Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Correct Answer was "O-V-Y"
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Q: "Where Does He Get Those Wonderful Toys?"
A: Gotham City Negotiable Promissory Note
The Problem
In order to carry out his crusade against crime and injustice in Gotham City, the Batman burns through significant resources. The production of countless gadgets, not to mention the research and development behind such production, must take place somewhere. As billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne owns Wayne Enterprises, his access to a highly advanced research and development department and its attached production facilities is a convenience unparalleled throughout the greater crime-fighting community. Yet if the company’s seemingly infinite production of bat-shaped vehicles did not recoup some manner of profit, many questions would be raised at meetings of its Board of Directors, and the identity of the Dark Knight would certainly be exposed. Further, if Bruce Wayne were to commingle personal and company funds to fight his war, the corporate veil would be of little defense against curious financial investigators.
The Transaction
In order to hide his nocturnal activities, while ensuring a ready supply of batarangs and utility belts, Bruce Wayne must supplant Wayne Enterprises’ massive bat-related expenditures with his own tragedy-tainted inheritance money. To that end, he provides Wayne Enterprises CEO Lucius Fox with fifteen million dollars per year, allocated monthly and evidenced by a promissory note. Mr. Fox had his attorney draw up the particulars in order to protect himself.After all, one does not leave such things to a depressive vigilante that dresses like a bat and spends his nights punching psychotic clowns.
NEGOTIABLE PROMISSORY NOTE
$15,000,000
PLACE OF EXECUTION: GOTHAM CITY, GOTHAM DATE: NOV. 5, 2009
- One Million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before Dec. 5, 2009.
- One Million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before Jan. 5, 2010.
- One Million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before Feb. 5, 2010.
- One Million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before Mar. 5, 2010.
- One Million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before Apr. 5, 2010.
- One Million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before May 5, 2010.
- One Million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before Jun. 5, 2010.
- One Million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before Jul. 5, 2010.
- One Million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before Aug. 5, 2010.
- One Million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before Sept. 5, 2010.
- One million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before Oct. 5, 2010.
- One million Two-hundred-fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00) on or before Nov. 5, 2010.[i]
| MAKER | PAYEE |
| Bruce Wayne c/o Alfred Pennyworth Wayne Manor: 1007 Mountain Dr., Gotham County Fax: 555-422-8626 | Lucius Fox, CEO, Wayne Enterprises 1 Finger St., Gotham City Fax: 555-369-2315 |
(a) Maker fails to pay any amount due hereunder in full when due and Maker fails to make such payment pursuant to the five-day notice provisions of Paragraph 3 above;
(b) Maker violates or otherwise fails to perform or observe any term, covenant, or agreement contained in this Note;
(c) a receiver is appointed for all or any part of Maker’s property;
(d) Maker files or has filed against it any petition under any provision of the Bankruptcy Code, or any future bankruptcy law;
(e) default under any collateral, mortgage or security agreement given as security for this note or as security for the guaranty of payment of the obligations of the Maker hereof, or under any extension or modification thereof;
(f) Maker fails to pay any tax when due;
(g) any misrepresentation is made to the Holder hereof by the Maker for the purpose of obtaining credit or an extension of credit to the maker;
(h) sale or transfer of substantially all of Maker’s assets; or
(i) Bruce Wayne ceases to be Director of the Wayne Foundation charitable organization.[v]
_________
Payee: Wayne Enterprises
_________
[Signature] By: Lucius Fox, CEO
[i] With noted financier Warren White controlling payments, Mr. Fox retains a level of plausible deniability as regards the nature of the funds. As the note satisfies the requirements of § 3-104(a) of the Uniform Commercial Code, it constitutes a negotiable instrument. Such a device allows the actors to sell the Note to other individuals, including other of Wayne Enterprises’ many clients (e.g., S.T.A.R. Labs, LexCorp, etc.), the better to camouflage the projects and launder the influx of funds. Using a payment schedule rather than a lump sum serves to minimize undue attention which the payments might otherwise draw, while still ensuring that sufficient capital remains available to meet the idiosyncratic and exacting specifications of the World’s Greatest Detective.
[ii] Beyond merely adding the extra security of bank-certification, requiring Bruce Wayne’s payments to be made by check rather than in cash provides an added layer of paperwork with which to ensure the billionaire’s continued cooperation, should investigators turn their attention to the activities of the Wayne Enterprises R&D division. With a long paper trail leading to Wayne Manor, and by extension to the Bat Cave, Mr. Fox also maintains a distinct advantage in any subsequent contractual negotiations.
