an original comment! sort of...

Matthewb's Halloween post is a PSA: apparently it's "ILLEGAL" to possess, use, sell or distribute Silly String in public areas during Halloween, punishable by a $1,000 fine, per LAMC 56.02.

I found that intriguing enough that I went to look up LAMC 56.02. It states, in full:

SEC. 56.02. SILLY STRING – HOLLYWOOD DIVISION DURING HALLOWEEN.

(Added by Ord. No. 176,176, Eff. 10/6/04.)

(a) For purposes of this section:

1. "Silly String" shall mean any putty-like substance that is shot or expelled in the form of string from an aerosol can or other pressurized device, regardless of whether it is sold under the name "Silly String" or any other name.

2. "Hollywood Division" shall mean the area defined by the Los Angeles Police Department as the Hollywood Division, the geographical boundaries of which include all of that portion of Los Angeles City bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of Beverly Boulevard and Normandie Avenue, and proceeding northerly along Normandie Avenue to Franklin Avenue, and proceeding westerly along Franklin Avenue to Western Avenue, and proceeding northerly along Western Avenue to Fern Dell Drive, and continuing northerly along Fern Dell Drive to its terminus, and proceeding due north through Griffith Park to Forest Lawn Drive at its intersection with Zoo Drive, and proceeding westerly and southwesterly along Forest Lawn Drive to Barham Boulevard, and proceeding southerly along Barham Boulevard to United States Highway 101, and proceeding southeasterly along U.S. Highway 101 to Mulholland Drive, and proceeding westerly along the various curves and courses of Mulholland Drive to the Crest of Ridge, and proceeding southerly following the Los Angeles city line along the eastern border of the Trousdale Estates area of the City of Beverly Hills to the northeast corner of the City of West Hollywood, and proceeding easterly following the Los Angeles city line bordering along its various curves and courses of the northern border of the City of West Hollywood to the eastern border of the City of West Hollywood that is to the east of La Brea Avenue, and proceeding southerly along the Los Angeles city line to Romaine Street, and proceeding westerly following the Los Angeles city line along its various curves and courses to the intersection of Romaine Street and La Cienega Boulevard, and proceeding southerly following the Los Angeles city line along its various curves and courses to Beverly Boulevard, and proceeding easterly along Beverly Boulevard to La Brea Avenue, and proceeding northerly along La Brea Avenue to Willoughby Avenue, and proceeding easterly along Willoughby Avenue to Hudson Avenue, and proceeding southerly along Hudson Avenue to Melrose Avenue, and proceeding easterly along Melrose Avenue to Gower Street, and proceeding southerly along Gower Street to Beverly Boulevard, and proceeding easterly along Beverly Boulevard to Normandie Avenue.

3. "Halloween" shall mean the 36-hour period from 12:00 a.m. on October 31st of each year, through 12:00 p.m. on November 1st of each year.

(b) No Person, as defined in Municipal Code Section 11.01(a), shall possess, use, sell or distribute Silly String at, within or upon any public or private property that is either within public view or accessible to the public, including, but not limited to, public or private streets, sidewalks, parking lots, commercial or residential buildings, places of business, or parks within the Hollywood Division during Halloween.

(c) Any violation of this section is a misdemeanor subject to the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 11.00(m).

I think 56.02(b) is the most fascinating. For 36 hours every year, Silly String is, at least on the books, treated much like an illegal narcotic. Its possession, use, sale or distribution "at, within or upon any public or private property... including, but not limited to, public or private streets, sidewalks, parking lots, commercial or residential buildings, places of business, or parks" constitutes breaking the law.

Wow. You can't even have the stuff in your own house. You couldn't decorate your own house with it for Halloween if you wanted to. Not even your own room. Or yourself, even. I can't wait for someone to bring a constitutional challenge to this (unless, of course, you're Scalito and don't believe that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution). Speaking of which, they'd better hurry before the Court tilts to the right.

PS - If you check out matthewb's original post, isn't it interesting that the sign makes no mention if it being illegal even in private?

darwinian recklessness

From today's L.A. Times - "Don't Try to Surf a Tsunami."

Don't Try to Surf a Tsunami

Malibu is distributing brochures advising its residents to head for the hills and away from the beach to avoid giant waves after temblors.

By Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writer

The city of Malibu has a message for its residents: When a big quake hits, don't wax up the surfboard and head to the beach.

