Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2033
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

Post by johnkarls »

.
Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz


My deepest gratitude to all who responded with sympathy to the following Advance Apology Posted With The Short Quiz On Jan 20.

It is very wrenching when a man loses “a man’s best friend”!!!


**********
Advance Apology Posted With The Short Quiz On Jan 20 --

Usually the Short Quiz is prepared with a good idea of what the answers will be.

However, this Short Quiz may appear in retrospect to have been incoherent because many of the answers at this point are SWAG’s.

[Just like younger generations have morphed the definition of “Red Neck” which, when Yours Truly was young, meant “racist” and now seems to mean “hillbilly” -- younger generations have morphed the definition of SWAG which, when Yours Truly was a U.S. Naval Officer during the Vietnam War, was a pervasive derisive acronym meaning Silly Wild-Ass Guess.]

No, the dog did NOT eat my homework.

He died last Sunday evening.

After 10 years 8 months (85 human years) of walking me 1.5 miles/day during which many of our neighbors along the route (virtually all of them many times over the years) came out to shoot the breeze with Yours Truly as a pretext for petting Dandy Lion, my Golden Retriever.

The Best Dog Ever!!! May he Rest In Peace!!!


**********
This Month’s Questions

Question 1

Who was Agatha Christie?

Answer 1

Please see Q&A-2 and Q&A-3 which follow immediately.

Question 2

Does Dame Agatha Christie, aka Lady Mallowan (1890-1976) hold the Guinness World Record as the best-selling novelist of all time?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Is she best known for her whodunits, featuring super-sleuths Hercule Poirot (Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile, etc.) and Miss Marple?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Is the British title “Dame” the female equivalent of Sir? Does the British title “Lady” mean the spouse of a “Sir”?

Answer 4

Yes. Yes.

Question 5

So in addition to being a female “Sir” in her own right for her literary achievements, was Dame Agatha Christie aka Lady Mallowan married to a “Sir” who had been knighted for his own achievements?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Was Sir Max Edgar Lucien Mallowan a prominent archeologist (e.g., Director of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq 1947-1961, Oxford Professor 1962-1978) specializing in ancient Middle Eastern history?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

Did Agatha meet Max in Iraq during one of his excavations in 1930?

Answer 7

Yes.

Question 8

After marrying Max that same year, did Agatha frequently accompany Max during his excavations?

Answer 8

Yes.

Question 9

Is that why so many of her Hercule Poirot novels and short stories (e.g., Appointment With Death, Murder in Mesopotamia, The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb) took place during archaeological excavations?

Answer 9

Yes and no.

Yes, she did meet Max in 1930 in Iraq during one of his excavations.

And yes, she married him the same year.

And yes, Appointment With Death was first published in 1938 and Murder in Mesopotamia was first published in 1936.

HOWEVER, The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb which is discussed in Q&A-12 through Q&A-15 below, was first published in 1923 -- seven years before she met Max.

MOREOVER, the additional fact that she met Max while visiting an excavation in Iraq and the additional fact that she married him almost immediately strongly imply that Agatha had a very strong interest in archaeology before frequently accompanying Max during his excavations after they were married.

Question 10

And do those stories feature the “finders, keepers - losers, weepers” principle, the first half of which is featured in the title of our focus book?

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

Indeed, is The British Museum (whose 8 million works make it one of the world’s largest) often accused of having the world’s largest collection of stolen and plundered archeological treasures?

Answer 11

Yes. For example --

In 2013, Turkey sued The British Museum for the return of sculptures that once adorned the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus.

In 2015, Greece decided not to sue The British Museum for the return of The Parthenon Marbles (aka, The Elgin Marbles). Greek Culture Minister Nikos Xydakis explained: “You cannot go to court over every issue. Besides, in international courts, the outcome is uncertain.”

Question 12

So is it any wonder that, for example, Agatha Christie’s The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb involves an expedition comprising representatives of two competing museums, The British Museum and NYC’s Metropolitan Museum, though you would probably have to read the book to discover that -- since most synopses are oblivious to that dimension of the story?

Answer 12

Of course not.

Question 13

Was The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb published in September 1923?

Answer 13

Yes.

Question 14

Had Egypt effectively been taken from the Ottoman Empire by Britain in 1867 so that it could build the Suez Canal which was completed in 1869? Was Egypt formally a British colony 1914-1953?

Answer 14

Yes. Yes.

Question 15

So when Agatha Christie published The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb in 1923, was Egypt as a British colony governed by English Common Law or by Sharia (aka Islamic Law)?

Answer 15

Under normal “conflict of laws” principles, it would depend.

Question 16

Would the answer to Q-15 depend on whether a British Court or an Islamic Court had jurisdiction?

