When did a wacky or specific law win a court case? I got a pro bono client's removal by

USCIS cancelled. He had a low-level substance possession conviction from the early 1980s.

During that brief period, the active ingredient of a modium was illegal under state law but not

federal law. So I successfully argued that they couldn't prove it wasn't a conviction for possession of a substance

that was federally legal at the time, and as such was not subject to removal.

The argument worked, and my guy went back to his business and his family.

I had a case where a guy was charged for running a red light. The thing is, he'd been sitting

at the lights for five minutes and it hadn't changed. The wording of the specific section

under which he was charged related to stop signs and traffic lights and referred to them as

traffic regulation devices. I successfully argued that as the traffic light wasn't changing,

it wasn't regulating traffic,

and he got off. I couldn't believe it when the judge ruled in my favour. Neither could the police

prosecutor. I did some research for this case when I was a law student, Jolie v. Palacier,

1999. Some background, this was at a time when the Ontario Court of Appeal had held that, if there were any factual matters in dispute, a case could not be dismissed on summary judgment. That's not the case today. It was discovered that this position basically ruined summary judgment as a useful process. But it was the case at the time. In such a motion, all facts alleged by the plaintiff would be

assumed to be true. What happened was this. A man sued, among others, the College of Dental

Surgeons for persecuting him and interfering in his ability to live as a generic Martian. The plaintiff

claimed he had been cloned from space debris Nessa found in the 1960s. He claimed he had a genetic

test to prove this, but it had been falsified by the CIA as part of the conspiracy against him.

Well, naturally, this claim raises the concern that the plaintiff was bonkers, but there was

no evidence, aside from his bizarre claims of that being so. In court, the case was decided on two

alternate grounds. First, on the boring grounds that the case was patently frivolous and vexatious

because it was absurd. However, it was also decided on a more entertaining basis of standing.

...