Law In The First

Law In The Second

2008-09-03T19:37:00.002-04:00

I have moved to a new blog:

www.lawinthesecond.blogspot.com

Step 4: Exam Acro-mony - May 5-7, 2008

2008-05-21T17:39:00.005-04:00

Of the classes into which I was likely to enter on a pony (not quite a high horse), Civil Procedure was near the top of the list. The more structural and rule-based a class is, the better I tend to perform. I can learn and apply rules fairly well. Where the law is more fluid and pliable, the muck seems to rise.

I attempt to eat a full, nutritious meal the day before examinations. I also like to take part in an athletic activity immediately before exams. Not only do I believe that a diet full of nutrition and an abundance of energy play a major role in intellectual abilities and success, but that a physically-fit body contributes to mental acuity.

The usual “last meal” before my final includes fish (for protein), spinach (all sorts of vitamins and nutrients), brown rice (carbohydrates, fiber and protein) and other vegetables, including mushrooms and onions. The meal is usually filling and very satisfying.

As per the athletic activity, I have taken to running. I used to go running nearly every day. However, as I have before delegitimized my life because of law school, I have had little time to take part in the activity. However, I decided that I needed to straighten the flurry of thoughts in my head, and I wanted time to myself (not to mention that it would aid me in sleeping that night). I stretched, and warmed up. Then I started running. A little know fact about me drew attention on this run: when I was a third-grader, I auditioned for the part of the young Forest Gump. When I started running, I could not stop. “I was running!” I ran a few miles. Normally an acceptable act, this was a bad idea. I had not engaged in any activities that can be classified as athletic for months. I was so out of shape, that I was not even rounded. (Insert pause for giggle here.) When I got home, I was overly winded and instantly sore. The soreness did not go away for quite some time, either. I was so out-of-shape that I hobbled into the final the next morning.

I did a few uncharacteristic things during finals this year. One of them was to study with a friend the day before the test. Having tutored athletes during undergrad (great stories were yielded from that stint in college), I know that I learn quite well when teaching others. Why not apply this method to law school, especially when my recent academic life has been quite the appositive failure.

During the study session, I tendered discussion by dreaming up test-quality questions. One of the questions I posed to my friend created a lot of debate. When she was done attempting to tell me the answer, I informed her that she was wrong. Why be verbose when a few words will suffice? I explained the correct answer, how, why it was right and important cases that discussed the reasoning and holding behind the law as it applies.

When we sat down at the exam, I performed my traditional testing procedure: (1) tilt head slightly to the right to express my state of perplexity; (2) cry; (3) place reading glasses (that do not really help my vision, but make me feel smarter) on my face and insert ear plugs dangerously far into ear canal to ensure idiots are drowned out; (4) read the exam in its entirety, highlighting and making notations as they are necessitated; (5) repeat Step 2; (6) proceed with the easiest and most heavily weighted portions of the exam, followed by the rest; (7) ask myself “why?”; and (8) repeat as needed.

When I reached Step 4, I noticed something quite interesting: the hypothetical I had posed the day prior to my friend appeared in almost verbatim form. Just when I thought that the Big Guy was not bored with playing games with me, He seemed to have taken a nap. I, obviously, aced that question. However, when I asked my friend about the question after the exam, she told me that her answer represented her first answer to me during the study session. I was really upset. She was quite downtrodden when she realized that she made the same mistake. At least I got something out of the studying.

The proverbial icing on the cake was our Professor allowing the test to occur in open-note fashion. Even though everybody is allowed notes and the exam is graded with a greater difficulty, open-note exams allow for an extra element to surface in gaining ground on the grading curve. The notes used greatly contribute to a higher level of success on these tests.

I possessed what I referred to as “Civil Procedure Gold”; the notes and diagrams were, by far, the highest quality and most useful documents with which I have come into contact. Civil Procedure Gold was an immense help on the exam, yielding high quality responses to each question posed. I am indebted to the notes. Thank you, Civil Procedure Gold.

Two days later, the Contracts examination was administered. The Professor (as duplicitously referenced previously) gave the class three sample questions. The class was told that any one of the three practice questions could, possibly, show up on the exam in part or on the whole. As has been his customary practice for years, one of the questions nearly always is the question on the exam. Even with tradition being well documented, there is always doubt that the questions will actually be used.

I split my time unevenly among the three questions. I spent what is likely 75 percent of my time on the first question, and split the remaining 25 percent on the other two questions. I put most of my “eggs in one basket.” This is equivalent to an insurance policy where the deductable may very well cost more than the repairs needed. However, should the first question be selected, I would likely make money from the policy, metaphorical speaking (this metaphor is brought to you by an actual life occurrence – a good story itself).

I noted all possible answers and cases for each question and spent a good amount of time analyzing each (as per the above-mentioned time allocation). Having studied non-stop for two weeks to that point, my brain was not operating correctly. I needed to revert to high school tactics: acronym acrimony. Creating crazy acronyms is a technique that has long served me well. For my contracts exam, “I Sparce(s) Cubic Wife Wig” was borne.

-----

Damages

Incidental

Specific Performance
Punitive
Anticipatory
Reliance
Consequential
Expectation
(S)peculative

Important Points
Conv. Recip. Inducement
Unconscionability
Breach (Induced and Contract)
Interference with Contract and Business Relations
Consideration

Warranty (Breach and Fitness)
Induced Reliance
Fraud
Equitable Estoppel

Willful Misrepresentation (… of facts)
Illusory Promise
Good Faith

-----

It worked wonderfully for my memory. However, the acronym was not the amazing occurrence as I sat down to proceed through my examination protocol. Again, Step 4 did not disappoint.

The basket with the vast majority of my eggs went to market! It was the second time I experienced an insurance pay-day. The first question, in 99 percent original form was the examination question. Winner! Coupled with the Opera experience, I feel relatively solid about the exam. There is much more I wish I had discussed in the answer, but if we were given five more hours to write an answer, I would have used the entire time, and still felt this way.

I am hesitant to feel good about exams because last semester, when I felt I did a solid job, I did the opposite (even though there was more to grading than my performance, which was an issue itself).

Having completed two examinations (with two more to go) I needed to purge my brain of all the info I stuffed within. I took the rest of the day to relax and do light studying for my property exam that was to occur in five days (the upcoming Monday).

-----

Contracts Final Question*:

Personal Hauling, Inc., is one of the largest companies in the country that rents out trucks and shipping materials for hauling. In 2005, after a lengthy search for a painting system that would give its trucks a superior paint finish at a reasonable cost, Personal contracted with Denkel Corp. to construct and install Denkel's patented paint equipment at Personal's main plant and to supply its own paint ingredients, which are specially made for use in the system.

In the negotiations between Personal and Denkel in 2005, Denkel said that its paint system was completely reliable. The contract warrants that the paint will last at least three years after each application. However, the contract also includes the following provision:

Denkel's liability under this contract for any damage whatsoever that may be caused to Personal's trucks by use of the paint or by chemicals in the paint shall be limited to full reimbursement of the cost of the paint ingredients. There shall be no other liability or damages to Denkel because of any such damage.

The system was installed late in 2005, and was immediately put to use for painting Personal's entire fleet of trucks with a large reproduction of Personal's logo and the words, "Another Happy Customer of Personal Hauling." However, the system never worked properly. Within a few months, thousands of trucks started losing substantial amounts of paint, and ultimately all of the trucks had to be taken out of active service and repainted by hand.

The installation of the system (which is now useless to Personal) cost $600,000, and the paint ingredients cost $450,000. After lengthy discussions between the two companies, Denkel has offered to settle the case for $400,000, but Peter Personal, the chief executive of Personal Hauling, is reluctant to accept that amount. He is especially incensed because he has recently learned through industry sources that Denkel had been having trouble with the mixing and spraying mechanism in its paint system at least since 2003. However, Personal is unwilling to embark on expensive litigation unless there is a reasonable chance of a substantial recovery.

Personal has now come to the law firm at which you are an associate. The partner in charge of the case has asked you for a memorandum analyzing Personal's case (including an explanation of what additional information, if any, that you need from Personal), and recommending how best to proceed on its behalf.

Write the memorandum.