City Hall is beginning to distribute tsunami-warning brochures across Malibu that are tailor-made for the surfing paradise.

"Never go to the beach to watch for, or to surf, a tsunami wave!" the guide states in bold letters.

" … Because they are not like regular waves, they are impossible to surf. They are much faster, higher and can come on-shore filled with debris."

Officials advise people to watch for other signs of a possible tsunami, including the receding of ocean waters, "creating a vast expanse of exposed beach."

Malibu emergency preparedness Director Brad Davis said some of the tips may seem painfully obvious, but it's always better to be safe than sorry.

"You can't overestimate the intelligence of people out there," Davis said. "Some people still might see it as a gigantic wave and think, 'This is going to be the ride of my life.' "

Along Pacific Coast Highway, some Malibu residents were left rolling their eyes at the warning.

"I'm speechless," said Candace Brown, a surfer and co-owner of Zuma Jay's, a landmark surf shop in Malibu. "I think the last thing people will think about if they feel an earthquake is surfing…. It sounds really lame to me."

But others believe that in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami last December, the city is being prudent in getting the message out.

Jeff Kramer, a surfer, lawyer and former Malibu mayor, said he thought warning people to clear beach areas in case of a big quake seemed like a good idea. But he said that despite their reputation for taking risks, surfers might be the last people to try to tangle with a tsunami.

"I think surfers, more than most people, understand the power of the ocean," he said. "I don't think they're going to go out there and try to surf a tsunami. That strikes me as somewhat silly advice."

But Malibu officials may have some history on their side.

In 1994, a tsunami warning in Hawaii drew more than 400 surfers to the North Shore of Oahu.

"Fortunately, that turned out to not be a huge, deadly, destructive tsunami. If it had been, there would have been over 400 deaths," an oceanography professor told a local paper at the time.

Last year the state distributed a DVD to 100 surf shops in Hawaii explaining the dangers of trying to ride a tsunami. Besides the risk of death, there are other reasons not to surf a tsunami. For one, according to a surfing website, "a tsunami does not curl."

In the Gulf Coast, people have headed to the beach to witness hurricanes making landfall, Davis said. And after a magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck off the Northern California coast in June, there were reports that some people had gone to the beach.

"With a lot of natural occurrences, sometimes people get curious, and we want to discourage people from heading toward a disaster," said Jeff Terry, chairman of the Los Angeles County Operational Area Tsunami Planning Task Force.

Earthquakes below the ocean can cause an elevation in the sea floor that raises ocean waters and could send a wall of water moving toward land at great speed. The December tsunami occurred after an 8.7 magnitude quake below the Indian Ocean off the coast of Sumatra in Indonesia, killing more than 200,000 people in 12 countries.

The Malibu brochure urges residents to immediately head to higher ground in the event of a big quake. People should follow evacuation notices and pay attention to radio and TV for information on when it is safe to return.

The state is completing a mapping of coastal areas in order to help coordinate different cities' response to potential tsunamis, Terry said.

Davis said Malibu has wanted to put out a detailed brochure for years, but was awaiting the mapping of the city.

"The map is still not complete for this area, so rather than wait any longer, we decided to go with some basic information for the public," Davis said.

Signs along roads at elevations of 90 feet or more would direct people to tsunami "safe areas," according to the brochure. Places such as Bluffs Park, Point Dume or along canyon roads are places to evacuate to, Davis said.

But would anyone really think of surfing a tsunami?

You just never know, Davis said.

"You need to make all the statements you can, even the ones you think are pretty obvious to people," he said. "Because what seems obvious is not always obvious to everyone."

I wonder if Malibu officials understand that they're interfering with the evolutionary process here by distributing their "Don't Surf a Tsunami" pamphlets. I mean, whatever happened to survival of the fittest (or at least nominally intelligent)?

I'm also wondering if the City (is Malibu even a city?) Attorney foresaw a possible lawsuit (wrongful death? Failure to maintain public property in a safe condition? C'mon, get creative and chime in here!) and decided, "Heck, if we distribute pamphlets warning them not to, they've been given notice. Our comparative negligence will be reduced, and the evidence of their recklessness will go up!"

a confession

So I confess, I do casually read the serious legal blogs from time to time.*

Today while engaging in more L. Rev. Comment procrastination, I hyperlinked on over to The Volokh Conspiracy, and amid all the incisive legal analysis, found a link to J. Scalia's review of Steven Smith's new book, Law's Quandary.

