Law Humor
POWER OF PRAYER
In the small Texas town of Mt. Vernon, Drummond's Bar began construction on a new building to increase their business. The local Baptist church started a campaign to block the bar from opening with petitions and prayers. Work progressed right up till the week before opening when lightning struck the bar and it burned to the ground.
The church folks were rather smug in their outlook after that, until the bar owner sued the church on the grounds that the church was ultimately responsible for the demise of his building, either through direct or indirect actions or means.
The church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection to the building's demise in its reply to the court.
As the case made its way into court, the judge looked over the paperwork. At the hearing he commented, 'I don't know how I'm going to decide this, but as it appears from the paperwork we have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer and an entire church congregation that doesn't!.'
USA vs. LAWS OF PHYSICS
Monday morning I attended a breakfast meeting where the speaker/guest was David E. Cole, Chairman, Center for Automotive Research (CAR and Professor at the Univ. of Michigan. You have all likely heard CAR quoted, or referred to in the auto industry news lately.
Mr. Cole, who is an engineer by training, told many stories of the difficulty of working with the folks that the Obama administration has sent to save the auto industry. There have been many meetings where a 30+ year experience automotive expert has to listen to a newcomer to the industry, someone with zero manufacturing experience, zero auto industry experience, zero business experience, zero finance experience, and zero engineering experience, tell them how to run their business.
Mr Cole's favorite story is as follows:
There was a team of Obama people speaking to Mr. Cole (Engineer, automotive experience 40+ years, Chairman of CAR). They were explaining to Mr. Cole that the auto companies needed to make a car that was electric and liquid natural gas (LNG) with enough combined fuel to go 500 miles so we wouldn't "need" so many gas stations (A whole other topic). They were quoting BTU's of LNG and battery life that they had looked up on some website.
Mr. Cole explained that to do this you would need a trunk FULL of batteries and a LNG tank at big as a car to make that happen and that there were problems related to the laws of physics that prevented them from...
The Obama person interrupted and said (and I am quoting here),
"These laws of physics? Who's rules are those? We need to change that."
[Some of the others wrote down the law name so they could look it up.]
"We have the congress and the administration.
We can repeal that law, amend it, or use an executive order to get rid of that problem.
That's why we are here, to fix these sort of issues".
COPS: Beware of this Little Old Lady
An older lady gets pulled over for speeding...
Older Woman: Is there a problem, Officer?
Officer: Ma'am, you were speeding.
Older Woman: Oh, I see.
Officer: Can I see your license please?
Older Woman: I'd give it to you but I don't have one.
Officer: Don't have one?
Older Woman: Lost it, four years ago for drunk driving.
Officer: I see...Can I see your vehicle registration papers, please?
Older Woman: I can't do that.
Officer: Why not?
Older Woman: I stole this car.
Officer: Stole it?
Older Woman: Yes, and I killed and hacked up the owner.
Officer: You what?
Older Woman: His body parts are in plastic bags in the trunk, if you want to see.
The Officer looks at the woman and slowly backs away to his car and calls for back up. Within a minute, five police cars circle the car.
A senior officer slowly approaches the car, clasping his half-drawn gun.
Officer 2: Ma'am, could you step out of your vehicle please?
The woman steps out of her vehicle.
Older Woman: Is there a problem, sir?
Officer 2: One of my officers told me that you have stolen this car and murdered the owner.
Older Woman: Murdered the owner?
Officer 2: Yes, could you please open the trunk of your car, please.
The woman opens the trunk, revealing nothing but an empty trunk.
Officer 2: Is this your car, ma'am?
Older Woman: Yes, here are the registration papers.
Officer 2: One of my officers claims that you do not have a driving license.
The woman digs into her handbag and pulls out a clutch purse and hands it to the officer. The officer examines the license. He looks quite puzzled.
Officer 2: Thank you, ma'am. One of my officers told me you didn't have a license, that you stole this car, and that you murdered and hacked up the owner.
Older Woman: Bet the liar told you I was speeding, too.
Bad Times Over a Judge's Rhymes
Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice's practice 'reflects poorly' on the bench, two peers say.