-----

Civil Procedure Final Questions*:

Scenario 1 (Question A): Trial and Error

Federal District Judge Virginia Emerson has just presided over a jury trial in which Plaintiff was awarded $10 million damages in a products liability action brought under the federal court’s diversity jurisdiction. A week after she entered judgment on the jury’s verdict, Judge Emerson and her law clerk Sam were discussing the trial in her chambers. Troubled by some of her rulings during the trial, Judge Emerson asked Sam to make a list of the potentially reversible errors which occurred during the trial. Later that day, Sam gave her the following list:

The court denied Defense counsel’s request for a one-day adjournment so that he could produce a witness who had been out of the country;
The court refused to allow the introduction of a relevant engineering report prepared by Defendant’s expert witness; and
Plaintiff’s counsel made, during her closing argument, several improper references to matters outside the record.

After reviewing the list that same day, Judge Emerson becomes convinced that these errors were serious enough to warrant action on her part. Neither side has made any post-trial motions.

Question A: What, if anything, does Judge Emerson have power to do to address the errors? Please explain your answer.

Scenario 2 (Questions B & C): Will Swoboda Strike Out?

On May 1, 2004, Ron Swoboda was on his way from his home in Pennsylvania to a friend’s wedding in Michigan. He was driving through Ohio when his car was rear-ended by a truck traveling in the lane behind him, severely injuring Swoboda. The truck was owned and operated by Chang Products Corp., an office supply enterprise which was incorporated in Illinois and also had its principal place of business in Illinois. The truck had been en route from Illinois to make a delivery in Ohio. Chang Products regularly conducted business in several states, including Illinois and Ohio, but not Pennsylvania.

Assume that Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute conferred personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Assume further that Pennsylvania has a statute which requires that all out-of-state corporations wishing to transact business within its boundaries appoint a Pennsylvania agent for service of process. According to the statute, if an out-of-state corporation appoints such an agent, it will possess “within the state the same rights and privileges that a domestic corporation would possess, and shall be subject to the laws of this state.” Because Chang Products was considering expanding its business to Pennsylvania, it had appointed a Pennsylvania agent for service of process on April 15, 2004. The corporation has not yet conducted any business in Pennsylvania; indeed, it has not yet decided whether it will do so in the future.

Swoboda sued Chang Products Corp. in federal court in Pennsylvania under diversity jurisdiction. Swoboda served Chang Products in two ways: (1) he served the Pennsylvania agent Chang Products had appointed for service of process; and (2) he served the president of Chang Products while she was attending a “21st Century Office Products Symposium” in Philadelphia. Chang Products moved to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Chang Products argued that personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania was improper because the incident did not occur in Pennsylvania, the corporation was not incorporated in that state, and it conducted no business there.

Question B: Is this case controlled by Burnham v. Superior Court? Why or why not?

Question C: What is Swoboda’s best argument for asserting personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania?

Scenario 3 (Question D): The Twisted Truth

Pretzel lives in Massachusetts; Donut lives in Arizona. Pretzel sued Donut in Massachusetts state court on a defamation claim. Donut refused to waive service of the summons, and Pretzel waited to serve Donut until Donut was changing planes in Boston’s Logan Airport (on a trip from Arizona to Nova Scotia). Pretzel then filed an affidavit of service describing personal service upon Donut at Logan Airport. Donut filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5), arguing that he had missed his flight that day and never arrived at Logan Airport, and thus could not have been served. He attached an affidavit from a friend, Cookie Crumb, which stated that Crumb had witnessed the personal service in this case effectuated on a man who bore a striking physical resemblance to Donut, but was not Donut. The trial court denied Donut’s motion but Donut did not participate any further in the proceedings. Pretzel then obtained a default judgment against Donut in the defamation action. Donut did not appeal the judgment, nor did he pay the amount of the judgment.

Pretzel is now seeking to sue on the defamation judgment in Arizona, where Donut owns substantial property. Donut has appeared in the Arizona enforcement proceeding to argue that the Massachusetts judgment should not be enforced because the Massachusetts court lacked jurisdiction, since Donut was never actually served in Massachusetts.

Question D: How should the Arizona court rule on Donut’s argument, and on what rationale?

Scenario 4 (Questions E & F): Anziel & Brix

Anziel and Brix are neighbors who live on adjoining farms and used to be on good terms. The breakdown in their relationship occurred on January 15, 2008, when Anziel saw Brix driving Anziel’s tractor without permission. Anziel became extremely upset and demanded a large payment from Brix. Mediation efforts failed, and Anziel sued Brix for the tort of conversion for using the tractor without permission. At trial, the parties waived a jury and Brix’s only defense was that he and Anziel had agreed that, during the year 2008, each could use any motorized vehicles belonging to the other without seeking advance permission. The court accepted this defense, rendered a verdict for Brix, and entered judgment for Brix on February 15, 2008. Anziel did not appeal.

Anziel has now filed another lawsuit against Brix. He alleges that on April 1, 2008, Brix drove Anziel’s tractor and damaged it. His complaint contained two counts: (1) conversion; and (2) property damage. Assume that Brix admits using Anziel’s tractor on that date, but claims he did not damage it:

Question E: What, if any, pre-trial motion should Brix file to seek dismissal of Count 1? In what manner will this count likely be resolved?

Question F: What, if any, pre-trial motion should Brix file to seek dismissal of Count 2? In what manner will this count likely be resolved?

Scenario 5 (Questions G, H, I, and J): No Salad Days for Meebecker

Mary Meebecker is suing the Arugula Brokerage Co. in state court, alleging fraud under the federal securities laws. In that lawsuit, she is also asserting a state law claim for fraud in connection with the same conduct as her federal claim. Assume that good faith is a defense to fraud under the federal securities laws, but is not a defense to fraud under the state law. Meebecker is seeking both damages and injunctive relief. Arugula has now filed a notice of removal.

Question G: If Meebecker argues that the federal court lacks jurisdiction because the state court did not have jurisdiction over the federal securities law claims, what will be Arugula’s best response?

Question H: Will the federal court have jurisdiction over the state law claim? Why or why not?

Question I: Will the federal court allow a good faith defense to the federal securities law claim? Why or why not?

Question J: Will the federal court allow a good faith defense to the state law claim? Why or why not?

-----

*Openly distributed by Professors without any terms regarding disclosure.

First Name Basis With The Opera - May 5, 2008

2008-05-21T15:44:00.003-04:00

I am a conniving and ultimately resourcefully manipulative person. Let’s face it: it is a skill that I tend to unintentionally employ regularly - it seems to be an accidental fabric of my being. Perhaps this is why I love courtroom litigation. Anyhow, where an opportunity exists that I may be precluded from undertaking, I do whatever it takes, within reason, to enable myself to appreciate the occasion (usually accomplished by taking part in the opportunity, itself).

Before I get ahead of myself, I will evoke a careful chronology to keep the events clear.

In mid-March-ish, my nationally renowned contracts professor (the otherwise senile professor I often discuss) made a discussion-board posting to the larger-than-100-person class.

The post informed us that the professor “[has] an extra ticket for La Traviata at the Metropolitan Opera on Wednesday evening, March 19, at 7:30. If anyone in the class is interested in going, please let me know by email…”

I did not see the post until a few days after the notification was made. In a class as large as that, I knew that I had missed the train. To understand how glorious time with this professor can be, it must be realized that this professor rewards, quite abundantly, for participation. Basically, he uses participation to give people the grades he believes they deserve. Participation can affect a person’s grade in the class incredibly significantly. Being senile, if the man can remember your name, you are “made”. I not only wanted to go to the Metropolitan Opera and spend time with a nationally renowned professor (I will discuss him later), but I wanted to weasel my way into a good grade.

Understanding that my natural gifts are limited to humor, writing and resourceful manipulation, I decided to use what my mother gave me. Playing dumb is something I can be good at, but I tend to be an amateur. Judge for yourself:

-----

From: H
To: Professor
Subject: Opera

Dear Professor,

Not only am I interested in attending, but I am enthralled at the prospect of accompanying you to the Opera. Raised on the West Coast, the Met is only discussed in fleeting moments of dream, whereas now, living on the east coast, it is a possible reality.

Regardless of your decision, thank you for the opportunity!

Respectfully,

-----

Remember, I knew he had already found a student with whom he would be accompanied. It was unscrupulous, I know, but how could I not try?

