Early Friday Morning

As I sit here trying to get ready for my day, I'm having a moment. I'm sipping my venti caramel machiatto, listening to Sinatra, and watching the sun wake up, slowly creeping across the city's buildings. I'm thinking about this job--for the longest time, I wondered why in the world I took it. I got a teeny bit of validation yesterday that was everything I needed to fall in love with it. Yes, there will be days when I hate it, but I know I'll be fine here. And, when my time is up here, I hope to look back and know that I've learned and grown, personally and professionaly, while working here.

Now, I understand why lawyers stay in the rat race. The law really is fascinating. However, the politics--the game--is what holds us. Everything is a game--who to trust, what judge to go to, what jurisdiction to fall under (what!? yes, people forum shop!), what colleagues to make your friends, what colleagues to not worry about, and what colleagues to stand up against. What was fun about my week was going to lunch with my co-workers and laughing about the attorney we saw walk in whom we just contempted but who didn't know it yet. What was fun was getting an entry back from the judge that didn't have a single change--just his signature. What was fun was talking to one magistrate about why he did this or did that, and how he was trying to get around the law to make a decision that had to be made. Then, it was even more fun to sit in as the judge heard the same case brought up on objections and agreed with the magistrate's decision, but found a different (more legally appropriate) way to come to the same conclusion. It wasn't about the law--it was about how they applied it and for whom to apply it. It's a game of analysis--of tactics; it's also a game of reputation--of standing. Both attorneys had had times of being unprepared, but the judge and the magistrate both made decisions on the merits--how they wanted to see the situation.

The game of politics starts between colleagues, then between law firms, then between the lawyers and the clients, then between the lawyers and the deputy clerks, then between the lawyers and the courts. It's a massive system of wheels and hoops and jingles and tricks. It's amazing what kinds of games one must play to work in this field. It sounds as if a person would have to be a complete asshole to survive in law--but you don't. I've learned (and this is what makes me happy) that the good guy can win; the right side can prevail. I've seen it. It just means that the good guys have to play the game just as well--actually, better than the bad guys. It means the good guys have to find means to play the game without using tactics like lying and laziness--the good guys just have to work harder. They have to be present in the game--always a player, just of a different kind. In the end, when you see the good guy win, it feels so damn good that it actually makes me happy I'm in the field of law. See, when someone is a good guy--they're honest, hard working, open with the court and with their clients, pleasant with the deputy clerks--the law usually somehow drifts in their favor. Because, no deputy clerk is going to push papers through quickly for an attorney who is an asshole. Then, there somehow manages to be problems along the way procedurally. "What, you filed what? when?" Then, rules of procedure become a huge pain in the ass. Then, no judge is going to listen to an arrogant, presumptuous attorney because the judge is usually arrogant himself and won't stand for someone else's arrogance. I love it! Sometimes the evils of human nature are so self-incriminating that watching the show makes me smile. I know this rat race is going to be tough, and there will be times when I want to go kick attorneys as hard as I can; however, I think I just may survive. I'm learning how to play the game.

Crunch time

It's 30 minutes until the start of my Jurisdiction exam. No pressure. Ok, let's go down the check list.

1. Gum, check
2. food, check. m & m's
3. exam number, check
4. examsoft log in so I can type my piece of shit 10 page answer instead of write it and have joint problems for the rest of my life, check on examsoft, no check on arthritis
5. pencil for scantron, check. I hate scantron
6. pen to sign in, check. Like they don't know I'm here
7. chapstick for dry lips, check
8. bottled water, check.
9. laptop, check. pretty important detail
10. knowledge of Subject matter jurisdiction, check.
11. knowledge of any other kind of jurisdiction, venue, choice of law issue. no check.

I'm in trouble. I have more food/drink/oral fixation items than actual knowledge of the law. I really hope my obnoxious chomping on my gum helps me remember something about in personam, in rem, quasi in rem 1, and quasi in rem 2 personal jurisdiction. I'm having a heart attack just thinking about vertical choice of law questions. What is Erie again?

My real question is, after all this stress, how did I become the DD tonight? Oh, sweet Vodka!

Neurotic Woman + Law = Uniform Dating Code

Uniform Commercial Code 2-712: When a "seller" refuses to acknowledge a contract, a "buyer" may...
1. "Cover," by making in good faith and without unreasonable delay, a Substitution...
2. Recover damages in the form of the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages... (2-715)

So, I started this dating application. Some of you have read it and have given me some great additions! My friend and I just figured it would be best to go over the major questions first--you know, to dig out all the important information before falling in love and then facing major disappointment.

I started with this simple form from the psychiatric department of the probate court.

That's a good start to weed out the psychos. But, see, I've come across plenty of liars. So, I figure, afer putting down all kinds of information about themselves, these guys better be telling the truth. So, I decided, a Dating Contract would be the best way to go! Don't you?

"Hey, you really like me, right? Because I like you."

"Definitely."

"Here, answer these questions."

"Umm, ok."

"It's not much--just questions about your criminal record, faith, dating history, mental condition, physical health, emotional stability, family relations, grooming habits, substance reliance, medications, character--you know, maturity, honesty, ability to communicate, commitment...just simple stuff. Oh, and don't forget to sign every page. Do you have a lawyer?"

Ok, so I definitely sound neurotic. This application is definitely going to be a contract.

They make the offer: "hey, I'd love to see you again sometime." or "Can I give you a call?"

I counter offer: "Well, I only go out with guys who fill this out and sign it."

He looks confused.

I offer consideration to hold his offer open: "here's my number; call me anytime."