You should read the review, partly because it's refreshing to read Scalia writing on something other than a SCOTUS brief; he's still as personable, he still takes swipes at living constitutionalism, but he doesn't do citations or spend very much time explaining why he's right and everyone else is wrong. But a better reason to read the review is that it makes the book sound very interesting.

Law's Quandary points out contradictions, puzzles, and oddities about the law as we know it today, and how our interactions with the law do not sync with our contemporary understandings of it (warning, this is almost all about legal philosophy, so those of you who don't like to think about why the law is the law, click away lest you find enlightenment, or at least, more questions). And Smith meekly (this is hearsay, I haven't read the book yet, but I'm reporting what Scalia wrote) suggests that perhaps we need to account for a higher metaphysical rationale behind it all. Scalia humorously (but yet quite seriously I believe) gives it a name - God. Let's bring God back into the discussion of the law.

Heaven, oops, Congress forfend! Talk about religion and the divine in law school?? Never! Ever! Ever ever ever! Considering the reactions I get when I try to ask about legal philosophy in class (everyone else opens up a new game of Minesweeper/Solitaire/Pinball/Scrabble), I can't imagine what would happen if I brought up God. But I still believe that if we keep asking the questions, you cannot help but have to face up to the math: A (all that we know) - G (God) = L (less than everything). No matter what ontology you hold on to, no matter what theory you hold on Life, the Universe, and Everything, you ultimately come to a yawning chasm where you must choose to make a leap of faith, of some sort (atheism too is a valid leap, but it still requires faith. Agnostics choose not to jump, but I think they're effectively waiting to get shoved over the edge at a time not of their choosing).

* It is my belief that legal blogs can be categorized into three tiers:

1. The serious blogs, such as The Volokh Conspiracy mentioned above, Adam Smith Esq., blogs setup by law firms and law professors, and the other blogs that would pop up in law.com's e-mail newsletter. Such blogs feature trenchant legal analysis, big names, and quite possibly little itty-bitty disclaimers in 4 point font right at the bottom.
   
2. The aspiring blogs, whose authors I will not offend by naming them, lest they think that I think that they have not yet arrived (even though really they haven't). But they're trying and who knows, maybe one day they'll be Division, er I mean Tier I. Identified by what might be trenchant legal analysis, but without the big name.
   
3. The Joe/Jill Schmoe Law Student/Attorney blog. I squarely and proudly fall into this category. The legal analysis may be trenchant, but more likely than not, not. The jokes are old and tired (but still funny! C'mon!), the griping, moaning, whining and whinging fairly constant, but yet the entire product is infused with this great sense of pathos that only a law student or legal practitioner would understand and weep (or laugh) at. Or hopefully it's at least a little entertaining (if you feel it's not entertaining enough, tell me. I'll try harder).
   

well that didn't take long

Miers withdrew her nomination this morning. A source speaking to the L.A. Times phrased it thus:

"And Harriet, being a good soldier, knows the president would never ask her on his own to withdraw….So she saluted and fell on her sword," the source, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said.

Dear Ms. Miers, thank you. If it's any consolation, whoever's next is going to have a real picnic in the park too.

creative spamming

I've gotten pretty used to the Nigerian spams/scams by now. But today's one was really novel.

Dear,Good day.
I know that this mail might be a surpriseing to you but do consider it as an emergency. In a nut shell, My name Nwinyer Williams, from the republic of Sierria-Leone in west Africa. The only child of late Dr.Solomon Williams, I am looking for someone who can take me as a child or friend I promise to be obidient to you and I will bring happiness to your life,

Apart from the fact that the spammer/scammer didn't even bother to fill in a name, he also wants to be adopted, in return for which he promises to be "obidient" and "bring happiness to [my] life." An adoption spam. Wow. I don't think I'm ready for the responsibility of fatherhood, so I think I'll write back and politely decline.

Miers betrayed

The biggest loser out of this confirmation battle will be Harriet Miers herself.

The L.A. Times today ran a pretty harsh story of what she's going to face. You can read it here. In sum, the Christian conservatives are no longer unanimous in their support, with a group of conservative women, Concerned Women for America (purportedly one of the nation's largest Christian advocacy groups, although I've never heard of them. Has anyone?), vowing to oppose her "radical feminist worldview." The Senate Judiciary Committee is sharpening its knives in preparation for the no-holds-barred gladiatorial carnage that will commence on Nov. 7. None of the Republican senators have yet said they would vote against her, but with two dedicated websites run by conservatives calling for her withdrawal, and anti-Miers ads on the telly and the radio (paid for by conservatives, no less!), and the Christian right ominously warning that this will have serious consequences for their support of P. Bush (and presumably for whichever senators vote for her)... need I spell out the inference chain?

