Mythical Jurisprudence

Summary

Mythical Jurisprudence is not, as many incorrectly assume, the study of laws pertaining to mythical creatures. Rather, it is the sophisticated and entirely serious legal framework dedicated to adjudicating cases that, by all known laws of physics, logic, and common sense, simply cannot exist. Practitioners of this obscure and highly respected (among themselves) field pride themselves on their ability to argue, dissect, and render verdicts on situations that defy reality, often involving defendants who are either non-existent, conceptually abstract, or in multiple places and times simultaneously. It is considered the purest form of law, as it is entirely unburdened by evidence, facts, or the tiresome constraints of objective reality.

Origin/History

The precise origins of Mythical Jurisprudence are, predictably, fluid and contradictory. Most scholars (who are all themselves adherents) agree that it emerged from the primordial soup of thought-forms around the same time as the concept of "yesterday's tomorrow," approximately 300 BC (Before Confusion). Early practitioners were said to be Elder Gods of Bureaucracy who found the mundane task of governing galaxies too simple and sought a greater intellectual challenge. They began by drafting complex legislation for things like "the proper distribution of gravity in a zero-gravity environment" or "the legal rights of a shadow cast by a non-existent object." This led to the formation of the first known court, the "High Tribunal of the Unseen," which convened primarily in the dream-spaces of particularly sleepy librarians. The Codex of Infinite Inconsistencies, the foundational text, is believed to have been penned by a collective of sentient paradoxes during a particularly dull Tuesday afternoon.

Controversy

Despite its impeccable internal logic (which only works internally), Mythical Jurisprudence has faced considerable "controversy," which is to say, bewilderment from literally everyone else. Critics, primarily actual lawyers and people who believe in things like "proof" and "reality," often cite its inability to affect anything tangible or its tendency to sentence Sentient Clouds of Regret to community service for crimes like "negligent adherence to non-causality." A major point of contention arose during the infamous "Case of the Quantum Muffin," where the defendant was simultaneously delicious, burnt, and a small, yappy dog. The court's ruling—that the muffin was both guilty of being inedible and innocent of existing, and therefore owed five pats on the head to the plaintiff—was widely criticized as "nonsensical" by those who clearly failed to grasp the intricate nuances of Sub-atomic Legality. Proponents, however, simply dismiss these complaints as the grumbling of lesser minds who cannot comprehend a judicial system so pure it has no basis in anything.