I received the following reply:

-----

From: Professor
To: H
Subject: Re: Opera

Would you be able to go to Fille du Regiment (Dessay & Florez) on
Monday, May 5?

- Professor

-----

From: H
To: Professor
Subject: Re: Re: Opera

Professor,

I would be absolutely delighted to attend. I shall keep clear my schedule.

Thank you!

-H

-----

Success! Triumphantly, I accepted the invitation. My excitement grew over the next month-and-a-half. However, it was not until much later that I realized the date of the Opera would be a positive and negative packaged in a nice box with a bow (very environmentally unfriendly). As finals approached, time became more precious. My calendar of events was relied upon to budget my days properly. Waste was wanted, not.

As it turned out, May 5 was the day of my first final: Civil Procedure II. Contracts final examination was two days later, on May 7. The negative was that I would lose almost an entire day of studying. The positive was that I would be making an impression on my contracts professor two days prior to our examination.

I, of course, believed the Opera to be an investment in my future. I was overly excited for the occasion. I was not able to think about it for too long in the days leading up to the excursion because finals required all the brain-power I possessed (a limited quantity to begin-with).

Immediately following the Civil Procedure Final, I had to begin readying myself. I would meet the Professor at the Metropolitan Opera in the City. Travel time and getting ready would allow me an hour or two to spend getting lost.

I boarded the Long Island Railroad (the scourge of the first year tort law classes – you would understand if you have engaged in law school and know a Ms. Palsgraf) and made my way into Manhattan. I brought the notes I had prepared for the Wednesday final with me for study time on the train and wherever else I could fit them in. When I closed in on Penn Station, I remembered that I had a friend who was working and living in the City. I had not seen him in a few years, and we had been trying to coordinate a meeting. I called him up, and, luckily, he was about to go on his lunch break. I met him in Chelsea, by the dance theater by which he is employed, and we went for some deli sandwiches. He is originally from Arizona, and was a leader – the same level as I was - in the youth organization I have been active with since I was young.

I nearly walked right past my old friend. While I am no fan of New York the fact that I nearly missed him spoke to the positive effects of the locale: my otherwise fluffy (when my high school wrestling co-captain and I would tell our coach that he was fat, he would respond, “I am not fat, I am fluffy”) friend was half his width. I looked at him and said, “J: Do not perceive this the wrong way, but you look amazing! You have lost a ton of weight. What did you do or change?”

“I started working out, changed my eating habits and the City. I walk everywhere. It is an effect of the city,” he stated.

Well, I guess New York is only 99.5 percent horrible. As if.

After catching up with J and his life, we parted ways. I headed towards the Lincoln Center – home of the Met, the New York Philharmonic and the New York City Ballet, and Juilliard among others. My stroll by Central Park and the sights of the City renewed my belief that New York is a nice place to visit but not to live. I expect that it would be nicer to live in NY if you have a good amount of disposable income and an appreciation for the arts in general.

An Aside: in the car, on the way to the train station, Roommate turned slightly to the right and said, “Beside the fact that you will be given an “A” because of tonight, do you really want to go to the opera?” I responded that, “I am more excited about the opera than I am about the prospect of the good grade.” She possessed a picturesque dumbfounded look. “Anybody who has an appreciation for the arts will have an appreciation for opera,” I said in response to her dumbfoundedness.

“How does having an appreciation for the arts correlate to liking opera,” she retorted, questioningly.

“Well,” I said. “How many people do you know who can sing opera?”

“None. But, I do not know anybody who wants to,” said my Roommate emphatically.

“That is my point, exactly,” I said with my trademarked smirk. “As somebody who cannot draw a stick figure, I have an immense appreciation for paintings and drawings. The same appreciation extends to all forms of artistic expression.”

She quickly changed the subject.

While my parents were very careful with their spending of money, and tried their very best to shield their children from any knowledge of their very tight budget – my mother had the same pair of shoes for longer than is socially acceptable – they also sought to share their love of and expose us to every form of the arts possible. I am, quite possibly, one of a handful of the male gender (an important designation) who, at the completion of my 18^th year of life, had seen more ballets than I have fingers, been to greater than five museums of art in at least three countries and numerous states, seen plays and musical productions with great regularity and seen the performances of philharmonics and orchestras on multiple occasions. As a great number of persons designated as “they” say, like death and taxes, an appreciation and desire to experience the arts is a sure thing.

That said, I was more excited than the average heterosexual male in his 20s would – or, to some, should – be. As the time to meet the professor in the lobby neared, I began to experience a good level of anxiety.

I was scared. Actually, literally, in the flesh scared out of my flesh. How in the world would I entertain and carry on eloquent conversation with a legal legend?

I realized that I had not researched the Opera I would be seeing, nor did I know how I would keep the Professor’s brilliant-self entertained for multiple hours. Technology saved me, in part. I looked up the Opera on my phone’s internet, and quickly memorized every fact my brain could hold on such short notice. I was hoping that the interesting nuggets of operatic insight would not become inter-twined with something contract-based. For example, thoughts of expressing that this opera is considered by the critics as the “Mount Everest of operas” because the male lead was to hit nine high-C’s in quick succession during the first act, usually before his voice could warm-up, instead coming out of my mouth as “I read that Judges have held that this Opera is unconscionably difficult for the Male lead, and, under the Everest Doctrine in the Restatement (Third) of Performance, must warrant that he will deliver nine high trees estoppels in the first provision of the contract.”

Luckily, my notoriously great brown-nosing skills were perfectly delivered throughout the night, which lasted from 7:00PM until 12:30. It was a long, late night with the Professor!

The whole experience was quite overwhelming. This was a significant event, to date, in my life, marked with excitement, a grandiose, larger-than-life environment and a quite unique feeling of being very special. The Professor, known as the "Father of Modern Legal Ethics," a man with more stories than Theodor Geisel, and a greater wealth of experience and knowledge than I could ever wish to possess. The Metropolitan Opera House is a great metaphor for this professor: world-renowned, host to a great many legends, and, quite frankly, one of the most amazing venues for performance. I, factually, was no less than 30 years younger than the next youngest opera-goer; it is not surprising either. What kind of young male (wants to) attend the opera, especially when his date is a greater-than-80 year old man (I only wish this was spent with my grandfather). As far as great choices made during finals, this easily tops the list.

The Professors seats were Orchestra level, and only a few rows from the stage. It could not have been much better. Needless to say, the vantage point was expensive, and I was lucky.

I cannot fully interpret my experience into cognizable words. Opera is believed to be without any emotion. The performers are thought to stand still, with their arms at their sides during some very intense scenes. This misconception is, actually, only partially misconceived. Some of the most amazing vocally renowned opera performers have been referred to as an “arm-chair” on stage. While acting skills were not important in yester-years, this Opera (La Fille Du Regiment) put the ever-existent notion of boredom to rest. Not only were the voices amazing, but the Principle performers acted as well as any stage actor I have viewed in the past. The Professor later told me, on our drive home, that while acting was not seen as important in years past, acting was becoming far-more recognized as a part of performances, and a necessary skill to be recognized. The acting was, in short: fantastic.

My professor, an opera attendee for the last 30 years, and subscriber to the Metropolitan Opera (and, at times to the New York Opera concurrently) has seen and experienced much of what Opera has to offer. Of the performance I watched, he said that there were a lot of firsts. The male Principle hit the nine High C’s with perfection, and was given the longest ovation my professor had ever witnessed. The lead (Florez) kept his pose for a great portion of that time, and then broke character to bow a few times, and like a giddy school-boy, giggled at the audience’s display of appreciation. After a few minutes, he looked down, into the orchestra pit, at the Conductor. He gave a questioning look to Conductor, who nodded in affirmation, raised his hands to signal the orchestra, and played the music to aide Florez in an encore. In 30 years, my Professor had not seen an encore performed. It was that outstanding.

Most people wonder how an opera can be enjoyable if in a foreign language. The response is that each seat is equipped with a translation device to any of a great many languages. The audience would often laugh before the French line was delivered. The performance was obviously tweaked for its audience. The pretentious potential mother-in-law for the female lead (Dessay) was American, and the prospective groom was a member of the Olympic Bobsled Team. At one point, the French mother got caught up in the English and French that was being exchanged on stage, and seemingly, by accident, responded in English when it should have been in French. It made the performance all the much more enjoyable. There was quite a bit of humor infused into the Opera. The composer and writer wrote such a great Opera, that the humor transcended over a century, and was received with laudable comedy.