From Associated Press
PITTSBURGH--A state Supreme Court Justice given to writing opinions in rhyme was criticized by two fellow justices who said his style reflected poorly on the court.
Seven stanzas from Justice J. Michael Eakin and complaints about them from Chief Justice Stephen A Zappala and Justice Ralph Cappy, appeared in a decision Wednesday involving a dispute concerning a prenuptial agreement.
Susan Porreco's lawsuit claims the agreement she signed with Louis Porreco should have been voided because he allegedly misrepresented the engagement ring as a diamond.
In his opinion, Eakin wrote rhymes including:
"A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium
when his spouse finds he's given her a cubic zirconium
instead of a diamond in her engagement band,
the one he said was worth twenty-one grand"
"The filing of an opinion that expreses itself in rhyme reflects poorly on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania," Zappala wrote. "No matter addressed by this court is frivolous."
Cappy wrote that judges have the right to express themselves, but expressed concern about "the perception that litigants and the public at large might form when an opinion of this Court is reduced to rhyme."
Eakin, through his secretary, said Wednesday that it would be inappropriate to comment on what Zappala and Cappy wrote.
In Wednesday's decision, the Supreme Court overruled a trial court that agreed with Susan Porreco that the prenuptial agreement was fraudulent. The high court sent the case back saying Porreco could have had the ring appraised before signing the agreement.
Eakin was among the judges dissenting in the 4-2 decision.
Porreco v. Porreco, 811 A.2d 566, 571 Pa. 61 (Pa., 2002)
A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium
when his spouse finds he's given her a cubic zirconium
instead of a diamond in her engagement band,
the one he said was worth twenty-one grand.
Our deceiver would claim that when his bride relied
on his claim of value, she was not justified
for she should have appraised it; and surely she could have,
but the question is whether a bride-to-be would have.
The realities of the parties control the equation,
and here they're not comparable in sophistication;
the reasonableness of her reliance we just cannot gauge
with a yardstick of equal experience and age.
This must be remembered when applying the test
by which the "reasonable fiancée" is assessed.
She was 19, he was nearly 30 years older;
was it unreasonable for her to believe what he told her?
Given their history and Pygmalion relation,
I find her reliance was with justification.
Given his accomplishment and given her youth,
was it unjustifiable for her to think he told the truth?
Or for every prenuptial, is it now a must
that you treat your betrothed with presumptive mistrust?
Do we mean reliance on your beloved's representation
is not justifiable, absent third party verification?
Love, not suspicion, is the underlying foundation
of parties entering the marital relation;
mistrust is not required, and should not be made a priority.
Accordingly, I must depart from the reasoning of the majority.
ALWAYS REBUT THE PRESUMPTION
A MODERN DAY PARABLE
One morning, the husband returns the boat to their lakeside
cottage after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap.
Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat
out. She motors out a short distance, anchors, puts her feet up,
and begins to read her book. The peace and solitude are magnificent.
Along comes a Fish and Game Warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside
the woman and says, 'Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?'
'Reading a book,' she replies, (thinking, 'Isn't that obvious?')
'You're in a Restricted Fishing Area,' he informs her.
'I'm sorry, officer, but I'm not fishing. I'm reading.'
'Yes, but I see you have all the equipment. For all I know you could
start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up.'
'If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault,' says the woman.
'But I haven't even touched you,' says the Game Warden.
'That's true, but you have all the equipment..
For all I know you could start at any moment.'
'Have a nice day ma'am,' and he left.
If you are a federal franchise, presumptions are made about you by government.
Did you notice how things changed when the same method of presumption was made about government?
Solutions by Maxine
Everyone concentrates on the problems we're having in this country lately:
illegal immigration, hurricane recovery, and alligators attacking people in Florida.
Not me. I concentrate on solutions for the problems. It's a win- win situation.
+ Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border.
+ Send the dirt to New Orleans to raise the level of the levies.
+ Put the Florida alligators in the moat along the Mexican border.
Any other problems you would like for me to solve today?
Yes!