Answer 16

In part, yes, but under “conflict of laws” principles, many other factors might be taken into consideration.

Question 17

Under English Common Law, is abandoned property available to be claimed by anyone who comes along?

Answer 17

Yes.

Question 18

On the other hand, does lost property become owned by any finder who comes along?

Answer 18

Under English common law, the finder of lost property has the right to possess it EXCEPT AS AGAINST the true owner.

Question 19

Is the answer to Q-17 affected by whether the lost property remains on real estate owned by the owner of the lost property? [For example, a rancher has lost some of the herd which are found, still on the ranch, by cattle rustlers.]

Answer 19

The fact that a trespasser would have no legal claim for lost property is simply an extreme example of the principle that NOBODY has any rights to lost property AS AGAINST the true owner.

Question 20

Under English Common Law, would archeological treasures be considered abandoned property or would they be considered lost property?

Answer 20

I did not have time to “chase this rabbit” because the answer was too low a priority in the time available to prepare these Suggested Answers and pursue other issues.

Question 21

When Brigham Young arrived in the Salt Lake Valley on 7/24/1847 (which is still recognized as “Pioneer Day” in Utah), was Utah still part of Mexico?

Answer 21

Yes.

Question 22

Did the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ending the Mexican-American War on 2/2/1848 bring Utah (together with most, if not all, of California, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico) under U.S. ownership?

Answer 22

Yes.

Question 23

As a Spanish colony, had Mexico been officially governed by the Napoleonic Code (which, post Napoleon, has been the basis of the legal systems of most continental European nations)? Had the Napoleonic Code remained in effect after Mexican Independence 1821-1860 and during its second colonial period 1860-1867, this time as a French colony?

Answer 23

Yes, as a Spanish colony, Mexico had been officially governed by the Napoleonic Code.

However, I did not “chase the rabbits” of whether the Napoleonic Code remained in effect after Mexican Independence and whether it was in effect while Mexico was a French colony -- because the answers were too low a priority in the time available to prepare these Suggested Answers and pursue other issues.

Question 24

Is Utah officially governed by English-American Common Law? Is English-American Common Law based on Roman Catholic Law since England once had only Ecclesiastical Courts that were gradually replaced by temporal courts?

Answer 24

Yes, Utah is officially governed by English-American common law.

And yes, English-American common law is based on Roman Catholic Law since England once had only Ecclesiastical Courts that were gradually replaced by temporal courts.

Question 25

Does our focus book “Finders Keepers: A Tale of Archeological Plunder and Obsession” deal with artifacts found in the “four corners” area where the borders of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico intersect?

Answer 25

Yes.

Question 26

What law should govern the ownership of any archeological artifacts found in that area? English-American common law in the wake of the Mexican-American War? Or the pre-existing Napoleonic Code? Or the law of the Native-Americans who created the artifacts and whose land was taken by the European “pioneers”?

Answer 26

Who knows!!!

The resolution of “conflict of laws” issues are very difficult to predict.

Moreover, even if English-American common law applies, there is the very-uncertain factual issue of whether the archeological artifacts were “abandoned” or “lost” as can be seen in the decision of the Government of Turkey whether to sue The British Museum and the decision of the Government of Greece whether to sue The British Museum (ref. Q&A-11).

NB: As a factual issue, the question would probably have to be decided independently for each artifact, or at least vis-à-vis each group of artifacts that originally had the same owner.

Question 27

Does the foregoing help to inform the action we should take in the wake of the failure of the Mormon Church to respond to our letters of 10/31/2016 to each of its top 15 officers who together govern its affairs?

Answer 27

Yes, which is why Yours Truly morphed the focus of our Feb 8 meeting.

Question 28

BTW, is there any doubt that if the Mormon Church had decided that the Wanton Destruction of Great Salt Lake, as a violation of the Mormon Church’s theology, should be halted with a “legislative initiative” pursuant to Utah Constitution Art. VI Sec. 1 and Utah Code Title 20A Chapter 7 -- as requested by our 10/31/2016 letters -- that the Wanton Destruction would have stopped immediately?

Answer 28

Title 20A Utah Code Sec. 7-201 Paragraph 2(a) provides:

“A person seeking to have an initiative submitted to a vote of the people for approval or rejection shall obtain:

(i) legal signatures equal to 10% of the cumulative total of all votes cast by voters of this state for all candidates for President of the United States at the last regular general election at which a President of the United States was elected; and
(ii) from each of at least 26 Utah State Senate districts, legal signatures equal to 10% of the total of all votes cast in that district for all candidates for President of the United States at the last regular general election at which a President of the United States was elected.”

There are 29 Utah State Senate Districts.

Does anyone doubt for a moment that Mormons comprise 10% of the total population of Utah, or that Mormons comprise 10% of the population in at least 26 of the 29 Utah State Senate Districts???

