The Volokh Conspiracy
[Eugene Volokh, March 17, 2006 at 11:31pm] Trackbacks
"A Certain Four-Letter Verb

for 'copulate,' of possible Scandinavian origin (see Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) p. 463, col. 2) appears frequently in the record along with its gerundive and a related noun involving the maternal parent," says footnote 1 of this California Court of Appeal opinion.

Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.

Beerslurpy (mail) (www):
Wow, what salty characters.
3.18.2006 2:45am
Stephen Macklin (mail) (www):
I'm deeply offended. Do they have an embassy anywhere?
3.18.2006 6:30am
markm (mail):
Was this officer Alex Fagan the Alex Fagan, Jr. of "Fajitagate"?
3.18.2006 7:07am
Ron Hardin (mail) (www):
``Fuck'' is not actually a verb at all in its ``fuck you'' sense.

For this see Quang Phuc Dong ``English Sentences Without Overt Grammatical Subject'' in Zwicky et al., eds., _Studies out in Left Field : Defamatory Essays Presented to James D. McCawley on the occasion of his 33rd or 34th birthday_, recently rereleased.
3.18.2006 7:44am
Visitor Again:
Yes, as the opinion reveals, it's one of the Fajitagate cops, Alex Fagan, Jr. He took the fifth because of the pendency of the Fajitagate case. The plaintiff's counsel claimed the municipal lawyer defending the cops deliberately tried to provoke a mistrial so that the retrial would take place after the Fajitagate trial.

What a farce.

The municipal lawyer representing the cops gets away with persistent violation of the trial court's rulings, as well as othr egregious misconduct, without even a contempt citation from the trial court. The defense verdict is upheld under the state law harmless error test despite this persistent and egregious defense lawyer misconduct. And the alap on the wrist the appellate court gives the municipal defense lawyer gets buried becaue the opinion is not published,

The entire course of events is disgraceful, reflecting as much on the courts, both trial and appellate, as it does on the plaintiff, the cops and even the municipal defense lawyer.
3.18.2006 9:45am
keith_hilzendeger:
Look, either you're so prudish that you have to write a three-line footnote full of 50-cent words disavowing any intention to use such a disgusting, revolting, vile word, or you're mature enough to present the facts of the encounter, profanity and all, to levelheaded adult readers who understand that, well, sometimes people use that register of language. You can't be both.

Perhaps the third edition of Academic Legal Writing will address this. See also Bibby v. Phila. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257, 259-60 &n.3 (3d Cir. 2001).
3.18.2006 10:28am
Visitor Again:
This was not the either/or situation you posit. The footnote appeared at the end of a sentence that contained "fucking." And variants of the word appeared throughout the statement of facts, without even asterisks. Apparently the court was bent on demonstrating that it was both learned and mature (not prudish).
3.18.2006 12:28pm
Beerslurpy (mail) (www):
There seemed to be a lot of shameful behavior taking place in that trial, more than I would have assumed judges generally tolerate. Arent lawyers supposed to sanctioned for misbehavior like that, or is there no punishment short of disbarrment?
3.18.2006 12:58pm
Brandonks (mail) (www):
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handling of sex toys (as constitutional issue) has been on the rise. The Kansas legislature is considering a bill on the subject, and I have an improvement to suggest:

The Constitutionality of Sex Toys and a Solution for Kansas
3.18.2006 10:48pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Keith, Visitor: I think the court was joking -- it was neither prudish (for reasons Visitor noted) nor did it think it was being especially learned and mature (since there's nothing terribly learned and mature about saying "maternal parent" instead of "mother").
3.20.2006 5:07pm

PicoSearch
Help