They give consideration: "sure, X place, Y time." or "Here's my number."

He gives an answer: He fills out the application, signing it, including the line that states that he will follow through with behavior consistent with the answers in the application and that he answered all questions thoroughly and honestly. (kind of like a questionnaire you'd fill out for employment)

I give an answer: I go on the first date.

So, 2 weeks into the relationship when he (surprisingly--oh my gosh, he's a man) disappoints me and acts in direct opposition to how he portrayed himself in the application, I can tell him,

"You know, you're in breach of your contract. But, if you want to make it up to me, you can cover."

"I can what?"

"You know, cover! Offer a substitution. Since you said you never did drugs, but now tell me that you are addicted to heroin, you can "cover" that breach of our contract by immediately going to rehab to let me know that it's something you're going to fight with all your might to never do again. OR Since you said you don't own any weapons, but you really do, you can substitute for that breach by getting rid of your gun and membership to the NRA." (don't take that seriously, readers. It's just a hypothetical.)

And, then, if they only provide half-hearted cover, I can recover the difference between what I expected and what I actually got. And, if they don't even try to "cover," then, according to UCC 2-713, I can recover the Market value of what I thought I was going to receive--market value being determined at the time I discovered the breach.

But, wait, what's the market value of a lost relationship? Wow, that all came to a screeching halt. Hmm, guess my neurosis got the best of me for just one blog entry. Oh well, I guess I'll still stick with the dating application--just without the contractual aspects.

You would think...

that in an institution that influences at least 95% of its student body to be people who are constantly looking for a way to apply the elements of a tort to every possible situation; where people are tickled at the possibilities of my intentional and negligent tort liabilities from when I hit the tennis ball over the fence into the car windshield and it continued to roll under the kid's skateboard, tripping him, making him fall and break an arm while making him crash into a power line that knocked out power to a nearby neighborhood; where people get excited by an actual "thin skull" case; where peers scream and point at you with glee when you're walking outside the crosswalk, telling you that you're going to be contributorily negligent if you get hit by a car; where someone pinches a finger and instantly replies "Design Defect!"...you would think they would at least shovel the Fucking sidewalks so I wouldn't fall on my ass as I'm walking in from the parking lot. TORT!

Finals

For all my friends taking finals...

Oh the agony of preparing for the dreaded three page fact pattern in Jurisdiction where Bobby lives in Africa but has a flat in Boston and brings suit against the company that operates in Delaware but ships its business to Nebraska (not China, why can't they ever pick China?) and sells its product (running shoes) in Florida where Bobby picked up the product that he ordered via internet from an office in Georgia for the race he will run in Texas. I say bring the suit in China.

Or, let's try to authenticate a foreign document. Do I start with the 803 hearsay exception or with the 902 authentication rule? Or, do I merely sit and cry while my desk become increasingly cluttered to the point that I can't even find those really good chocolate covered pretzels to comfort me because they must be hidden in the clutter?

Sigh. Someone told me my blood type has turned to scotch (negative). I think he may have been correct.

All this to say, Good luck! I know you all will do fine. Study hard, and be prepared, take two pills (better if mixed with alcohol), and call me in the morning after your exam. (Just don't use Examsoft to write your answer--the hand cramp from writing for three hours straight will go away after a couple days and some icy/hot)

I'm proud of all of you who made it through this semester. We're almost done!!!!!

A day of heartbreak for Child Welfare law people

Evan Scott:
Evan Scott, once again, is being battled over in a case that will most likely result in more upheaval for the little 4 year old.

I hate to say it, but this is one of those times when the emotional side of me wants to rant and rave in the legal realm and to try to use sociology a little (ok, a hell of a lot) more in the courtrooms. I admit, too much sociology and statistical data can be overwhelming and, often, misleading in the courtroom. However, it would not take much statistical/sociological presentation to show that the likelihood of recidivism in the biological parents' homes would result in an atmosphere that is not in the best interests of Evan. In fact, data strongly shows that Evan, if given to the custody of either one of his biological parents, will very likely face abuse at home. There is already a history of possible child abuse, domestic violence (huge studies on the effects of that on a child! the judge must simply be ignoring that), substance abuse, convictions and incarceration.

All the while, a loving family in Florida who raised Evan for the first three and a half years of his life and who tried to adopt him have absolutely no say in his custody or in what meets his best interests.

I understand the need to uphold the very fundamental rights of parents to parent their children; however, many judges continue to put the rights of the parents over the safety and best interests of the child. Is that because the parent will appeal and the child won't? Should it not be consistent that, if the state can step in to administer medical treatment over a parent's fundamental right to choose how to care for their child, then the state could step in to pull a child out a situation in which the child has already been physically hurt and risks much more (almost guaranteed) harm in the future? How long can abusers continue to abuse before Judges take judicial notice of the repetitive nature of such action? So much chaos over such an innocent little person--it breaks my heart. One day--best interest determinations will be more consistent and will actually favor the child.

Alito

I'm surprised, but this actually sheds a little more insight into the Constitutional analysis of the man who may fill the most important voting seat in our Highest Court.

I agree it was a good analysis. This definitely further clarifies my view of Alito in a way I didn't expect. He and Scalia are going to have a fun time!

Law, morality, and justice, cont. (with a side of really good chocolate covered pretzels)

"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of Government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to Government, and would exist if the formality of Government was abolished. . . . In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to Government."
-- Thomas Paine (The Rights of Man, 1792)

Too bad so many men ignore "It". Hence, the continued need for law. But, I love the concept Thomas Paine is speaking of here. I'm sure George Orwell would like it as well.