Think about these:
C O W S
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq .... Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.
T H E TEN C O M M A N D M E N T S
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this: You cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal,' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.
Witness Examination
These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things
people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court
reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually
taking place.
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes..
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't
know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ.
___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you sh---ing me?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
W ITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
__________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice
which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work ..
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?
______________________________________
And the best for last:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No..
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No..
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
The Case of the Insured Cigars
A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against, among other things, fire. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these Great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires."
The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion
The lawyer sued.. and WON! Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous.
The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company, which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be an unacceptable fire and was obligated to pay the claim.
Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars lost in the "fires".
After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.
ONLY IN AMERICA! NO WONDER THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES THINK WE'RE NUTS!
FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) - on the fricken declaration of independence!?!?
The Court of King George III
London, England
July 10, 1776
Mr. Thomas Jefferson
c/o The Continental Congress
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
In re: Proposed Declaration of Independence
Dear Mr. Jefferson:
We have read your "Declaration of Independence" with great interest. Certainly, it represents a considerable undertaking, and many of your statements do merit serious consideration. Unfortunately, the Declaration as a whole fails to meet recently adopted specifications for proposals to the Crown, so we must return the document to you for further refinement. The questions which follow might assist you in your process of revision:1. In your opening paragraph you use the phrase "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." What are these laws? In what way are they the criteria on which you base your central arguments? Please document with citations from the recent literature.
2. In the same paragraph you refer to the "opinions of mankind." Whose polling data are you using? Without specific evidence, it seems to us the "opinions of mankind" are a matter of opinion.
3. You hold certain truths to be "self-evident." Could you please elaborate. If they are as evident as you claim then it should not be difficult for you to locate the appropriate supporting statistics.
4. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" seem to be the goals of your proposal. These are not measurable goals. If you were to say that "among these is the ability to sustain an average life expectancy in six of the 13 colonies of at least 55 years, and to enable newspapers in the colonies to print news without outside interference, and to raise the average income of the colonists by 10 percent in the next 10 years," these could be measurable goals. Please clarify.
5. You state that "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government...." Perhaps there is some merit to the concept, but the Crown is in loco by Divine Right. There is no precedent or authority for your position. But, arguendo, suppose there were: have you weighed your assertion against all the alternatives? What are the trade-off considerations?
6. Your description of the existing situation is quite extensive. Such a long list of grievances should precede the statement of goals, not follow it. Your problem statement needs improvement.
7. Your strategy for achieving your goal is not developed at all. You state that the colonies "ought to be Free and Independent States," and that they are "Absolved from All Allegiance to the British Crown." Who or what must change to achieve this objective? In what way must they change? What specific steps will you take to overcome the resistance? How long will it take? We have found that a little foresight in these areas helps to prevent careless errors later on. How cost-effective are your strategies?
8. Who among the list of signatories will be responsible for implementing your strategy? Who conceived it? Who provided the theoretical research? Who will constitute the advisory committee? Please submit an organization chart and vitae of the principal investigators.
9. You must include an evaluation design. We have been requiring this since Queen Anne's War.
10. What impact will your problem have? Your failure to include any assessment of this inspires little confidence in the long-range prospects of your undertaking.
11. Please submit a PERT diagram, an activity chart, itemized budget, and manpower utilization matrix.
We hope that these comments prove useful in revising your "Declaration of Independence." We welcome the submission of your revised proposal. Our due date for unsolicited proposals is July 31, 1776. Ten copies with original signatures will be required.
Pleased to have served you, I remain forever at your service,
s/William Clark
Management Analyst to the British Crown
London, England
July 10, 1776
Mr. Thomas Jefferson
c/o The Continental Congress
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
In re: Proposed Declaration of Independence
Dear Mr. Jefferson:
We have read your "Declaration of Independence" with great interest. Certainly, it represents a considerable undertaking, and many of your statements do merit serious consideration. Unfortunately, the Declaration as a whole fails to meet recently adopted specifications for proposals to the Crown, so we must return the document to you for further refinement. The questions which follow might assist you in your process of revision:1. In your opening paragraph you use the phrase "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." What are these laws? In what way are they the criteria on which you base your central arguments? Please document with citations from the recent literature.
