Odd Laws - Iceland
Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • January 31, 2025

Odd Law - Iceland

In either 999 or 1,000 CE (the records conflict) the meeting of the makers of the Laws in Iceland met. These meetings, which had been going on for about 70 years already, occurred each year and were called “Althing,” Some scholars consider this the oldest Parliament.


At these meetings, the chiefs of the sundry family groups would sit outside (so we can assume it was in the Summer) in a circle. Sitting in front each of the group leaders, facing each other was a warrior of the chief and behind him, at least two counselors. This may well signify that for every battle to be fought, there were two voices, in addition to the chief himself, considering the wisdom of the fight.


During the meetings, the “Speaker of the Laws” (alternatively the “Knower of the Laws”) would recite each and every law the nation had. Each law was, one by one, considered by the assembly. Should they continue having this law? Could it be altered if it was not meeting its goal or were there unforeseen consequences which could be avoided by a modification. Should that particular law be removed from the society totally?


For those scholars among you, this might sound a lot like James Madison’s belief that every law, including the Constitution, should expire at the end of 19 years, to be revisited. Well, the Icelandic peoples did just that.


The Althing of 1, 000 (or, maybe 999) was of a different character though. The law makers were trying to decide if they should accept Christianity as their religion, divesting themselves of the older pagan religion, worshiping the Norse gods of Odin, Thor, Loki, Frigga and the rest. (You all know that Thursday is named after Thor and Friday is named afer Frigga, right?) 


There had been several violent bouts with Christians wanting the change and about half of the population were, by that time, Christian themselves, whether by spiritual conversion or conversion by the sword.


The leaders were much divided among themselves and, after much negotiation, agreed to let one man make the decision for the entire nation. This man, reasonably enough, was the Speaker of the Law, Thorgeir Thorkelsson (friends all just called him “Thor”).


He isolated himself for a long while and came back with his pronouncement:


Iceland would be Christian....with a couple of exceptions:


1. They would continue to eat horsemeat (outlawed by that particular branch of Christianity - Roman Catholicism in 732 CE - don’t know how the Eastern Orthodox thought of it);


2. They would continue to be able to “get rid of their unwanted children” (usually considered to be exposing babies who were not the desired gender for the time or were misshapen in any way); and

3. You could still have your pagan religious ceremonies in private; and, most importantly,


4. Don’t get caught doing any of the first 3.


This was eventually named the kristnitaka.


Share this article

MY MOTHER, THE GRAMMAR TEACHER, WOULD BE SO PROUD: We Have Our Own "Comma" Case

By Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • July 22, 2026
One of the most absurd things for law students to grasp in that all-important first year, is the idea of what can be considered "ambiguous." (Ambiguity is "an uncertainty of meaning or intention, as in a contractual term or statutory provision.") If language is deemed "ambiguous," what happens next depends on where this ambiguity is found. The ambiguity can be subject to interpretation of a Court - if it is in a statute. If the Court has to use interpretation, there are several tools they can use to derive meaning and intent from the writers of the statute. This search for "Legislative intent" is sometimes easy if there is a part of the statute stating specifically what the Legislature was trying to do. Without that, however, judges will look at what the plain and simple language would mean. If that does not help, then they can look at the surrounding language, the other terms, what might be excluded, what would make the language harmonious with the other laws on the topic... All kinds of factors are examined to determine what the law is trying to say. However, if the ambiguity is found in a contract, the options are different and depend on whether the ambiguity is an obvious mistake ("Art is the Buyer" and then, later "The Buyer, Bert" is written in the same contract) or whether it is a more sneaky ambiguity. Here is where the comma comes into play. The Tariff of 1872 misplaced a comma, resulting in fruits not being subject to the tax. The tariff was trying to say that fruits and fruit plants would be subject to the tariff, but, by placing a comma where it did not belong, fruits become tax free and only fruit-bearing plants were subject to the Tariff. Another is a case where there would be no overtime payments for work done for "...drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution" of foods. Because there was no comma between "shipment" and "distribution," the Court found it questionable if "shipment and distribution" were one joint act or two separate ones. The result? Workers got their overtime payments. Now, we have a case, decided July 22, 2026 by our appellate court, that a comma found between "construed according to the laws of the State of Florida" and "with venue in Collier County," created an ambiguity allowing venue to be set in another County (Martin). The comma controlled and there is an ambiguity, allowing the action to be filed in Martin County, rather than Collier. The benefits of filing in one county verses another, well, that would be an entirely different article.  Just remember: Watch those punctuation marks folks! Ambiguities may be found everywhere!