The President is loyal to his friends. He obviously considers Miers a friend. He's stuck up for her, but he's definitely sticking his neck out right now. The liberals have never liked him. The moderates are less than enthralled with how he danced (or stumbled, tripped, and fell) with Katrina and her sisters. His own conservatives were less than pleased with the hurricane response, less than less than pleased with his vows of throwing money at the problem, and now he's given them a candidate for the Supreme Court that they're going to tar and feather, before they run her out of town on a pole. Loyalty is admirable, idiocy is not. The political fallout for Bush from this whole thing will not be pretty. And he needs some friends for the next 3 years... he's conceivably about to lose some key staffers, as well as a fan base.

Dear Ms. Miers, I think you're nice. I like the fact that you're a Christian (it shouldn't matter in confirmation to a Supreme Court seat, and it doesn't to me, but it's nice icing). I don't know where you stand on social issues, but I'm comforted that the extreme right doesn't like you and neither does the extreme left. However, unless you are just as brilliant, sharp, politically nimble, and amiable as Chief Justice Roberts, you will not fare well in the days ahead. I fear that you will all too soon find yourself in your own Garden of Gethsemane, deserted by all your friends and at the mercy of a lynch mob in the darkest hours. For your own sake more than ours, please withdraw. It may show that you're not a fighter, but at least it will show that you are a realist. Courage is not fighting every battle; that's suicide.

interpreting the signs of the time

Q: How do you know that I have to hand in a draft of my L. Rev. comment soon?
A: Because I made five blog posts in one day.

Yeesh. I need to get my head checked.

Also, how in the world did a spammer get past the word verification feature? I have a comment from "Kirk Liu," about two or three posts down. While I appreciate his appreciation for this blog, I'm a little peeved that he used the opportunity to post a comment to try to link to "Best Hotel Rooms." My peevishness is a little lessened by the irony I find in the fact that the link is broken.

"Ask & ye shall receive"

[Update: The scriveners of The Scrivener have requested that I take down the PDF of the inaugural issues for legal reasons that they did not wish to go into. See the November 16 entry for more.]

Well, whoever The Scrivener's scribes are, they either check this blog or have heard my mournful lament over not receiving a copy: I received a PDF copy of the first issue in my mailbox today.

With their kind permission, I now reproduce the inaugural issue of The Scrivener for your perusal. Enjoy!

(if you're myopic like me and can't read the text, just click on the picture to link to a larger image)
(and if you're wondering why the watermark in the image reads "Demo Mode," please bear in mind that I am but a poor and lowly law student who cannot afford to pay for his software and therefore relies on shareware and freeware. Here's a link to the developers, IntraPDF, as my way of saying thank you)

dance, napoleon, dance!

Mark Obbie of Slate has written an article on Miers. A pretty snippy one too, expressing why being a law firm partner and president of a bar association just doesn't quite cut it. It begins:

Throughout the public evisceration of Harriet Miers, even her critics have tended to concede one of President Bush's main claims: Miers couldn't have been a complete loser to rise to the top of the bar and of her law firm.

Wrong.

Well, to be fair, a complete loser would have had to stretch to win election as president of her local and state bar associations. And loser perhaps isn't the word for the typical law firm managing partner back in Miers' era.

Mediocrity—that's a better word for it.

Towards the end, he compares Miers with Pedro of Napoleon Dynamite fame, and asks if there is a Napoleon in her coterie who can get her elected, or in this case, nominated. To which I have to ask, "Can Bush get down and boogie to Jamiroquai?"

My money is on her not making it though. The Dems don't even need to do very much to shoot her down, the Reps are doing it all for them. And the best that can be said about her just isn't good enough. I too add my vote to those who say she should do the "W" - withdraw. Not that there's anything wrong about her, but she just doesn't seem to be right for the job (does anyone out there think she is?).

lawyers = sophists?

From wikipedia.org:

Sophist

The meaning of the word sophist (gr. sophis meaning "wise-ist," or one who 'does' wisdom; cf. sophós, "wise man") has changed greatly over time. Initially, a sophist was someone who gave sophia to his disciples, i.e., wisdom made from knowledge. It was a highly complimentary term, applied to early philosophers such as the Seven Wise Men of Greece.