[iii] Mr. Wayne is a busy man, prone to brief disappearances (whether away serving the Justice League of America or undercover as his Gotham underworld alter-ego, Matches Malone), and so the five day grace period exists to serve his unconventional schedule. Still, the period is relatively short, so that Mr. Fox may move quickly to cover his own assets, and those of the company, in the event of default.
[iv] In the event that the Batman’s needs exceed those funds provided for under the Paragraph 1 payment schedule, Mr. Wayne has the option of paying for the difference wherever a shortfall presents itself. This provision ensures that Mr. Fox is never forced to choose between illegally using corporate funds to fill a bat-order, on the one hand, or disappointing the scary man in the cowl, on the other.
[v] The safest way to shield Mr. Fox from the more dangerous aspects of Bruce Wayne’s double life is to ensure that a broad spectrum of activities and events are sufficient to trigger default under the Note, whereupon the Wayne Enterprises CEO may immediately move to recall the full extent of the Note’s obligations, unconditionally and without exception. Given that an alarming number of the Batman’s enemies have determined his true identity throughout the years (e.g., Dr. Thomas Elliot, Ra’s al Ghul, Dr. Hugo Strange, Edward Nigma, etc.), it is particularly advisable for Mr. Fox to regard certain events as warning signs that Bruce Wayne has in fact either been replaced by, or is under the influence of, such a dangerous individual. To that end, the occurrence of any event outlined in sections (a) through (i) of this provision should be seen to represent not only evidence of such financial difficulties as would ordinarily suggest to the prudent observer that outstanding debts should be collected, but also evidence that the Maker is not the real Bruce Wayne. In particular, if sections (h) or (i) are triggered, it may be assumed that the Maker is either under the influence of one of Jervis Tetch’s mind-control devices, or, alternatively, that Jane Doe has murdered Bruce Wayne and is wearing his skin as a disguise. The legacy of Thomas and Martha Wayne is embodied at Wayne Manor, and lives on through the charitable work of the Wayne Foundation; the real Bruce Wayne would never part with either.
[vi] Should Bruce Wayne (or, as noted, his doppelganger) default under the Note, this provision allows Mr. Fox to immediately move to recall the full extent of the Note's obligation, unconditionally and without exception. The accrual of interest on any unpaid balance thereafter increases the likelihood that Wayne Enterprises may claim a return from its investment in the Batman, without regard to the original pay schedule, even if the Dark Knight’s grip on the Gotham underworld may be in jeopardy. Putting a swift end to the contractual relationship under such circumstances serves to protect not only the corporation’s interests, but also Mr. Fox’s personal health and well-being.
[vii] In recognition of the fact that Mr. Fox's time is very valuable, this provision imposes a strict penalty for wasting that time. The CEO of Wayne Enterprises should be well-compensated for efforts expended due to the failure of an absent-minded young billionaire to maintain funds in his checking account sufficient to meet his obligations.
[viii] This provision further reinforces the negotiability of the promissory note, emphasizing that the Maker's obligations to the Holder are not subject to strict adherence to formal rules of presentment, protest, demand, or notice, but rather are absolute. The provision further waives both parties' right to elect a jury trial, in recognition of the fact that while members of the Gotham judiciary look favorably upon the efforts of the Batman, forcing Bruce Wayne to appear before a jury of his peers to justify Wayne Enterprises' massive expenditures would threaten the interests of all parties. Defenses which might be raised against a possible Holder of the Note are also waived in the interests of remaining discreet.
[ix] The natural and foreseeable consequences of Mr. Wayne's default should not fall on Mr. Fox, but rather should be borne by the billionaire.
[x] With nearly infinite resources, few concrete ties to the Gotham community, and a fleet of bat-shaped vehicles to traverse land, sea, and air, Bruce Wayne can afford to live comfortably anywhere in the world, and to do so at hardly a moment's notice. Requiring that the Maker waive venue and jurisdiction defenses ensures that the playboy may not simply pull up his local roots and evade the reach of the Gotham's judiciary whenever it pleases him to do so. It also ensures that the laws governing the contract are those well-known to Mr. Fox, rather than any number of obscure foreign edicts with which the globe-trotting Detective might be familiar.
[xi] As the Wayne Enterprises R&D division is not infallible, neither is the Batman invincible; thus, in the event of Bruce Wayne’s death, the present Note will continue in force and effect with his successors becoming responsible for the remaining debt obligation. Indeed, as it is likely that the mantle of the Batman will be taken up quickly by one of his sons, whether adoptive (Dick Grayson or Tim Drake) or biological (Damian Wayne), the need for Wayne Enterprises to continue to fund the ongoing mission of Gotham’s protector is likely to continue, and so the contractual relationship should remain place.