The amazing experience of the Opera was complimented by amazing conversation and priceless insight. I learned a great deal about the man and his legendary life. Having spent is practical career as a civil rights and criminal defense attorney, the Professor explained that the reason he teaches first-year contracts is because he believes the class to be the best medium in which to teach practical lawyering skills. His true intent is clear: the Professor with the greatest tenure of any person at the law school chooses to teach where he can help students become the best attorneys possible. His altruism is admirable.

On the drive home, my dissociation with New York became apparent when he asked me to direct him to my house on our drive home. I was not too great a help.

I really cannot express just how impactful the night was on me. Not only have I garnered an addiction to opera, but I have obtained insight and retained a great deal of advice that will not go to waste.

I now refer to the professor by his first name, except when I am communicating with him. My friends and I figure I have earned the right to do so when he is not around.

Finals... 2 DOWN.

2008-05-04T22:39:00.002-04:00

UPDATED THROUGH APRIL 28!

OH JOY!

Thank You, Dad - April 25-28, 2008

2008-04-28T23:48:00.000-04:00

The landlord is relentless. Either the attorney is not very good at giving directions, or our landlord is not go at following them. Landlord thought it a good idea to call Roommate on Friday. This was after I spoke with his attorney, establishing the fact that Landlord should be directed not to speak with Roommate or I because he has retained legal counsel.

Roommate did not pick up the call, instead allowing it to go to voicemail. The message that was left consisted of the Landlord wanting to “sit down and discuss the problems we are all having.” He said that he understands that we may have some problems with his partner, but that he did not want this to become a big issue. The problem with his message is that Roommate and I are not as dense as we apparently have come across. We know that Landlord was the one who went to an attorney, and directed said attorney to draft and send a letter to Roommate and I. He is the one who elevated the whole issue.

In response to the call, and because I had told Attorney that we would no longer communicate with he or his client orally unless it was in court, the only option we had was to send an email to Attorney regarding his client’s contact with us.

-----

From: Tennants

To: Mr. Bad Attorney

Subject: Re: Landlord

Mr. Bad Attorney,

We wish to inform you that your client, Landlord, has contacted us. Inasmuch as we would like to solve the problems that have been presented, we cannot ethically engage in conversation with your client or his agents. As was discussed during our telephone conversation, in order for us to have any interaction with Mr. Landlord or his agents, we need a signed document, from you, stating that you give permission for direct communication to occur.

We would also like to reiterate that the plethora of needless and bothersome contacts from your client need to cease immediately. As we have previously stated, we are attempting to study for finals and need an atmosphere that is without any extraneous and undue influences. The sheer number of calls and contacts, alone, when we have requested that they desist, are bordering on harassment. We hope that your client and your client's agents will respect our right to the quiet enjoyment of our residence and lives.The level of anxiety and aggravation that your clients have caused, as well as the time we have superfluously spent, are already far too much. We trust that you will counsel them as to the results of their actions.

We look forward to resolving this matter in full, in a way that is agreeable to your client as well as ourselves.

I thank you for your time and effort on these and all other issues.

Very respectfully,

TENNANTS

-----

We received no response to the email Friday.

When Sunday came around, I was fairly certain that the Landlord or his agents would show up to carry out their open house. Having become rather adept at legal research, I quickly oriented myself as to the state statutes for criminal and civil trespassing. I realized that in order to prove criminal trespassing, it must be shown that the accused trespasser knew they were entering property on which they were not allowed. Civil trespass, on the other hand, does not demand knowledge of actions, the action itself suffices. I did not want them to skate on the fun criminal trespass would yield, so I took measures to ensure the trespassers knew they were entering a restricted area. I took one measure, to be exact: I posted a rather conspicuous sign on the front door of my home that said the following in large, bold type:

-----

NO TRESPASSING

Under New York Penal Law §10.03, §140.00(5) and §140.05, Entering or Remaining In or Upon the Premises Without Permission Constitutes Criminal and Civil Trespass, and is a Violation of the Law.

Violators Will be Prosecuted

-----

Roommate and I disagreed about the posting of a sign with the above printed on it. She thought it would make things worse. I told her that the law basically required such a move be made by us. She also was not planning on being home during that time, so I was on my own. The sign went on the door.

No open house was held.

This was a positively great occurrence. I had to study for my first finals (Civil Procedure II and Contracts), and wanted no distractions. Calling the police and dealing with dumb people was not really on my to-do list for the day.

I studied. And studied. And Studied. This process will continue for nearly three weeks more. The stress, and cabin fever build up to be quite immense.

On Monday, an email response from Bad Attorney arrived in my inbox.

-----

To: Tennants

From: Mr. Bad Attorney

Tennants,

It appears that you had a lot of time to spend on letters and e-mails to me that could have better been spent on studying for final exams, and they probably took longer than the two hours it would have taken for Mr. Landlord to have his open house. Your research indicates that you are more interested in going after me and Mr. Landlord, rather than to explain any legal basis for your opinions on real estate law.

Mr. Landlord is the landlord and the owner of the property. He has every right to contact you.

Nonetheless, as I stated in the Fed Ex letter you should be receiving today, I am going to be discussing the situation with Mr. Landlord this week to determine his future course in this matter. We both agree that this should be resolved-- you do not need a dispute with me and my client and I don't need one with you.

- Mr. Bad Attorney

-----

Where Roommate was once the pacifist in this situation and I was the bull, Roommate grew horns upon receiving this response. I, on the other hand, wanted to give peace a chance. We had instantly switched placed in this whole dance.

Monday brought forth my final Property Law class. It seems the Professor had grown quite attached to the class and the students. This was not overly surprising, as she regularly revealed her enthusiasm for this class during her lectures. As the class began, the professor started giving a speech about how she loved the class and hopes we will all stay in contact with her as time passes. During her speech, she started tearing up. It was very touching.

In other interesting news (literally), I was appointed the Editor of the Law School newspaper by the current, outgoing editorial board. I was caught very off-guard by the selection, as I had forgotten about the student run organization. As I told one of my buddies, when it pours, my life becomes cats and dogs. Should be quite interesting running the First Amendment publication.

Guest Post:: Ross Armstrong - "Approaching Camp II"

2008-04-27T12:57:00.000-04:00

As his Saturday, April 12, 2008 post, Ross Armstrong, author of The Daily Ross - a law student blog of a different creature than my own - takes an otherwise cliche extended metaphor, and makes it perfect. Keep extending those metaphors, Ross. Law School final examinations are no fun, but it is nice to get to the top and look back. As my first year of law school comes near its end, so does my excitement to be able to look back.

Read on:

-----

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Approaching Camp II

From what I can tell, the climb from Camp I to Camp II looks shorter than the initial climb to Camp I. Not only does it look shorter but we know have our climbing legs. We know how to read cases, how to study for tests and be most prepared for class. Our heart rates no longer increase when the professor enters the room and as the dust has settled after leaving Camp I are comfortable with a place among our peers. As I approach Camp II, I can't help but wonder what happened to all the mountain below me. Is it really time for our last finals of our first year? Where did all that time go? It is in the respect of time, I think we are least prepared for Camp II. We'll be ready for the tests and fact patterns but how did we burn through four months so quickly?

The climb is not as focused on the mountain this time. As one climbs toward Camp II, thoughts of what happens after the entire climb is done is forced your way. The window of the post-climb world was opened for us to peer through; to get a glimpse of what world awaits us once we climb the summit was not only distracting from the climb itself but brought new thoughts of stress. The quest for summer jobs, externships, class and traveling abroad helped distract from the mountain itself. In some ways, such distractions may have helped to see the larger mountain range and in other ways took time away from enjoying the mountain itself. So, with two weeks of a final push as we approach Camp II, we climb on; now with a dual focus of the summit and life after it.

Act 2: Other Than That - April 24, 2008

2008-04-24T23:35:00.001-04:00

The day, other than the day, was fantastic. The day, other than that, was spectacular. Why, in fact, my day was full of joy and happiness, other than that.

I had the last class with Senile Professor. I had my last Stupid Class. I had to deal with that.

I will miss Senile Professor, and his pointless ranting and the numerous side-tracked soliloquies about canes from Saudi Arabia and dumb lawyer jokes. I made it through the last two hours unscathed.

