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

And furthermore....

By Portia B. Scott, J.D.,L.L.M. • April 2, 2026
Another Warning from our Appellate Court Regarding Al I hate to repeat myself, but.... The March 25, 2026 release of written opinions from our own Fourth District Court of Appeal (4th DCA) has another warning to persons venturing into the Court system. As you may know, I wrote about a warning from the 4th DCA about a self- represented Appellant (person seeking to have the trial court's decision overturned) using Al and the possible, but not inflicted, sanctions which could have resulted. Now, again, in Gouveia v. Meridian Financial Investments, LLC, the 4th DCA has again written to address this increasingly abusive use of Al in the Courts. In this more recent case, there was a contract dispute and the trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff (the party making the complaint...get it? "Plaint-iff" based on "Com-Plaint?"). The losing side filed an appeal, asking for the 4th DCA to overturn the decision of the trial court. Well, that went nowhere and the Plaintiff kept its win. The story here is that the person who lost at trial and on appeal, in his case and appeal to the 4th DCA apparently used Al to help write his argument. The Al manufactured ("hallucinated") prior cases which did not exist or, if they did exist, did not stand for what the person said it did. It would be as if the person made reference to Roe v. Wade (a case which does exist) and told the appeals court that it stood for the legal principal that a Jack of Spades has a higher value in poker than the King of Spades (which is absolutely not what Roe v. Wade said). Is that straight-up nonsense? Yes and as absurd as that which was submitted to the appeals court as if it were true. The Court issued another warning about the possibilities of sanctions if it is done again by the person submitting it, just like before. But, as the concurring opinion in this case points out something else (a "concurring opinion" is a written opinion which agrees with the actual opinion but has more to say). The concurring opinion points out how meaningless it is to threaten sanctions against someone who will most likely not be before the Court again. That means that the opportunity to misbehave for this person is greatly reduced. Most self-represented folks only appear once -if at all- before the appellate court. The concurring opinion said that with attorneys, it is not a problem as sanctions will work against us, seeing how we are in court so often. What is the solution? The writer of the concurring opinion doesn't know but suggests some pro-active steps. (Sanctions are, by their very nature, reactive - they are issued in response to something done.) Perhaps forcing sworn statements from the parties that they have not used Al or, if they have, exactly what the Al included; that the party submitting the Al- generated document has double-checked the sources. Something which can help us all work with the rising tide of Al, Chatbots, LLM tools.  Stay tuned!

Appellate Court Issues Warning to Non-Attorneys Filing Appeals

By Portia B. Scott, J.D.,L.L.M. • March 26, 2026
The Florida trial courts' decisions are subject to appeal to a higher Court. This happens when a litigant (the Plaintiff or Defendant) believes the trial court made a mistake and that the mistake should be corrected. The mistake believed to have been made by the trial court can be based in the facts of the case ("that is not what the evidence showed"), the law ("that is not what the statute or other source of law says"), or both. A recent opinion from the 4th District Court of Appeal (which takes such claimed mistakes from the circuit trial courts in Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River and Okeechobee Counties) dealt with an alleged mistake of law. The person who was claiming the mistake (the Appellant), was representing herself. Without an attorney to help her write the appeal, she resorted to Artificial Intelligence ("AI"), as we can expect many people do or might start doing. The decision came back from the 4th District Court of Appeal, disagreeing with her; the appeals court found no error by the trial court. But for the use of Al, there probably would not have been any thing actually written. The 4th would have just said something like, "we find no error." However, the Al tool had "hallucinated" what other, prior District Courts' had said. In the paperwork submitted by the Appellant, she had cited certain old cases saying that these cases were opposite of what the trial court had ruled. She claimed that the trial court had used the wrong law and that she should have won. The problem, as you might have guessed, is that the cases did not exist - some of them not at all. Other cases she cited to the 4th were actual cases, but did not say what her Al asserted they said. Here is the reason everyone needs to know this: Self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as an attorney. Obviously, attorneys are not allowed to make up old cases and present them to a Court (trial or otherwise). If we do use Al to help find the old cases, we absolutely have to check to make sure that they are real and do exist. If we do not, we can be sanctioned - maybe even having to pay the other side's attorney's fees which, for an appeal, can easily be in the tens of thousands of dollars! That is a scary prospect. The self-represented litigant could have faced sanctions - just like her attorney would have had she had one. In this particular case (Roussell v. Bank of New York Mellon, Etc., decided March 11, 2026), the appellate court did NOT sanction her, but easily could have. This was probably a decision issued as a warning to all.