Moreover, Governor Gary Herbert and a majority of the members of both the Utah State Senate and the Utah State House of Representatives are Mormon.

So if the Mormon Church had announced that the Wanton Destruction of Great Salt Lake in order to grow uneconomic alfalfa hay for export to China WAS A VIOLATION OF MORMON DOCTRINE, does anyone doubt for a moment that the Utah Legislature would immediately vote to block the Bear River Pipeline and that Governor Herbert would sign their bill???

Question 29

Who owns the water that flows into Great Salt Lake from its three tributaries, the Bear River, the Weber River and the Provo River?

Answer 29

Please read on.

Question 30

Is it necessary in answering Q-29 to consider all of the English-American Common Law “Estates In Land” and “Riparian Rights” that Yours Truly can recall so vividly from his Harvard Law School days 1964-67 with his photographic memory for anything he considers either important or interesting? [Hint: even though most law schools 1964-67 no longer required such studies, Yours Truly unfortunately considered such a “nightmare” as interesting, no matter how unimportant!!!]

Answer 30

Unfortunately yes, such considerations are required.

And yes, Yours Truly did consider interesting the details of the “nightmare” of having to study such matters in detail 50 years ago when most other law schools in the U.S. had stopped requiring it.

Question 31

In other words, doesn’t the English-American Common Law contain the concept of the “law of capture” which holds that any wild game you capture/kill on your real property is yours? And BTW isn’t the “law of capture” the bedrock of oil & gas law that holds that any oil & gas that you are able to produce from a well on your property belongs to you even though it comes from a geological structure that extends below the property of your neighbor(s)?

Answer 31

Yes, under English-American common law, the U.S. Government could, under the “law of capture,” have acquired ownership of the water in the Bear River EITHER (a) while it was flowing into the Bear Lake from watersheds comprising National Forests, OR (b) while it was in the Bear Lake, OR (c) while it was flowing out of Bear Lake down the Bear River to Great Salt Lake before any riparian rights were acquired by owners of adjacent properties.

Question 32

So if the watersheds of Bear Lake from which exits the Bear River that flows into Great Salt Lake comprise National Forests (if anyone has time to research this, please “chase this rabbit” because I am over-loaded with legal research), then under the “law of capture” doesn’t the Federal Government have initial ownership of the water?

Answer 32

Yes, the Federal Government had initial ownership of the water.

BTW, the second section of http://www.bearriverinfo.org contains a description and a map of the Bear Lake and Bear River watersheds.

Question 33

And doesn’t the Federal Government have a legal duty to conserve national assets?

Answer 33

Of course!!!

Question 34

Does a lawsuit for a Writ of Mandamus seek to compel governmental officials to “do their duty”?

Answer 34

Yes.

Question 35

With respect to any “riparian rights” of private owners of property adjacent to the Bear River, haven’t their “riparian rights” been acquired by virtue of adverse possession? Is “adverse possession” with respect to real property commonly known as “squatter’s rights”?

Answer 35

Under English-American “common law,” a person who has no right to real property but who occupies it openly and exclusively as if s/he were the owner (aka a “squatter”) for, if memory serves, 17 years (subject to certain exceptions such as periods that the true owner is a minor, or insane, etc.), then the “squatter” becomes the owner by “adverse possession.”

The impression of Yours Truly had been that “riparian rights” are effectively acquired by “adverse possession” but has not bothered to “chase that rabbit” since the answer was too low a priority in the time available to prepare these Suggested Answers and pursue other issues.

This is because, as discussed below, even under the “Prior Appropriation” principle for acquiring Riparian Rights, the volume of water currently reaching Great Salt Lake from the Bear River has NOT been (and will NOT have been) appropriated by anyone until the Bear River Pipeline has been constructed and begins operation!!!

*****
“Prior Appropriation” vs. “Reasonable Use”

Private owners of property adjacent to surface water (lakes, rivers, streams, etc.) can acquire rights to use the water. The acquisition of such “riparian rights” follows one of two contradictory principles.

One contradictory principle is “prior appropriation” which holds that a private owner of property adjacent to the surface water has rights that are superior to all subsequently-acquired rights of other adjacent property owners REGARDLESS OF THE REASONABLENESS OF THE “EARLIER IN TIME” USE.

The other contradictory principle is “reasonable use” which holds that if the amount of water is insufficient to meet all of the reasonable uses of all of the adjacent property owners REGARDLESS OF WHEN THEIR REASONABLE USES AROSE, then their relative usage is rationed in proportion to their respective reasonable needs.

Utah is a “prior appropriation” jurisdiction.

*****
Editorial Comment

Utah’s being a “prior appropriation” jurisdiction is unfortunate!!!