[xii] Just because the Caped Crusader never takes a day off doesn’t mean that Mr. Fox should have to be out double-checking the timeliness of payments on Thanksgiving.
[xiii] This provision once again reinforces the notion that the Maker's obligation to the Holder of the Note is absolute, subject to no exceptions, and dependent upon no additional event or occurrence. The provision further provides that the Holder, whether Lucius Fox or any subsequent individual, may fully exercise any rights found within the Note, or those provided by law.
[xiv] Given the efficacy of the Batman's well-known persuasive techniques, not to mention his access to manipulative technologies and chemicals, it is highly advisable that any change to the existing agreement be made in writing, and that consultation with both lawyers and accountants take place prior to any commitments being made. The Batman may adhere to a strict moral code, but good-faith contractual negotiation is not really his style.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Tranzit
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
#PreparingForMyFutureFail
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
A "Fun with QuickLaw" Thanksgiving
431 years later, climate change has made Frobisher's dream of a Northwest Passage a reality, and we mark his success by observing Canadian Thanksgiving on the second Monday in October.
Civil rights -- Torts -- Trespass -- False imprisonment -- Plaintiff being arrested by police officers -- Plaintiff suffering injuries -- Officers not informing him of his rights and not acting in good faith -- Plaintiff being granted $2,000 general damages plus special damages for false imprisonment, assault, arrest and subsequent personal injuries -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 10 -- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 25(1), 29(2), 101(1) -- Police Act, S.S. 1985, c. P-15, s. 19.

Diagonally across the back alley from [the house occupied by Remple and Padley] a more festive atmosphere prevailed. At that home resided Florence Tolofson, her son, Tracy and one Ralph Sand. The day previously, on the 11th, her daughter Karen, her husband Bruce Allan Schell (the plaintiff), and their children came from Melfort to celebrate Thanksgiving with Florence. They slept at her place on Saturday night and an early Thanksgiving turkey [aha!] meal around 1:00 p.m. was planned for Sunday. As fate would have it, Florence Tolofson's stove was not functioning, so around 8 o'clock on Sunday morning she took the bird over to her daughter Marilyn's place ... to use her oven. At that house, the children were still in bed; Barry Remple and Bruce Padley (one of them a boyfriend of Marilyn -- both men strangers to Florence) were up and around. Marilyn and another sister Roxanne were due to return from Melfort for dinner.
The plaintiff realizing that he had left his purse [his purse, Your Honour? is the plaintiff will.i.am?] in the cubby hole of his own business truck also parked in front of Florence's house, went to retrieve it. A marked police vehicle driven by the defendant Hunter pulled up behind the truck. There are different versions of the conversation that took place between the two. Hunter says that he began talking by saying, "Good day" and asking the plaintiff who he was. The plaintiff answered Bruce Schell. Then Hunter told the plaintiff why he was there and that he was interested in the house he had just come from. The plaintiff, he said, seemed somewhat annoyed about the intrusion, and told him that he knew nothing about an armed robbery and that he had nothing more to say to him ...
Hunter asked him if he would like to come with him to the police cruiser, to which the plaintiff asked if he was under arrest. When Hunter assured him that he was not, the plaintiff then said that he had nothing more to say to him and he entered the house. Thus ended their conversation.
At that moment, [co-defendant] Hunter who had come up from behind, jumped the plaintiff, pushed him to the ground with his face in the gravel with an arm lock around his neck. He pinned the plaintiff's other arm around his back. [Hunter] eventually got the handcuffs on [the plaintiff] with Truba's help and placed him in the patrol car. While on the ground, the plaintiff's face was red, he could not breathe and nearly passed out. The goings-on in the back alley attracted the attention of neighbours. The plaintiff's wife asked Sergeant Truba what was going on and he replied he did not have to tell her anything. The plaintiff, while on the ground beneath Hunter had the humiliation of seeing his wife and children staring at him in disbelief. He could not believe that this was happening to him.