As one could gather, the end of Stupid Class was on my checklist of “Things to Accomplish without Committing a Crime.” I made it to the end, and as I walked out, a shroud of excitement befell my body. Smiles ear to ear.

As the final “good day, lad” to Stupid Class, we were all given slots in which we were to have our final one-on-one meeting with the very smart Stupid Class Professor. The meeting was spent mostly discussing the letter Roommate and I received. As it turns out, Professor worked for a non-profit tenant’s rights organization. She told me that the letter I received was not uncharacteristic of landlord attorneys. She told me that, Landlords and their attorneys think that a letter from a lawyer will scare people into paying their rent or performing other tasks. They are right most of the time. Such a tactic usually yields success for them. However, every once-in-a-while, the tenant is educated in the law or has representation, and that is when the fun occurs.

After telling me that she hopes that it does not interfere with finals, I we quickly discussed some details about the Final. The meeting was concise and to the point. Definitely my style.

Little did I know that more fun was on its way in the hour following our meeting. That is when “It” (where “it” = “that”) happened. I made the call, had my fun, and then went on with my day.

When I arrived at the residence (where an open house will not be occurring), I removed my phone from my pocket and dialed the County Bar Association. I wanted to go fishing. The call was answered by a woman who I very quickly came to appreciate.

“Uh, hi. I do not know with whom I need to speak. I am a law student who has had communications with a local attorney,” I began. “In multiple communications, he threatened to report us to the Bar Association if we did not comply with his client’s demands. I want to ask somebody what I can do, and to see if I am taking the right steps.”

She asked if I had filed a grievance.

I told her that “I had not yet done so,” and did not think I was prepared to just yet. “It may not be something that is at that level, at this point.”

She coaxed more of the story, including the letter and phone call, out of me over the next minutes.

After the abridged version had been told, she said the following, in a matter-of-fact tone:

“I am sending you a grievance form,” she stated. “You need to fill it out and send it back. Now, what is your address?”

Yes ma’am! Alright, consider it done.

I figure that the call was a good sign of things to come. The call gave me the renewed sense that I had handled the situation correctly. That is definitely a solid “pat on the back.” I could use a few more of those.

I find that all the interesting events happen to me. As my Brother said, “We have a problem, you and I. We stand up for ourselves where others wouldn’t. It gets us into trouble. A lot.”

He is definitely correct. However, I would not change that characteristic for any reason. It is something I definitely like about myself.

Last Contracts Class: check!

Last Stupid Class: check!

The Second Coming: No check.

The First Exchange With Legal Counsel: check!

Day of Mr. Bad Attorney Ruined: check!

Tired and Stressed: check, check.

Part 1: The Goose Gets a Gander – April 24, 2008

2008-04-24T18:54:00.005-04:00

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. It keeps me a little less pessimistic and gives me hope that there is inherent good and elements of reason in everybody. However, reason, good faith and common decency are not traits that all people can possess. Mr. Bad Attorney (from yesterday) is one of these bad people.

When one has, what is supposed to be, their intellectual superior asking very frantically if you reported them for ethical violations, you have a sign that reads “upper hand,” with an arrow pointing in your direction. However proverbial my sign was today, it was still mine.*+

The small print: *Does not threaten well by others. +Caution: Bites. Hard.

To premise the environment, an in-depth study should be conducted. The perfect storm of events: so very flawless, the following is unbelievable. However, I could not make this up if I tried (for other stories of impossible truth, read the LSAT Saga – back luck and brawling lesbians, with helicopters and guns). The law school confiscates your thinking cap and imagination during orientation - I am without the ability to create entertaining stories with drama and action. My art, for the most part, is in the retelling.

So commences the day:

The story begins with the tale of two roommates. You know them well, but trouble's-a-brewin'.

My roommate is having a bad week. Roommate is having a horrible day. The worst day of a horrible week is not the correct time to try to mess with any person, especially Roommate.

After having a relatively horrible morning, where there were tears and a lot of remorse involved, Roommate’s phone jingled a sound we have come to loathe. Our Landlord’s partner’s wife was causing the phone to ring. In her already unpleasant mood, Roommate answered the phone. Wife proceeded to “notify us” that there would be an open house this Sunday.

Mayday! Mayday!

Roommate, with all the cool ferocity she could muster, told Wife that (1) she was not in the mood to deal with this, (2) there would be no open house, (3) she should consult her attorney before attempting to enter the premises without permission, and (4) this is not a debate, the decision had been made. The rest of her call was jumbled in the retelling, but I did retrieve this: her call ended the same way mine would.

When Roommate educated me about the call, I told her (and she readily agreed) that there would be no further communication verbally with us, and that we would not again have any communication with them because they had retained counsel.

I pledged to make a call to Mr. Bad Attorney (who I have deemed “Buttorney” to make myself happier on the inside) to ask him to advise his client and any agents of his client that the harassment should cease.

The call was a pain in the butt from the outset. I called the firm, was transferred to the “switchboard,” and connected with Mr. Bad Attorney’s secretary. She told me that she needed to “check to see if he is on the phone.” Having dealt with a phone or two in my life, and attempted to dodge a great many calls, I know that this translated to Mr. Bad Attorney being in the office, and his secretary finding out whether or not he wanted to talk to me. Surprise pervaded my being when I was told that he was, in fact, on the phone. Who saw that coming?

I told Secretary that I would be pleased to wait for him to finish his other call. She, in a puzzling state of mind said “OK.” Ten minutes later, she told me he was still on the call, and I responded that I still would wait. We went through this twice more, until I was able to drive my tenacity home. After a lengthy time, she came on the line and notified me that Mr. Bad Attorney “is going to be on the phone for quite a while longer.” I asserted that, “Luckily, I have nothing to do for nearly two more hours, and would love to wait for him.”

Astonished and a bit perturbed, she scoffed “Fine!”

Low-and-behold, a few minutes later, Mr. Bad Attorney answered the phone.

“Hello, who is this?” he asked.

“I am H, calling in regards to your client, Mr. Landlord.

“You are not Ms. Roommate, why are you calling on this matter?” He quizzically stated.

“If you had bothered to look at the lease agreement before you hastily authored your letter to us, you would notice that my name appears right next to Ms. Roommate’s name. As the law would have it, this makes me a party to your letter as well,” I uttered in disbelief.

His obviously poor investigation and lack of facts would become the theme of the call.

I told him, as succinctly as possible – mainly because I did not want to have a long, adversarial conversation with him – that “I request that you advise your client and your client’s agents that they are not to contact my roommate or I any further, as they have retained you as their legal counsel, unless we receive, from you, a signed letter stating that they are released to do so.”

The call instantly became hostile as the unfounded accusations came bounding my way.

“My client tells me that you have not paid your rent for the month of April,” he accused.

“You obviously have not done your research, or you would have discovered that one day before you penned your name to the demand letter, we hand-delivered checks to your client’s agent,” I responded.

“That’s not what my client said, and he seems like an honest guy to me,” Mr. Bad Attorney rebuffed.

“Well, I am telling you that your client’s agents have been in possession of our checks for days now. I have no idea what or how much he has told you, but you do not have the whole story,” said I.

“My client would not lie to me, are you saying he is?”

“I am not saying your client is lying, all I can say is what I know I have done.” I responded.

“Do you have cancelled checks? Send me copies,” he said as he spouted out 10 digits I chose to ignore.

I told him that “there are a number of problems he and his client bear with their assertions. First, the house is in violation of the warranty of inhabitability. There have been numerous conditions, of which his client had been informed for over 5.5 months – more than half our current lease period – and that as a result we are well within our rights to withhold any rent that his client claims is due. Second, as you will read in the letter you shall receive tomorrow; the lease agreement is without terms of delivery. Therefore, as you will find when you research the law, the landlord must physically go to the most prominent point on the property and demand any due rent. Even with the foregoing aside, in an attempt to remain conciliatory with your client, we paid our rent anyhow.”

At this point I told him that he obviously had not done his research, and that it is also apparent that he did not have the entire story from his client. I told him that I would not discuss the issue until he had all the facts.

Then, it got ugly.

“You cannot stop my client from having an open house. They are within their rights under the lease agreement,” he said.