In the second half of the 5th century B.C., and especially at Athens, "sophist" came to be applied to a group of thinkers who employed debate and rhetoric to teach and disseminate their ideas and offered to teach these skills to others. Due to the importance of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners of such skills often commanded very high fees. The practice of taking fees, coupled with the willingness of many practitioners to use their rhetorical skills to pursue unjust lawsuits, eventually led to a decline in respect for practitioners of this form of teaching and the ideas and writings associated with it.

Protagoras is generally regarded as the first sophist. Other leading 5th-century sophists included Gorgias and Prodicus. Socrates was perhaps the first philosopher to significantly challenge the Sophists.

Plato is significantly responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as someone who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all challenged the philosophical foundations of sophism.

Eventually, the school was accused of immorality by the state.

Hmm. Taking fees? Willingness to use rhetorical skills to pursue unjust lawsuits? Might one draw a parallel to a certain modern-day profession? Heaven forfend...

judge-on-judge action, anyone?

For those of you with access to Westlaw or some other legal database, the appropriate cite is 2005 WL 1239133, or No. CIV-04-1771-R, United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. For those of you who were in my Property class last year, Prof. N referred to this case (and this judge).

I would do a typical 1L case brief for this case to help you, dear reader, understand what went on. Except that I soon learned that the correlation between briefing cases and preparing for the exam was weak, and stopped doing it. But here's the summary.

In the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the position of Chief Justice would rotate among all the Supreme Court justices. A justice was eligible for the position when all the other judges either had already had their turn at being the Chief, or if they waived their right to be Chief. Furthermore the Chief could not be Chief for two consecutive terms. Enter Vice-Chief Marian Opala, 83 years old. Under that system, he was the only runner in the race. Furthermore he claimed that despite the official policy, the Vice-Chief normally took over whenever it was time to find a new Chief.

But apparently before his triumphant ascendancy to the throne, his fellow justices, without consulting him, decided to amend the rules and let the Chief Justice be Chief for a second two-year term. Suitably peeved at being deprived of his moment of glory, Justice Opala sued the Oklahoma Supreme Court for violating his constitutional due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment (and if I remembered the term for why the Fifth Amendment now applies to states as well, I'd say it. But I don't, so too bad).

I won't get into the details, but effectively the federal court (what, did you expect a Oklahoma trial judge to hear his bosses bicker in his court?) denied all the defendants' 12(b)(6) motions and claims of immunity.

Ready for some trenchant legal analysis? Okay, here goes:

...

... ...

Sorry, I don't do trenchant legal analysis. I merely raise this case because I think it's quite amusing to see judges suing each other, especially at the highest levels of a State Court. Could you imagine Scalia or Thomas suing all the other SCOTUS justices? Unbelievable, right? But I think this is a good reflection of the fact that despite the robes, the men and women in black on the bench are all still human.

And now perhaps from a cultural perspective, I have to express my bafflement at how the suit could come about. I mean, even if he wins... Uncle Marian is 83. The lawsuit will take at least a year, maybe two (or more). And after which he serves for 2 years. But:
(a) at 80+, don't you have better things to do with your life? Is this really so important to you? And why on earth aren't you retired??
(b) Can you imagine what the backroom conference politics would be like? Icy to say the least. All other things being equal (which they never are), I wonder who's going to be writing a lot of dissents? It's like becoming the captain of a mutinous ship.

Moral of the story? Save up for retirement early, so you don't have to sue co-workers when you're 83.

salut!

On today's episode of Law School: UCLA, we met The Scrivener ("three generations of imbeciles is enough"? Nice one).

While I wrote about something similar earlier, I am also quite happy that someone has actually done it (and quite likely done it much better). It's about time! While someone was heard to be less than overwhelmed by it, I personally think it's an overdue breath of fresh air. So to the brave men and women who put The Scrivener together, I say thank you. Even if I feel slightly miffed that I wasn't deemed worthy enough to receive a copy in my mailbox (but given how full my mailbox is, that might be more than understandable).

Which brings me to my next point: WHO ARE YOU??!! My keen powers of inference gained from a year of Law Skillz tells me:
1. You must be 2Ls, because: (a) 1Ls don't have time for this; and (b) 3Ls don't care enough to do stuff like this. Which leaves us 2Ls caught in the no-man's land between the insanity of 1L year and the boredom of 3L year.
2. You are likely to be from Section 7/8. Ms. Holly Gilbert, you're wanted for questioning.