Because it should be a “slam dunk” to demonstrate that the Bear River Pipeline is NOT a “reasonable use” since the overwhelming majority of the water that will be taken from the Bear River will be used to grow UNECONOMIC alfalfa hay, most of which will be exported to China!!!

Instead of a Writ of Mandamus against the State of Utah ordering it to do its duty to halt the Bear River Pipeline as an “unreasonable use” of riparian rights, our lawsuit for a Writ of Mandamus will have to be sought against the Federal Government for (1) its failure to preserve national assets by using the “law of capture” to preserve dominion over the water currently flowing into Great Salt Lake from the Bear River, AND/OR (2) its failure to preserve Great Salt Lake for its environmental and ecological value to the nation.

However, there is a “silver lining.”

The Doctrine of Res Judicata prohibits the same parties from re-litigating the same matter or the same issue.

And the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel prohibits a party from re-litigating the same matter or the same issue following an adverse court decision in a lawsuit to which it was a party, even if the opposing party in the new lawsuit is different.

In anticipation of the construction of the Bear River Pipeline, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided to construct a pipeline in the median of The Legacy Highway as it was being built, so that water obtained from the Bear River Pipeline could be transported further south through The Legacy Highway pipeline.

Three lawsuits were filed against the U.S. Department of Transportation by (1) Utahns For Better Transportation, (2) Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson (who, during his 21 years of practicing law before his election in 1999, served as President of the Utah ACLU), and (3) the Sierra Club.

The three lawsuits were consolidated by the U.S. Federal District Court which published its decision on 8/11/2001 (180 F.Supp.2d 1286).

The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its decision on 9/16/2002 (305 F.3d 1152).

Although the issue involved in that litigation was whether the U.S. Government had properly determined that the median of The Legacy Highway was the best route for the pipeline, the courts did make a factual determination regarding the importance of Great Salt Lake --

“The Great Salt Lake ("GSL") and the wetlands surrounding its shoreline serve as an important habitat for a variety of birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals, some of which are endangered. The wetlands of the GSL account for 75 percent of all wetlands in the State of Utah, whose total land area consists of only 1.5 percent wetlands. The shores of the GSL are internationally important because they are a link of the Pacific Flyway for migratory waterfowl and a link of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network ("WHSRN"). Some two to five million birds use the GSL yearly and 90 percent of that use is concentrated in the eastern shore. II Aplt.App. at 639.” [Quoting from the second paragraph of the Tenth Circuit’s opinion.]

Accordingly, it should NOT be necessary in a new lawsuit seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the U.S. Government to prove the environmental and ecological importance of Great Salt Lake.

Question 36

Does English-American common law hold that “adverse possession” can NOT be used against the Government?

Answer 36

Yes.

Question 37

Even if “riparian rights” can be used to deprive the Federal Government of the ownership of water that it has failed under “the law of capture” to preserve for the nation, isn’t it true that the Bear River Pipeline is seeking to take water FOR WHICH THERE EXISTS CURRENTLY NO RIPARIAN RIGHTS hindering its flow into Great Salt Lake?

Answer 37

Yes.

Question 38

Does Title 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1361 confer on federal district courts “jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel” a federal officer, employee, or agency “to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff”?

Answer 38

Yes.

[Q&A-34 explained that a lawsuit for a Writ of Mandamus can compel governmental officials to “do their duty.”]


Question 39

Since a lawsuit is available, wouldn’t a lawsuit be preferable to one of our traditional “Six Degrees of Separation” e-mail campaigns imploring a decision maker to take action? In other words, since we are seeking “performance of a duty owed to us” rather than seeking discretionary action, doesn’t a lawsuit comprise a vehicle that can attract much more attention and over a much longer period of time?

Answer 39

Yes.

Question 40

Since we are suing the Federal Government, wouldn’t it make more sense to sue in Washington DC rather than Utah where our trial judge is likely to be Mormon (since the Mormon Church appears to be condoning, if not tacitly supporting, the Wanton Destruction of Great Salt Lake)?

Answer 40

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 41

Can an individual sue Pro Se (Latin meaning “For Himself”) or, in other words, without legal counsel?

Answer 41

Yes.

Question 42

However, doesn’t that mean that each of us who becomes a plaintiff would have to show up at every legal proceeding in Washington DC? And that we would NOT be able to invite organizations to join our lawsuit because legal entities are required to be represented by counsel?

Answer 42

Yes.

Question 43

Do any of us have friends who are attorneys admitted to practice in Washington and who might be willing to serve as “attorney of record” in our lawsuit?

Answer 43

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments - The Mormon Church Condoning The Wanton Destruction Of Great Salt Lake – Feb 8th”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest