: : poof : :

Storytellers have an interdependent relationship with their narratives. If you have ever told a lie, you understand. Stories take on a life of their own, as you consider the potential ramifications of each contingent piece. Definite sets of things happen as results of specific other things. If you throw an ax at me, only a few things can immediately happen, and our relationship will be forever changed. Events evolve. When we create or discover a narrative, we live by its logic. Upon consideration, a moment compels a series of moments modulated by a voice, a single perspective, a personal narrative, which is to say a story. Stories are fabrications of reality, conveyance mechanisms of fact, fiction, and assertion. Stories are contrived, whereas narratives just exist. Narratives are there to be discovered. They are the veins of human action left by life’s tendency toward disorder. Narrative is entropy through time

State and Federal Models of the Interaction between Statutes and Unwritten Law

This Article argues that modern courts read individual federal statutes to encompass more issues than identically worded state statutes would be understood to cover. There are many questions that regularly arise in the implementation of statutes but that the typical statute does not say anything about. When a state statute is silent on such questions, state courts often conclude that the questions lie beyond the statute\u27s domain and that the answers therefore come from the state\u27s version of the common law. But when a federal statute is silent on the same sorts of questions, courts often act as if answers should be imputed to the statute itself. As an illustration of this difference, the Article studies how courts decide whether forum law governs cross-border events. When state courts need to determine whether one of their own state\u27s statutes supplies rules of decision for a case involving cross-border events, they commonly apply an overarching set of choice-doctrines that they think of as operating outside the statute. By contrast, when a federal statute does not specifically address its applicability to cross-border events, courts use a canon of construction—the presumption against extraterritoriality—to import the necessary distinctions into the statute. Similar examples abound. In a range of different contexts, general legal questions that would be thought to fall outside the domain of the typical state statute (and that courts might therefore handle as a matter of unwritten law) are presumed to lie inside the domain of the typical federal statute (with the result that courts handle them under the rubric of statutory interpretation). To explain this pattern, the Article points to practical concerns that came into focus after Erie Railroad Co v Tompkins; under modern doctrine, one way for federal judges to avoid having to accept whatever state courts say about questions that arise in connection with the implementation of a federal statute is to read the statute itself to encompass those questions. The consequences of shoehorning general legal questions into the domains of individual federal statutes depend on the interpretive techniques that courts use. To the extent that the rubric of statutory interpretation leads courts to give statutespecific answers to such questions, the federal model can produce dramatically different results than the state model would. Those differences will be muted if courts instead read each individual federal statute as implicitly incorporating generic principles of unwritten law. Even then, though, the mechanism through which those principles operate can have subtle effects

Malibu Jackson 3: Boldest Move Yet - A Study of Screenwriting, Parody, and Mullet-Clad Action Heroes

This project is a parody short film script, targeting blockbuster action films of the 1980s. It is written in accordance with the traditional three-act structure of screenplays, which plays an important role in the writing arena of the film industry. It is a comedy, the theory of which is discussed in this paper, and more specifically parody. Like most short films and their scripts, it does not seek to be profitable, but rather serves the purpose of demonstrating skill and achievement on behalf of the screenwriter and filmmaker. This paper also includes a brief synopsis of the project

The Outcome of Surgery versus Medical Management in the Treatment of Vesicoureteral Reflux

Evaluation of the relative merits of medical versus surgical management of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) has been limited by the few prospective studies comparing these strategies. Among those trials that have been reported, the only consistent positive finding has been that incidence of febrile UTI is lower among children undergoing surgical treatment in comparison with medical treatment. Studies have not found significant differences in overall incidence of UTI, or in rates of new renal scarring or progression of existing scarring. It is likely that there is a subset of children with VUR who do benefit from aggressive treatment of their VUR, but we are not yet able to fully determine which children these are. It is hoped that future research will further clarify which treatments are useful in which children

Does History Defeat Standing Doctrine?

According to the Supreme Court, the Federal Constitution limits not only the types of matters that federal courts can adjudicate, but also the parties who can bring those matters before them. In particular, the Court has held that private citizens who have suffered no concrete private injury lack standing to ask federal courts to redress diffuse harms to the public at large. When such harms are justiciable at all, the proper party plaintiff is the public itself, represented by an authorized officer of the government. Although the Court claims historical support for these ideas, academic critics insist that the law of standing is a recent invention of federal judges. Indeed, it is frequently said that [t]here was no doctrine of standing prior to the middle of the twentieth century. According to this view, the forms of action did much of the work of standing, defining when a plaintiff had the type of injury that, together with the defendant\u27s breach of duty, would support a claim for relief. But judges did not otherwise inquire into standing; a court would deal with standing-related concerns simply by asking whether the matter before it fit one of the recognized forms of action. Only in the twentieth century, so the story goes, did a distinctive body of standing doctrine develop

Did They Really Tweet That?

https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/reu2022_computerscience/1000/thumbnail.jp

Residential back taxes and revitalization: a study of Winnipeg's Spence neighbourhood

report: ii, 28 pp.; ill., digital fileThe City of Winnipeg considers the Spence neighbourhood a Major Rehabilitation Area. Socio-economic conditions have deteriorated and the number of boarded-up and abandoned homes has increased. Community groups are calling for revitalization as the conditions escalate toward irreversible decay. Unfortunately, there are numerous barriers to urban revitalization; one obstacle for the redevelopment of homes in this area is the City of Winnipeg’s stringent tax policy. Many of the abandoned units have back taxes owing and are left vacant for up to five years before the city claims title to the property. If a private homeowner is in tax arrears and wants to give or sell the home for a nominal amount to a non-profit group, the city stresses that back taxes still have to be paid. Once the five-year tax sale process is completed, homes are easy to acquire from the city. The purpose of this investigation is to illustrate how detrimental a five-year waiting period can be for the already neglected housing stock and the perception of the neighbourhood, as well as its role in accelerating urban decay.Institute of Urban Studie