[Dixielandjazz] Re: Unwritten Rules/Mr. Gunter's Obstinacy
Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:13:11 -0500
Hi Bob and all,
>The freedoms guaranteed us under our form of government are "specious at
>best?" I beg to differ.
Please. I said the *argument* is specious. You've misplaced my modifier.
Don't you go flag-waving around me, ye scoundrel.
>I'm objectively arguing that you have the right to hand out your business
>card. It's not illegal. As a matter of fact, it may be illegal for you try
>to prevent me from handing out my card if, as you say, our lawbooks are
>of mandates that qualify our liberties when they interfere with the
>liberties of others!!
The point is, I believe it *is* illegal - a violation of agency law.
agency: an overview
Agency law is concerned with any "principal"-"agent" relationship; a
relationship in which one person has legal authority to act for another.
Such relationships arise from explicit appointment, or by implication. The
relationships generally associated with agency law include guardian-ward,
executor or administrator-decedent, and employer-employee.
The law of agency is based on the Latin maxim "Qui facit per alium, facit
per se," which means "he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it
himself." Agency, in its legal sense, nearly always relates to commercial or
>1. How does my handing out my card to a manager of a club interfere with
>anyone's freedom. And, conversely, how does some "unwritten rule" interfer
>with my freedom?
You're interfering with your "employer's" freedom to make a living, if you
want to take it down to that level.
>2. Cite one law in any US law book (take your time on this) which qualifies
>my liberty to pass out my business card!
I have neither the facility, nor the time. I'm not even supposed to be here
- I'm supposed to be contributing to your social security, pops! ;-) I'm
sure they're there. Perhaps someone can help me with this. Aren't you a
lawyer, Mr. Barbone?
I know in my heart I am right. I find it hard to believe that this issue
has not come up in some courtroom somewhere in some context. My heartfelt
love of my country demands it.
>You guys are all arguing how you "feel" about this issue.
>I "feel" the same way you do.
>But I "know" I'm right from a legal point of view and that my arguments
>not yet been successfully challenged.
I believe you to be rousing rabble, sir. You are little more than a
dignified and articulate Ernie Carson ;-).
>Please don't offer the argument that a constitutionally protected freedom
>which we ALL ENJOY is somehow "unethical" or has some "unwritten rule"
>denying us this freedom!
You haven't convinced me that you're defending a "constitutionally protected
freedom." Still, there are plenty of constitutionally protected freedoms
that are unethical, or violate unwritten rules. Shouldn't there be hyphens
in that phrase, BTW?
The World's Most Modest Man and
The Nominal Leader of The Wooden Nickel Jass Band