1. Defendant asserts the defense of sovereign immunity. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999). A Professor in his class is the applicable sovereign, and defendant has not waived sovereign immunity via statute.

2. The instant suit is time barred. Defendant wore the tie in question in his Glass Menagerie photograph, which was published at the beginning of the academic year. The applicable statute of limitations requires that all complaints about neckties be brought within one quarter of their initial appearance. 34 R.F.C. Stat. § 45.2.a.

3. The instant suit violates the separation of powers. Joshua B. Elkins is a plaintiff in this suit, purportedly the Chief Justice of the Fashion Court, and served the complaint upon the defendant. One man acts as plaintiff, prosecutor, judge, and jury? Where the heck does Elkins think he is, France?

4. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and aesthetic judgments are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff Clowery said as much in class yesterday, and plaintiff Donoho even stated that he liked the look of the Stoyanoff house in State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley, 458 S.W.2d 305 (Mo. 1970).

5. Plaintiffs have failed to seek certification of this cause of action as a class action. Incorporating by reference the facts asserted in paragraph 5 of the defendant’s answer, defendant asserts that some purported plaintiffs were not injured by the defendant’s conduct and lack standing to sue. In such instances, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to seek to certify his suit as a class action, and plaintiff’s failure to do so is grounds for dismissal. See generally Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b) or something like that.

6. The instant suit violates the Defendant’s rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The purported crime of “sensory assault” was neither enacted by the legislature nor promulgated prior to the facts forming the basis for the plaintiff’s complaint.

COUNTERCLAIM

1. Defendant asserts the counterclaim of civil extortion. One of the plaintiffs, Joshua B. Elkins, demanded on January 12, 2007, that defendant “donate” an orange, lavender, and white striped tie to the CLF auction. Upon receiving defendant’s reply that he would instead selflessly donate a monopoly game night, complete with dinner, drinks, and desserts for five students, Elkins responded thusly:

I am saddened and dismayed at the news that your orange tie will not be donated to the auction. I was looking forward to getting my hands on it. I urge you to reconsider before the January 23rd deadline for auction item donations.

Worse still, I've looked over the list of items up for bid at the auction and there's none I'd like to have more than your tie. Crochet lessons? Oh, please. Even your (doubtlessly fun) Monopoly Night is no substitute. CLF is going to miss out on a thick-walleted, bad-decision-prone bidder for lack of a simple orange tie.
On January 30, 2007, plaintiff Elkins responded to defendants’ allegations by signing and serving the instant complaint upon the defendant. Plaintiff Elkins had no legal right to demand that defendant turn over his tie, engaged in misrepresentation by asserting his interest in owning the tie, when his true purpose was to destroy it, sought to abuse his power as a justice of the Fashion Court by demanding the defendant’s compliance, and caused the defendant financial distress. The orange tie was designed by the famous fashion designer Ike Behar and was relatively expensive, to say nothing of its sentimental value. See Perez v. Alcoa-Fujikura, 969 F. Supp. 961 (W.D. Tex. 1997).

2. Defendant asserts that plaintiff Elkins has committed the crime of sensory assault repeatedly during the winter quarter of classes. Defendant remained silent during the events in question, so as not to embarrass the plaintiff. But defendant is of the firm belief that plaintiff Elkins’ fashion sense “ain’t all that.”

3. Defendant asserts that plaintiff Elkins is guilty of the tort of “having too much time on his hands” and that this excess of leisure time be remedied by his being held responsible for knowing the facts of every noted case referenced in Dukeminier, Krier, Alexander, and Schill’s casebook “Property” for the remainder of the quarter.


MOTION

Defendant moves that “Justice” Elkins, purportedly the chief justice of the fashion court, be recused, given his obvious lack of objectivity, his alleged involvement in an extortion plot against the defendant, and his own written admission that he is “bad-decision-prone.”


Dated: January 31, 2007 By: __________________________

Lior Jacob Strahilevitz
Assistant Professor
University of Chicago Law School
WSBA # 30310

February 13, 2007 02:46 AM | TrackBack
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Sitting in Review
Armen (e-mail) #
PG (e-mail) #
Craig Konnoth (e-mail) #
About Us
Senior Status