Okay, so I only have two clues to work off of. I didn't exactly do great in Law Skills, alright? My keen anal-retention developed from just five months of being on L. Rev. does urge me to point out that the "f" in "french department" wasn't properly capitalized, but please, I can't help being like that: it's just brainwashi- er, environmental conditioning.

Stay tuned...

alea jecta est

So I made the decision - I will be a 2006 summer associate at a major Los Angeles law firm. Remarkably, I eschewed what many consider to be a more "lifestyle" firm for MegaLaw. Why? I'm not quite sure myself. And I'm still unsure if BigLaw is for me, but I guess we'll find out relatively soon.

In the meantime, I really need to stop procrastinating as I sit in the Law Library, attempting to write my comment.

crazy but fairly stated?

Check out MatthewB's post on how much it costs to recruit a new summer associate.

My mouse rolled over the box. It then rolled over the box again, thinking that my eyesight was going and I was mistaking commas for periods.

Isn't that crazy?

so true it hurts

Remember that calendar of lawyer jokes I mentioned earlier? They've had a couple of other good ones along the way, but here's the one for last Tuesday, 10/11.

Q: What do you get if you put one hundred lawyers in your basement?

A: A whine cellar.

I laughed only because it's so true. There is a high amount of whining around law school and I'm confident that's true at every law firm in the nation too. But I wonder if that's a reflection of the practice of law, or just our culture in general. I find myself whining even though I really have nothing to whine about. It's almost like we're culturally trained to be negative, not positive. Isn't that kind of sad?

the biggest exam in law school

Is probably how to keep your balance. No, I don't mean that we're plagued by surreptitious, shifty-footed and sneaky black-clad ninjas who spend all day trying to push us over or trip us up (ninjas thankfully are not yet on the law school's list of problems). But when so many demands on your time and attention come from so many different sources, it becomes easy to feel that you're being pushed around all the time by different forces outside your control, constantly subject to the whim and fancy of your professors, journal, student organization, public interest legal clinic, fellow students, et al.*

I don't think people are really truly able to live like that. Living 28 hours in a 24 hour day takes a psychic toll on you after a while, and the sleep deprivation definitely does your body and mind no good. Furthermore I think as a person of faith, living a life like that tempts you to cheat God of your time. You pray less (mumble a quick dirty prayer under your breath as you crawl into bed, for the space of seconds that you're awake before your head hits the pillow). You don't read the Scriptures (because you barely have enough time to read for class). In general, you try to minimize spiritual moments that you might have more time for everything else in life. And so we neglect the important for the urgent.

It has been a frenzied two weeks for me. I'm not saying it's going to be easier going forward. But I'm aware that I am manifestly discontent with the way I live my life now. "Just a closer walk with Thee" is not going to happen if I'm constantly on the run, and not willing to take the time to walk beside Jesus. I don't think working as a lawyer will be any different (I'm certainly not expecting it to get better), and if I'm going to be a good Christian lawyer, I think the discipline starts now.

*My undergrad school used to have these dance shows every semester. Sometimes they were good, sometimes they were ehh. But I remember one year, a friend of mine choreographed a dance, part of which involved her being pushed around in a circle of people, in a movement that evoked helplessness and being tossed about by circumstances and events beyond your control. That's a pretty good picture of what life in law school can be like sometimes.

starbucks says...

According to the side of my Starbucks coffee cup (a venti, of course), the average American spends 29 hours a week watching TV. This, of course, leads me to a slowly dawning realization: law school is making me sub-average. TV? What's that? It's a sufficient anomaly if I watch an hour of TV a week! This also probably means that I am more than 2 S.D.s (standard deviations) below the mean, and an outlier, a.k.a not really American, or at least way way below par. Sorry, America - I'm pulling everyone's average TV hours per week score down.

the FRCP can be sooo boring

Which is why I took the "Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You" test again. I used to be Rule 11 (sanctions, baby). I guess I must have loosened up. Fitting, considering that I now seem to live in Party Central. (will rent out house for law school tuition)

YOU ARE RULE 20(a)!