Gloves are Off!

By Portial B. Scott, J.D.,L.L.M. • May 31, 2026
Appellate Gloves Are Off: Warnings Appear to Be Over with Our Courts Over Unverified Artificial Intelligence Arguments and Filings This is the third straight article I have written on this topic - but things keep moving and changing. In my first two articles on this topic (the use of Al in Court filings), I explained that our appellate Court (the "4th") has been issuing warnings about the use of Artificial Intelligence in drafting and filing papers with the Court if the Al is not double-checked against reality. In those articles, I explained that the 4th was giving warning after warning against filing unauthenticated Al-generated motions, petitions, appeals, complaints, briefs, memoranda of law. Now, in three separate rulings on May 27, 2026, the 4th has stopped issuing warnings and has started imposing sanctions and, for attorneys, referrals to the Florida Bar for disciplinary action. In the first case,a self-represented litigant was found to have abused the courts. by filing some 90 Al-generated motions against his former wife. The 4th observed that the arguments made in his appeal to the 4th were not based on actual cases, rules of procedure or, if they were actual cases, such arguments were not found in those cases. As a self-represented litigant, the 4th cannot refer him to the bar for discipline. So, what can the 4th do? They can prohibit him from being able to file any more papers in our courts without having a Florida Bar -licensed attorney sign off on the papers. This is a drastic sanction since access to the Courts is of such high value in America. We want people to have access to the Courts - so they don't settle their disputes at high noon in the middle of the street with firearms or have it out with brawls. The idea behind requiring such sanctions is that an attorney will think twice before endangering their right to practice law. The attorney requirement is expensive, too. Still, when a litigant abuses the courts system, there must be some way to safeguard the integrity of the Court. The idea of an attorney cherishing their rights to practice, however, may not always be 100% accurate. (See below) The second case involved an attorney who filed an "emergency" motion, citing cases which do not stand for the concept of what the attorney claimed. By way of example of what I mean, if the attorney claimed that Roe v. Wade stands for the proposition that income tax is unconstitutional, that would be claiming something that just is not so. Importantly, it is verifiably not so. One need only look at the Roe v. Wade decision to see it is not correct. The 4th said that, whether the case is misrepresented as meaning something it does not or even does not exist at all, it does not matter. Both are equally wrong. The attorney was reported to the Florida Bar for disciplinary inquest. in the third case, an attorney filed a brief which included references to what has happened at trial and quoted from the transcript of the trial. However, since appeals ususally have to have a copy of the transcript included when the appeal is filed (so the 4th can read what actually happened and not just take the filer's word for it), it soon became obvious that what the attorney said had been said in Court was not true. This might have been a result of poor prompting by the attorney to the Al or intentionally misdirecting the Al. It also could be that the transcript of the trial was fed to Al and Al misunderstood what had happened - due to not understanding fully the meaning of certain legal terms. On top of that, Al also "hallucinated" legal authority and the attorney filed it with the 4th, even apparently invoking some of it in oral argument before the 4th, doubling his sins. In the end, how it happened did not matter. The 4th found that the lawyer cited imaginary legal authorities as if they were law and the 4th reported him to the Florida Bar for discipline action, putting his law license in jeopardy.  I want to make it clear: the 4th does not prohibit the use of Al in filings, but everyone must ensure that the citations to legal authority, the statement of the facts and all manner of statements are accurate, real and not the figments of Al's desire to provide a winning argument at the cost of truth.