Knowing he had not read the lease very closely, I decided to have some fun debate with a lesser-informed foe.

“If you had taken the time to actually read the lease you would find that the word ‘may’ appears. During my first weeks of law school, we discussed the construction of contracts, you know, like the effect commas have when placed in different locations, and the meaning of certain words.” I said proud of my knowledge.

“The word ‘may,’ unlike ‘shall’ or ‘will,’ means possibly or is permissible. Not only did we inform your clients that an open house is possible at a later date, but we have allowed the property to be shown with a prior appointment. However, even if you are right, and I am pretty sure you are not, the agreement provides that showings can only take place at times deemed reasonable…”

He cut me off, and angrily asked me “where does it say that?”

I retorted that “it is located in paragraph 15; the same paragraph that you cited in your letter to us.”

The sound of the opening and closing of a file cabinet was noticeable in the background. As paper ruffled he mumbled something to himself, probably reading the lease agreement for the first time.

It was time to continue. “You know very well that we are law students, and you also know that we are in close proximity to finals…” I started.

Cut off mid-sentence, he was concrete in his denial that he did not know our schedule. I responded that, again, he obviously did not have all the facts, and that his client knows that the reason we refused an open house was our intentions to study, uninterrupted, for finals. I also reminded him that, as a legal practitioner, he is expected to know the full story before making any factually untrue statements, and that he is as culpable for a falsification as his client, because he signed his name on the demand letter.

After that, I was allowed to continue my previous statement, “… it is unreasonable to hold an open house during law school finals.”

He responded with the laughable reasoning I did not expect from an experienced lawyer. “Springtime is the best time to sell real-estate, and that most open houses occur on Sundays in the afternoon.”

I nearly laughed. I had to make the obvious statement: “Inasmuch as I am sure the time seems reasonable to your client, a contract goes both ways. As such, it has to be reasonable for us as well.” I restated the fact that it is unreasonable for law students to have their residence shown during an open house during finals season.

“I don’t think other people would agree with you,” he said.

Again, I had to make the obvious reply. “To tell you the truth, Mr. Bad Attorney, I could care less what others think,” I began. “I am relatively positive I could convince a Judge that I am correct; I am even more positive that I would not even have to convince a Judge; they would already know that we are correct, because we have the law on our side.”

He started to make outlandish suggestions, including driving to the law school to study, going outside to read or going into a room. On the face, these are not bad suggestions. However, silence is key, a computer is necessary and time cannot be wasted. Yeah, law school is intense.

I told him that “I do not know how it was thirty years ago, but…”

Cut-off once again by Mr. Bad Attorney turned horrible interrupting annoyance. “I will not be talked down to by a law student. I will not take condescension.”

“I was not talking down to you, nor was I meaning to be condescending,” I said as angelically as possible. “I was attempting to tell you, before I was interrupted, that either you do not remember how law school works, or perhaps it has changed. I cannot speak for you, but I can say that perhaps 30 years ago you went to law school, but I am a law student in the present. I can say that every minute of time is precious to law students, and I cannot afford to have any interruptions, intrusions or inconveniences. I certainly cannot waste any time.”

I relayed that I appreciated his concern for my well-being, but that holding an open house during finals is ludicrous, and cannot occur.

Then, the illegalities assumed their position.

“If you do not do honor the lease agreement, I will notify the bar association. Not honoring the terms of a lease is unethical,” he said.

“Are you threatening me?” I asked. “It sounds like you are making a threat, and I do not like being blackmailed or coerced to do anything I do not have to do.”

This part is fuzzy, but he back-pedaled quickly, and then started to make threats and statements of extortion about notifying the bar association, and how hard it would be to pass the bar examination as a result.

As sad as I was to ruin the surprise of our letter, I let the goose have a gander. “As you will read in our response tomorrow, we have already preempted your attempts to extort and coerce us,” I said proudly. “We have forwarded your demand letter and our response to the Bar Association.”

Uh oh. Somebody’s in trouble. Doo-doo hit the fan.

“Did you file a grievance with the Bar Association?” he asked with a worried tone, with a hint of angry.

Gleefully, I responded that “I did not file a grievance; I merely forwarded the letter you sent us, and the response we are sending you. I have nothing to hide; you best hope you do not either.”

“It seems to be the same thing,” he scoffed.

“Well isn’t that the problem: the way you think things seem to be is far different from what they actually are,” I rejoined.

“Who did you send the files to? If you filed a grievance, I am going to need to report you to the Bar also. In thirty years I haven’t had a complaint filed. I have been a member for decades,” he sputtered angrily.

“Who did I send the files to,” I rhetorically asked. “I sent the document to the American Bar Association, the New York Bar Association, and every other organization I could find,” I said with a smirk.

“You just sent it to the bar,” he asked.

“No,” I said assuredly. “I sent it to the Bar Association Ethics Committee and every other legal ethics committee I could find in the State and County.

My parents always explained (and my experience supports) that one of the worst things one can do to an enemy is to take the “wind out of their sails.” It is better to tell your parents that you were a ‘bad boy’ before your brothers can. Not only is the punishment less harsh, but your brother does not get to have the joy of turning you in.

In this case, Mr. Bad Attorney’s boat – the forgotten fourth ship of Columbus’ fleet, ‘The Bob’ – was without wind. The ship is going to end up in Greenland: a beautiful icy abyss, all alone.

I was tiring from arguing with an uneducated, baseless wall. I told him that, “as of this moment, we will no longer communicate orally. The only way we will respond to you or your client is by certified mail or, if he so chooses, the filing of suit in a court of law.”

Obviously enraged, Mr. Bad Attorney scoffed at me and stated that I could not tell him how to mail a document. “I will mail documents to you however I want. If I want to do it through service of process or hand-delivery, I will do that!”

“You are right,” I said. “You can do it however you want. If you wish to spend money in that fashion, that is your prerogative. However, oral communications cease now.”

He started to babble and talk over me. So, as calmly as possible, I told him that “I am no longer going to discuss this issue any further. I consider these issues closed, and sincerely hope you advise your client regarding all applicable laws regarding trespassing, extortion, harassment and a wide selection of intentional torts. I am going to hang up the phone now and …”

He cut me off and began to babble. Again, I repeated my closing line, “I am going to hang up the phone now, even though you are not listening and I will probably hang up while you are talking. I wish you a good day.” My follow-through was perfect. Index finger to the end button: as quickly as he had realized he screwed up mighty well, I was able to take in the glory of bad lawyering. Lawyers like this make me want to specialize in Legal Malpractice. As my father said, there is nothing better than suing a bad attorney.

If Mr. Bad Attorney wants to take us to court, it will be a spectacle. To witness a 30-year veteran lawyer lose to law students would be precious. However, I really need to concentrate on finals. It would be better if this all just went away.

I am never a lucky-ducky.

Think Again - April 23, 2008

2008-04-23T23:58:00.006-04:00

Right when I thought things were decent with the Landlord, I was wrong. I really dislike being threatened, especially by people who have no basis for doing so. When lawyers get over-zealous, they sometimes forget basic laws or underestimate the people they are dealing with. I have do believe this guy thought he was going to scare us into action.

Think again, Mr Bad Attorney. Think Again.

Below is the letter we received in the mail, followed by the letter we will be sending back. (Like I have any extra time laying around to do this stuff.)

-----

April 22, 2008

Dear Tenants:

We represent Landlord, the owner of the above property of which you are a tenant.

We are advised by Mr. Landlord that you did not pay him his rent for the month of April, 2008 in the sum of $$$$.

Please be advised that pursuant to paragraph 19 of the lease, you have five days to correct the default and pay Mr. Landlord the rent due. If you continue in default, the lease will be canceled and Mr. Landlord will seek to evict you.

We also understand that you are attempting to impede Mr. Landlord from having an open house to sell this property. That behavior would violate Mr. Landlord’s rights under paragraph 15 of the agreement, and you may not prevent Mr. Landlord from holding an open house to sell his property.

Finally, we understand that you are in law school. If you continue to violate the terms of this lease, we will deem that to be a matter of interest in the event you do seek to become a member of the Bar of this State.

Very truly yours,

Mr. Bad Attorney

-----

April 23, 2008

Dear Mr. Bad Attorney:

As first year law students, our law school trains and educates us in the practice of thorough legal research. We can reasonably assume that, as a practitioner of the law and a member of the State Bar Association of New York, you are just as capable of performing inquiries into applicable laws and facts.