You are Rule 20, an important part of the Federal
Rules' policy of permissive joinder. You are
designed specifically to allow as many parties
in an action as can be tried efficiently, and
you'll include someone as long as there is some
factual overlap between a claim involving them
and the rest of the case at hand. You are
popular, out-going, and are never far from
friends. However, your overly gregarious
nature and magnanimous approach do make things
a bit crowded--you're the reason that lawsuits
are often cluttered with innumerable parties
and even more numberous claims for relief.
Still, despite the crowds that you attract, you
can't argue with the efficiency of getting
everything done at once!


Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

career observations and mitsakes

Over lunch today, I decided that if this whole law thing doesn't work out, I'm going to switch careers and be a rock star. Alright, if not a star, how about a rock Maglite at least? I don't smoke or do drugs, but I drink. I don't cuss and swear easily, but might if I'm really provoked. I don't sing that well and can't play the guitar like a pro, but... hmm. I think I may have detected a flaw in my perfect plan.

Or maybe I can be a career cite-checker. Speaking of which, try googling "bluebook maroonbook" to find criticisms of the Bluebook, and references to the U. of Chicago Law Review Maroonbook, and other alternatives to the Bluebook. Essentially, the Bluebook has become an unwieldy tome of arcane rules. If you were playing AD&D, the Bluebook would be like trying to wield a six-feet, two-handed broadsword in a narrow dungeon passage only three feet across as you're being attacked by giant rats. Sure it gets the job done, but it takes you twice as many turns and you suffer twice as many injuries (unless you're wearing Dolan's Stainless Steel Breastplate of Righteousness, which gives you a +12 armor protection).

Oh and if you can get your hands on the Eighteenth Edition of the Bluebook (the latest one), look in the index for "Mistakes in quotations, indicated by '[sic].'"

...

... ...

Okay, I can't resist, I'll tell you right now - you won't find it. Instead, you will find "Mitsakes in quotations, indicated by '[sic].'" Isn't that funny? That there would be a mistake in the Bluebook in the entry that directly addresses mistakes? They either have a better sense of humor at CHuPY than I give them credit for, or a really disgruntled Bluebook editor.

I feel like I want to cry

Liberal Hopes Ebb in Post-Storm Poverty Debate

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 - As Hurricane Katrina put the issue of poverty onto the national agenda, many liberal advocates wondered whether the floods offered a glimmer of opportunity. The issues they most cared about - health care, housing, jobs, race - were suddenly staples of the news, with President Bush pledged to "bold action."

But what looked like a chance to talk up new programs is fast becoming a scramble to save the old ones.

Conservatives have already used the storm for causes of their own, like suspending requirements that federal contractors have affirmative action plans and pay locally prevailing wages. And with federal costs for rebuilding the Gulf Coast estimated at up to $200 billion, Congressional Republican leaders are pushing for spending cuts, with programs like Medicaid and food stamps especially vulnerable.

"We've had a stunning reversal in just a few weeks," said Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. "We've gone from a situation in which we might have a long-overdue debate on deep poverty to the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, that low-income people will be asked to bear the costs. I would find it unimaginable if it wasn't actually happening."

In one sense, I don't really care if neo-cons or liberals win the fight over the best way to end poverty, as long as we do end poverty. But the administration seems decidedly unwilling to take a fresh look at the problem or acknowledge that perhaps some of the aid programs have merit. Instead, they're trumpeting their own policies ever more resolutely and stridently, confident that they're right about it. But what if you're not? Do we want to recreate New Orleans, just as it was?

On another note, who on earth decided that it would be a good idea to get rid of public mental institutions and put the mentally unstable out on the street?

On a third note (ooh, a triad!), after Katrina, many Americans extended their hands to help, simply because the refugees (I refuse to call them evacuees) "are Americans." But there are so many homeless people out there who are indigent despite their best efforts, often because there have been hurricanes (not always natural) in their lives. And many of those Americans who rushed to give, would refuse to extend a hand to them, because they're no-good homeless bums.
God have mercy.

you want me to work where?

While doing research on some of the firms that have made me offers for summer employment, I happened upon this article from New York Magazine. It's a little outdated, 1999, but somehow I doubt that the legal culture of New York has improved since then.

I know that it would be exceedingly naive of me to think that what's described in that article is exclusive to New York, or New York firms. It's just part of going the BigLaw route these days. And it does make me wonder what I'm getting myself into.