[Schell] willingly participated in a lineup. The photograph of the lineup ... is quite revealing. The plaintiff is number 2, while the two suspects, Remple and Padley are numbers 10 and 3. The plaintiff is clearly larger than either of the other two. The Tolofson brothers who accompanied the plaintiff in the back alley prior to the fracas are even larger than he is -- Ken weighs 255 pounds and measures 6 feet 3 inches; Tracy is 6 feet to 6 feet 1 inch and weights 210 pounds. They are huge. How either defendant could mistake them for the accused is difficult to fathom particularly in view of the fact that prior to setting out on the raid the police were given artist's composite drawings of the suspects ... . [T]hey were told that one of the suspects was a white male between 5 feet 8 inches to 6 feet in height, fairly thin build with blond collar-length hair and a mustache. That description hardly fits the plaintiff. Sergeant Truba said he was searching for a Luger. The bulge he saw in the plaintiff's jacket were consistent with his two hands in his pockets and nothing else -- certainly not with a 5" by 7" Luger. The plaintiff had no weapon on him and this was easily ascertained by Sergeant Truba when he frisked him.
[No officer within the purview of the Act] shall be personally liable for any loss or damage suffered by any person by reason of anything in good faith done ... pursuant to or in the exercise or supposed exercise of the powers conferred by this Act or the regulations.
(a) the process or warrant under which he makes the arrest; or(b) the reason for the arrest."
- spontaneous frisking of the plaintiff by Sgt. Truba;
- Officer Hunter grounding and arresting Mr. Schell after having already cleared the man of any wrongdoing; and
- the officers' failure to apprise themselves of relevant facts (and their blindness to the facts they had already ascertained) before jumping to a conclusion "which was entirely wrong and totally baseless".
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Litigation: Not Just for Jerks (But It Helps)
3) Law and Literature
- No mystery here: 25-page literature essay and no exam, plus it's the only class in which I got an A+. Or an A, for that matter. As if I needed confirmation that I'm in the wrong racket.
- The workload was light: one or two short stories related to the practice of law and/or written by current or former legal practitioners. Authors ranged from Kafka to Atwood. My essay related to John Mortimer and the Rumpole series of serio-comic mysteries.
- I worked hard in this class, but I thought that I might fall into the trap of focusing hard on the thing I like the most, to the detriment of my other classes, so I strove to maintain a balance and not put off other things in favour of this. And I got a good mark in this and mediocre-to-bad marks in everything else anyway.
- I'm not what you would call "ethical". (I would estimate that I've stolen 30GBs of music from the internet people in the last six weeks, not to mention numerous television shows and movies, most of which I haven't even listened to/watched. And I shoot defenseless creatures.) But this class was taught by a Toronto criminal law practitioner with a great deal of courtroom experience and a flair for hypothetical ethical dilemmas with no right answers.
Q: "You've been forced to put your client on the stand (often a bad sign) and during cross-examination, he starts telling a story you've never heard before and that Your Friend is going to use to bury him. You're desperate to get him to shut his mouth. What do you do?"
A: You can't do jack, of course, but my response, "Pull the fire alarm", made him laugh long and hard, which is why that particular question stayed with me. (... It was funnier in context.) - Now he was in the right racket: his audience of would-be criminal lawyers would leave filled with dread one week, inspired and galvanized the next.
- The exam was a sprint: twelve questions in two hours, or one question per chapter of the textbook, with fifteen minutes to answer each question. I had sweated through my clothes by the end but I got a B+, which was (tied with) my best mark up to that point.
- This one is ongoing, but it already seems like the most rewarding course for someone who might like to litigate (next to Evidence, which is a prerequisite). Taught by a dozen current or recent practitioners, it takes students through the trial process from opening to closing, with classes devoted to direct examination, introducing exhibits, qualifying expert witnesses, and cross-examining and impeaching witnesses. One day we cross-examined police witnesses played by actual TPS officers.
- It's pass/fail, which is too bad, because I think I might actually have gotten a good mark in it. But it wouldn't be fair, because in this class, unlike many classes, it's clear that there's a limit to what students can actually pick up -- some just have it and some don't. Which is fine: many, many people have no intention of litigating, and there are certainly other, arguably more effective (and definitely cheaper) ways of dispute resolution. But effective rhetoric, trial strategy and examination skills are definitely valuable assets even if you plan to do all your negotiating behind the scenes.
- I'm once again falling into the favesies trap, devoting way too much time to a pass/fail course only because I prefer the material over reading substantive law. Systematically destroying someone using only his or her own words is the most gratifying thing you can do in law school. Better still, the witness is one of your peers, and if you really shut him/her down, he/she will applaud you at the end.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Tetris Dreams
Street Justice
Thursday, October 1, 2009
You are like the Buzzing of Flies to Him!
1 can't argue with you there