We find it devious that an attorney would make egregious misrepresentations of the terms of our residential lease in an attempt to coerce actions and silence behavior that we, as tenants, are well within our rights to assert.

Had you properly researched our dealings with Mr. Collace, you would have discovered that, per section 15 of our lease agreement, your client may show the house to potential buyers. Under a strict interpretation of the law, the use of the word “may” is defined to mean “possibility” or “is permitted to.” Having covered the interpretation of contracts during our first week of law school, we believe, and case law supports, a reading of the clause as meaning that entrance to the property is a possibility, and could permissively occur. We have cooperated in the showing of the house previously, and will continue to do so as long as appointments are made in advance. Having allowed the property to be entered multiple times, we have fulfilled our duty as a tenant under the lease agreement. Paragraph 15 does not provide any limits, and as such, should be read under the strictest interpretation possible.

Furthermore, had you read the contract, you would have noticed the phrase “at reasonable times” appears. Your emphatic recognition of our status as law students and your client’s repeated acknowledgement that one of the many reasons for our denial of an open house was its proximity to final examinations; we found your client’s repeated and unyielding requests unreasonable. We have provided your client with a set of dates which would be agreeable to discuss a potential open house. Not only will witnesses verify the vast number of calls to our telephones from your client after the issue had been discussed at length and repeatedly denied, but can attest to the amount of stress and emotional distress he has caused us. It is also important to note that the lease agreement contains a great many clauses that are clearly unconscionable. Though an amended agreement should be drafted forthwith, we feel it sufficient to duly note such occurrences in the present.

Had you completed a thorough interview of your client and a complete investigation into the facts involved prior to hastily preparing the unfounded letter, you would have discovered that your client has, in multiple circumstances and for extended periods of time, violated our warranty of habitability and has willfully violated the terms of the lease and our quiet enjoyment of the property. New York Real Property Law, Article 7 describes the landlord-tenant relationship. New York Law requires the lessor to provide tenants with such basic needs as hot water, heat and other related services, or be found guilty of a violation of the law. The warranty of habitability also requires the lessor to ensure the property is “fit for human habitation and for the uses reasonably intended by the parties and that the occupants of such premises shall not be subjected to any conditions which would be dangerous, hazardous or detrimental to their life, health or safety.” On multiple occasions, and as several witnesses will attest, the house was without basic needs, including heat, hot water, and proper plumbing. Many of these problems have gone undiagnosed, unrepaired and without change for more than half of the current lease period.

Moreover, you allege, without factual basis, that we had failed to pay any due rent. The law entitles the withholding of rent when the terms of the lease agreement remain unfulfilled by the lessor. Here, not only are there drainage problems still uncorrected, but the showers continue to be without hot water for any reasonable period of time. Having properly informed your client of these and many other problems that made the residence below the standards of habitability, more than five months ago, we were and continue to be well within our rights as tenants to withhold rent.

However, even under these circumstances, in an effort to remain conciliatory with your client, we tendered payment of rent prior to April 22, 2008 – the date of your letter – as is reflected on the checks delivered to and cashed by your client. However, the lease does not provide for any delivery of the rent, and is without an address for notice. As such, the law requires the landlord present himself at the most prominent point of the property, and there, demand rent. Here, the landlord had not done so, and is without standing to make any statements to the effect that rent was unpaid. Had your client arrived at our residence and demanded rent, the rent could have been tendered. No such attempt was made.

Even more appalling was the inclusion of the last paragraph of your letter. As a member of the New York State Bar Association we, as law students, look to you and other active practitioners for guidance and role-models. Having once been a student of the law, your understanding of the stresses of law school, and the immense pressure to pass the Bar Examination gives you an expert view on the result of threatening us with report to the Bar Association. Your quite obvious attempt to extort, coerce, harass and intentionally inflict emotional distress is quite disappointing, and illegal.

The New York Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility, provides in section EC 1-7, that “a lawyer should avoid … condescension toward, and treat with dignity and respect, all parties…” We highly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the document, in its entirety, but would like to draw your attention to the following:

EC 1-7: A lawyer should avoid bias and condescension toward, and treat with dignity and respect, all parties, witnesses, lawyers, court employees, and other persons involved in the legal process.

EC 7-1: The duty of a lawyer, both to the client and to the legal system, is to represent the client zealously within the bounds of the law, which includes Disciplinary Rules and enforceable professional regulations.

EC 7-10: The duty of a lawyer to represent the client with zeal does not militate against the concurrent obligations to treat with consideration all persons involved in the legal process and to avoid the infliction of needless harm.

EC 7-19: Our legal system provides for the adjudication of disputes governed by the rules of substantive, evidentiary, and procedural law. An adversary presentation counters the natural human tendency to judge too swiftly in terms of the familiar that which is not yet fully known; the advocate, by zealous preparation and presentation of facts and law, enables the tribunal to come to the hearing with an open and neutral mind and to render impartial judgments. The duty of a lawyer to a client and the lawyer's duty to the legal system are the same: to represent the client zealously within the bounds of the law.

Furthermore, we wish to draw your attention to the section describing misconduct by an attorney. Under DR 1-102 [1200.3], it is intolerable for an attorney to engage in conduct that violates any disciplinary rule, to engage in illegal conduct that, among other things, adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness as a lawyer, or to engage in conduct “involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” Your material misrepresentations and grossly inadequate research is plainly visible in the demand proffered and threats levied against us in your letter.

In addition, DR 7-102 [1200.33] forbids a lawyer from taking action on “behalf of [a] client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.” Having attended and graduated from law school and subsequently taken the bar exam, you are well aware of the ferocity of your statements and the concern, worry and upset the blackmail would yield. We are unable to conclude that there was any reason to include the final paragraph in the letter but to coerce, extort, harass and inflict distress upon us.

We trust you and your client will familiarize yourselves with New York Penal Code, section 135.60, which defines coercion as any instance where a party “compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will … perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his…career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.” It would also serve you well to become acquainted with statutes regarding extortion/blackmail and harassment, as well as multiple areas of intentional tort law.

Your attempt to scare us into acting against our will is reprehensible and ethically unscrupulous. We read the paragraph to be a flagrant violation of DR 9-101 [1200.45], which resolves that “a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official.” You know, very well, that the New York State Bar Association is a legislative body aimed at regulating the legal profession. By threatening to report us to the Bar Association, you concretely imply that our future career can and will be affected should we assert our rights or disagree with your client’s lessor tactics and management, and that you and your client will initiate an investigation into our character.

As future candidates of the State Bar, we are ashamed of your actions, and would like the harassment to cease with due immediacy. We respectfully request that your client terminate the unfounded, unnecessary and deliberate attempts to interrupt our studies. I sincerely hope that you will advise your client that any entry onto our property without our permission constitutes criminal and civil trespass.

We intend to perform well on our law school examinations without dealing with this or any other issue concocted by you or your client.

This letter is not to be construed as a complete statement, nor is it fully inclusive of all grievances, assertions and statements of fact. We reserve our right to pursue all avenues of recourse available and the ability to exercise our liberties under the law.

Very sincerely,

We Two Tenants

cc: XXX, XX

American Bar Association

New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics

Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District

Wanting Warm Water – April 22, 2008

2008-04-22T23:48:00.000-04:00

Waking up at 10:30AM is a luxury to which I would love the opportunity to grow accustomed. I was more full of life and energetic than was normal for my otherwise genuinely bitter self. The weather has allowed me to garner a dose of sunshine every day, albeit for short periods of time. Minus the lukewarm, then freezing cold, then hot, then cold shower, the day was quite the keeper: short and happy.

I made a leisurely haul to my only class of the day, which was to begin at 10 past 1:00PM. The fifty minutes of class, as always, vanished far-too quickly to make me feel fulfilled.

When the class ended, I got back into my car and drove home. I spent nearly as much time in class as I did in my car. With the gas prices on the rise, school-based debt is beginning to look increasingly reasonable.

I was notified today that I won a relatively expensive gift-card for attending legal research training. It will definitely go to good use, and will save me quite a bit of money.