There's a line in Richard III that I'm fond of: "Let us to it pell-mell; if not to heaven, then hand-in-hand to hell!" (and Richard then gallops off into battle, only to be soundly defeated by the numerically inferior army of Richmond, who obviously has God on his side and hence wins the day, even though he's so flat and one-dimensional a character that you just want to shoot him)*. Heaven in a law firm seems like asking for snow in the Sahara, so maybe I'm just choosing between different levels of hell.

Maybe it's not too late to go to seminary... (although the ministry certainly is no heaven either).

* Speaking of Richard III, has anyone ever seen the Blackadder (starring Rowan Atkinson, a.k.a. Mr. Bean) episode where Richard famously does his "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" line, and comes upon Blackadder's horse? It's pretty funny, as is Blackadder in general (and certainly it's funnier than Mr. Bean).

i guess i'm not the only one...

Who thinks OCIP is like speed dating, or blind dating, or some variation of dating.

From Moonlighting in Misery - Speed Dating, OCI Style.

To which I say, amen.

truth and justice on the side of mass tort defense?

Here's something that we don't often see or hear about - corporate mass tort defense lawyers who seemingly have truth and justice on their side.

The district court judge remanded the claims to state court, but her opinion strongly suggests that she thinks many of the claims are fraudulent. After reading the article, I'm inclined to agree with her.

I guess the moral of the story is, you have slippery plaintiff lawyers, just as you have slippery defense lawyers. And you have lawyers on both sides who are concerned with truth and justice. It is nice to see corporations rightfully "win" for once.

executive doublespeak

A CNN article reports that the White House will likely veto the Department of Defense spending bill just passed by the Senate, because it contains an amendment requiring American troops to follow interrogation standards in the Army Field Manual and barring "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. Part of the article states:

Earlier, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush would likely veto the defense spending bill if McCain's language were included, calling the amendment "unnecessary and duplicative."

"If it's presented, then there would be a recommendation of a veto, I believe," McClellan said.

McClellan said existing law already prohibits the mistreatment of prisoners in American custody, and the amendment "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism."

So if I understand McClellan right, the amendment is unnecessary because there are either existing laws or executive regulations and other directives, that already order American troops to follow standards set out in the Army Field Manual and that prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of enemy prisoners. In other words, the amendment adds nothing new and doesn't change anything; prisoners will be treated the same.

But at the same time, this "old" new amendment will limit the president's ability to effectively carry out the war on terrorism. By requiring U.S. soldiers to do exactly what they are already supposedly doing.

Seems like McClellan is trying to have it both ways, and contradicting himself quite dismally. I'd hate to be the White House press secretary.

the price of being a law student

MatthewB, a classmate of mine, has done a great job blogging about the impact of The Regents of the University of California v. Kashmiri, a class action filed by professional students in the UC System in response to a perceived breach of contract by the UC schools regarding fee hikes. In essence, the costs of the lawsuit (and of the Regents' contract formation or contract performance mistakes) are being passed on to professional students in the UC system (read, law students) who are not even members of the class and do not stand to profit from the lawsuit. We're each being charged $1750 to pay for their mistakes.

You can read the whole article here, but I'd like to point out a few things:

1. Even if UC wins the lawsuit and has the right to collect the fees from the class, the Regents seem to have decided that it would be futile to do so. Rather than exercise its court-granted right to collect on its debt, the Regents of the UC seem to think that it would be a far better idea to make current students, who are not members of the class, cough up the cash that someone else owes it. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that that isn't just plain unfair, but it probably violates some kind of legal right, and certainly does seem to call for some kind of equitable remedy.

2. At least one of the Regents is not a big fan of lawyers. From the minutes of the meeting at which the fee hike was discussed:

Regent Lee believed that while it was important for the University’s business schools to maintain their [quality advantage], it was less important for its law schools, in view of the abundance of lawyers in the nation. He observed that it would help protect jobs in this country to charge higher fees to law students and lower fees to students in less well-represented fields such as nursing.

So apparently lawyers help destroy jobs in this country, and therefore we should have sub-par law schools in California. Because lawyers don't do good things like defend the innocent, protect civil rights, seek justice.... Guess I should just become a self-serving, greedy, narcissistic corporate shark. Sheesh.

Footnote: Regent David S. Lee is Chairman of the Board for eOn Communications Corporation and Cortelco, and Spark Technology Corporation.... Currently Mr. Lee is a member of the boards of directors of ESS Technology, iBassis, Inc., Linear Technology Corporation, and Daily Wellness Company. (from his bio.) Draw what inferences you may...