2. In the same paragraph you refer to the "opinions of mankind." Whose polling data are you using? Without specific evidence, it seems to us the "opinions of mankind" are a matter of opinion.
3. You hold certain truths to be "self-evident." Could you please elaborate. If they are as evident as you claim then it should not be difficult for you to locate the appropriate supporting statistics.
4. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" seem to be the goals of your proposal. These are not measurable goals. If you were to say that "among these is the ability to sustain an average life expectancy in six of the 13 colonies of at least 55 years, and to enable newspapers in the colonies to print news without outside interference, and to raise the average income of the colonists by 10 percent in the next 10 years," these could be measurable goals. Please clarify.
5. You state that "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government...." Perhaps there is some merit to the concept, but the Crown is in loco by Divine Right. There is no precedent or authority for your position. But, arguendo, suppose there were: have you weighed your assertion against all the alternatives? What are the trade-off considerations?
6. Your description of the existing situation is quite extensive. Such a long list of grievances should precede the statement of goals, not follow it. Your problem statement needs improvement.
7. Your strategy for achieving your goal is not developed at all. You state that the colonies "ought to be Free and Independent States," and that they are "Absolved from All Allegiance to the British Crown." Who or what must change to achieve this objective? In what way must they change? What specific steps will you take to overcome the resistance? How long will it take? We have found that a little foresight in these areas helps to prevent careless errors later on. How cost-effective are your strategies?
8. Who among the list of signatories will be responsible for implementing your strategy? Who conceived it? Who provided the theoretical research? Who will constitute the advisory committee? Please submit an organization chart and vitae of the principal investigators.
9. You must include an evaluation design. We have been requiring this since Queen Anne's War.
10. What impact will your problem have? Your failure to include any assessment of this inspires little confidence in the long-range prospects of your undertaking.
11. Please submit a PERT diagram, an activity chart, itemized budget, and manpower utilization matrix.
We hope that these comments prove useful in revising your "Declaration of Independence." We welcome the submission of your revised proposal. Our due date for unsolicited proposals is July 31, 1776. Ten copies with original signatures will be required.
Pleased to have served you, I remain forever at your service,
s/William Clark
Management Analyst to the British Crown
All of these questions depend on what the meaning of "is" is.
March 16, 2000
Author: ipsofacto
Having just tried to fulfill my legal obligation "under penalty of law" to answer the census information asked in the long form, I found that the text was woefully deficient. As a responsible citizen, I found that I could not answer the page 3 through page 38 questions.
Specifically, the preparatory questions all included the word "is" like,
"What is this person's name?"
or
"What is this persons telephone number?"
Because the pamphlet did not include a defintion of terms, I was at a loss as to what the meaning of "is" is.
As all Americans are now painfully aware [thanks to Pres. Clinton], the answer to any question that contains the word "is", depends on what the meaning of "is" is!
As such, I circled each use of the word "is" and noted my confusion by stating ... "All of these questions depend on what the meaning of 'is' is. There is no definition included so I am unable to answer!" This seems a reasonable "good faith" reply that this [Clinton] administration should especially understand.
March 17, 2000
Author: MosesKnows
To: ipsofacto
"All of these questions depend on what the meaning of "is" is.
Is "is" is or "is" is ain't?
Yes "is" is with one constraint:
"Is" is never "is" becuz
Once you've said "is," "is" is "wuz!"
Bicycle Law
All bicycles weigh 50 pounds:
A 30 pound bicycle needs a 20 pound lock.
A 40 pound bicycle needs a 10 pound lock.
A 50 pound bicycle doesn't need a lock.
ORIGINAL TITLE - Only in Louisiana
Only in Louisiana - you have to love this lawyer.
A New Orleans lawyer sought an FHA loan for a client who lost his house in Hurricane
Katrina and wanted to rebuild. He was told the loan would be granted if he could prove
satisfactory title to the parcel of property being offered as collateral. The title to the
property dated back to 1803, which took the Lawyer three months to track down. After
sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply:
"Upon review of your letter adjoining your client's loan application, we note that the
request is supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in
which you have prepared and presented the application, we must point out that you have
only cleared title to the proposed collateral property back to 1803. Before final approval
can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear the title back to its origin."
Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows:
"Your letter regarding title in Case No. 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to
have title extended further than the 194 years covered by the present application. I was
unaware that any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the
property area, would not know that Louisiana was purchased, by the U.S. from France in
1803, the year of origin identified in our application. For the edification of uninformed
FHA bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S. ownership was obtained from France,
which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain. The land came into the possession
of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named Christopher
Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by the
Spanish monarch, Isabella.
”The good queen, Isabella, being a pious woman and almost as careful about titles as the
FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to
finance Columbus' expedition. Now the Pope, as I 'm sure you may know, is the emissary of
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and God, it is commonly accepted, created this world.
Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that God also made that part of the world called
Louisiana. God, therefore, would be the owner of origin and His origins date back to
before the beginning of time, the world as we know it, AND the FHA.
”I hope you find God's original claim to be satisfactory. Now, may we have our @%$&
loan?"
He got the loan.
CAN't
CAN'T
Can't is the worst word that's written or spoken;
Doing more harm here than slander or lies;
On it is many a strong spirit broken,
And with it many a good purpose dies.
It springs from the lips of the thoughtless each morning
And robs us of courage we need through the day:
It rings in our ears like a timely-sent warning
And laughs when we falter and fall by the way.
Can't is the father of feeble endeavor,
The parent of terror and half-hearted work;
It weakens the efforts of artisans clever,
And makes of the toiler an indolent shirk.
It poisons the soul of the man with a vision,
It stifles in infancy many a plan;
It greets honest toil with open derision
And mocks at the hopes and the dreams of a man.
Can't is a word none should speak without blushing;
To utter it should be a symbol of shame;
Ambition and courage it daily is crushing;
It blights a man's purpose and shortens his aim.
Despise it with all of your hatred of error;
Refuse it logment it seeks in your brain;
Arm against it as a creature of terror,
And all that you dream of you some day shall gain.
Can't is the word that is foe to ambition,
An enemy ambushed to shatter your will;
Its prey is forever the man with a mission
And bows to courage and patience and skill.
Hate it, with hatred that's deep and undying.
For once it is welcomed 'twil break any man;
Whatever goal you are seeking, keep trying
And answer this demon by saying: "I can."
FAILURES
'Tis better to have tried in vain,
Sincerely striving for a goal,
Than to have lived upon the plain
An idle and a timid soul.
"Tis better to have fought and spent
Your courage, missing all applause,
Than to have lived in smug content
And never ventured for a cause.
For he who tries and fails may be
The founder of a better day;
Though never his the victory,
From him shall others learn the way.
DEFEAT
No one is beat till he quits,
No one is through till he stops,
No matter how hard Failure hits,
No matter how often he drops,
A fellow's not down till he lies
In the dust and refuses to rise.
Fate can slam him and bang him around,
And batter his frame till he's sore,
But she never can say that he's downed
While he bobs up serenely for more.
A fellow's not dead till he dies,
Nor beat till no longer he tries.
MY CREED
To live as gently as I can;
To be, no mater where, a man;
To take what comes of good or ill
And cling to faith and honor still;
To do my best, and let that stand
The record of my brain and hand;
And then, should failure come to me,
Still work and hope for victory.
To have no secret place wherein
I stoop unseen to shame or sin;
To be the same when I'm alone
As when my every deed is known;
To live undaunted, unafraid
Of any step that I have made;
To be without pretense or shame
Exactly what men think I am.
To leave some simple mark behind
To keep my having lived in mind;
If enmity to aught I show,
To be an honest, generous foe,
To play my part, nor whine
That greater honors are not mine.
This, I believe, is all I need
For my philosophy and creed.
These poems from Edgar A. Guest, A Heap o' Livin'
(Chicago: Reilly & Lee Co., 1916)