Behind the scenes - on the home front – landlord problems abound. The house that Roommate and I currently lease was an investment project by two people who had no business investing in and renovating real estate. The electrical system is the lowest quality possible. When one light goes out, all the lights in the vicinity go out at the same time. The probability of this occurring in every room is nearly impossible. The wiring was definitely not done by a professional.

Our plumbing is a classic horror. Not only do we lose all hot water in our showers after two minutes, only to regain it back ten minutes later, and then lose it again, but nearly every drain has backed up. We notified our landlord of the problem back in December, and it still remains unfixed. He sent a general contractor who spent three-hours trying to fix it, who then called his neighbor who was a plumber – I could have done the same thing. After plumber explained what to do on the phone, the contractor was unable to fix anything. Two plumbers later, we were left with a “Sorry, it is because the hot water heater is so small.” We still lose hot water after two minutes.

I have become a master-toilet plunger (and Roommate loves me for it). Not only do the toilets refuse to drain, but Roommate’s shower becomes a pool. She has tried every type of drain de-clogger (even the professional stuff); nothing works.

We have gone through two different dishwashers. What did they expect? When you purchase the cheapest model on the market, these things happen. Our washer/dryer unit has ceased working and our boiler (it is what the heating oil goes through to make thing hot) has shutdown multiple times and refused to start back up many more times.

Our neighbors love us, and really want us to stay for the next two years – I think they just like my cookies. However, I keep telling them that I think the landlord hates us. When they ask why, I usually tell them that Roommate and I want far-too-much, like heat, hot water and an electrical system that works. We ask too much.”

However, things remained cordial between the landlord and Roommate and I until recently. We have repeatedly told the landlord and their real estate agent ,who is attempting to sell the house at an astronomical price, that we will not allow them to have any “open houses.” Not only is there a dog to deal with, but I study at home. On top of that, I refuse to allow strangers open access to my residence where I have expensive items – plus, why would I allow them to have a fully furnished house (which makes it easier to sell) when we are not benefitting in any way. This was made clear.

When Roommate received a call on Saturday, it became clear that it was far more beneficial for us to have her as the point-person for the rental. I would have blown up. The landlord left a message informing us that there would be an open house the next Sunday, and that the dog cannot be on the premises.

Yeah, right. Like that is happening. I made Roommate promise not to call the landlord back unless I was present; I needed some free entertainment.

Landlord is a wimp. When she called him back yesterday, his wife was the one who was arguing with us. She attempted to tell us that they “let us have the dog in the house” and that we should let them hold the open house. Roommate blurted out laughing that they did not let us do anything, and that, again, the dog is not leaving the house, that she would be gone studying, and that I would be there studying. She also made it clear that, since final were approaching, there is not a chance in the world that they would be able to hold the open house. After the landlord’s wife made a laughable offer to have her kids watch the dog, Roommate was sure to mention the fact that the water STILL was not working correctly.

I think I want too much out of life.

Officially Wrong (And It Feels So Good)

2008-04-21T23:55:00.000-04:00

Dear Horrible Administrative Law Judge,

You are officially wrong. Congratulations.

Very sincerely,

Me

-----

Where I was once using a technicality to claim an undefeated hearing record (I had lost a case, but it was on appeal, so, in reality, I had not actually lost it), I can now claim – for the time being after today’s events – that I am officially undefeated.

For over 3.5 months, my roommate and I have been awaiting judgment on the case we appealed. Having submitted quite a extensive appeal brief, we were anxious to find out the “verdict”.

As I was walking to my car to head to the hearing, I received a call from the client whose case we had appealed. A few weeks ago, we received a positive judgment in record-breaking time against this employer (in favor of our client – our appeal client’s co-worker). Our lengthy wait made up for the blazing fast speed of the other case.

My client was on the other end of the phone, and cautiously proceeded to tell me that we had won the appeal, and that he would receive unemployment benefits, as he should have all along. I literally jumped-for-joy with the good news. I hurriedly dialed my roommate, and decided to have a bit of fun. As forlorn as was possible.

“I just got a call from our client about the appeal,” I said quietly. “Yeah, this time the judgment was a bit different.”

She pushed me to tell her about the outcome. When I told her that we had won the appeal, she screamed. I later found out that the scream occurred in the middle of a crowd of people who were studying.

I am elated that we won the case, and even happier to be able to close the file of another client. That is always a good feeling.

I wish I could be a “fly on the wall” of the Employer. He is having a bad month: my roommate and I are 2-and-0 versus his company. The man must hate us; that makes me happy.

The horrible judge was officially overruled. It must feel relatively bad to have “Mommy and Daddy Appeal Board” overrule your finding. Maybe it is important to allow people basic rights. Life is good, for now.

The following is the Appeal Board Judgment on the case:

-----

The Department of Labor Issued the initial determination disqualifying the claimant from receiving benefits effective September 5, 2007 on the basis that the claimant lost employment through misconduct in connection with that employment and holding that the wages paid to the claimant by EMPLOYER prior to September 5, 2007, cannot be used toward the establishment of a claim for benefits. The claimant requested a hearing.

The Administrative Law Judge held a hearing at which testimony was taken. There were appearances by the claimant and on behalf of the employer. By decision filed November 29. 2007, the Administrative Law Judge sustained the initial determination.

The claimant appealed the Judge's decision to the Appeal Board. The Board considered the arguments contained in the written statement submitted on behalf of the claimant.

Based on the record and testimony in this case, the Board makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT: The claimant worked as a manager for a chain of five or six retail stores for approximately seven years through September 4, 2007. In July of 2007, the claimant was reassigned to a store after the manager of that store quit. The claimant made an order on July 23, 2007 which was canceled because the president believed that it was excessive. On Saturday August 11, 2007 the claimant was in the process of compiling an order when the vice-president called and directed him to go to another store. The claimant informed the vice-president that he was in the process of making an order and the vice-president again reiterated that the claimant was to go to the other store. As a result the claimant left the remainder of the order to the assistant manager who had regularly completed orders. The assistant manager submitted the order on or about August 13, 2007. On September 4, 2007, the president informed the claimant that he was discharged because he was dissatisfied with the claimant's performance. When the claimant asked the president for a specific reason of why he was discharged the president would not elaborate.

OPINION: The credible evidence establishes that the claimant was discharged because his performance of his job duties did not meet the employer's expectations. While an employer may discharge its employees for any lawful reason it deems fit, it is not every failure to meet an employer's expectations that rises to the level of misconduct under the Unemployment Insurance Law. In this case there is no evidence that the claimant's inability to meet his employer's performance standards was the result of any intentional action or omission on his part. In so holding, we note that the president himself stated that the claimant was discharged for poor performance and refused to give the claimant any specific reason for his discharge. Moreover, even if we credited the president's testimony that the claimant was in fact discharged as a result of the August 13. 2007 order, we would still conclude that the claimant's actions do not rise to the level of misconduct. In reaching this conclusion, we note that the claimant could not complete the order because he was called away by the Vice-president and that he reasonably delegated the task to the assistant manager who had regularly placed orders in the past. Accordingly, under these circumstances, we conclude that the claimant's employment ended as the result of poor job performance and not as the result of misconduct.

DECISION: The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is reversed.

The initial determination of misconduct is overruled.

The claimant is allowed benefits with respect to the issues decided herein.

A Monday(‘s) Work - April 21, 2008

2008-04-21T23:33:00.004-04:00

At 10:00AM, I was sitting in property. Two hours seemed like an eternity. This was especially so because I spent the weekend at my roommate’s parent’s house for the holiday. It was definitely a bit more intense that what I was used to, but the food was plentiful and the guests made some great conversation.

My pseudo-parents love having me around. They have three daughters, and not one son. Every time I come over, they treat me like close family, and definitely utilize my young male self. As they say, it is always good to have a son to take out the trash. And, boy, did I make a great many trips out to the trash.

Anyhow, the weekend made the wake-up on Monday quite difficult. I was to have a packed day. After the two hours of class, I prepared for my second-to-last hearing of the year. I was excited to close another case, but worried about my less than spectacular client.

This is the case that deals with multiple criminal charges, a union collective bargaining agreement, surveillance video, and a lengthy trail of allegations and complicated stories. My partner was a first-timer, so she was relying on me heavily to guide our client (and her) through the hearing.

As has become the pattern, I was told and prepared for a hot-tempered employer to sit opposite my client. I had not seen their main piece of evidence prior to the hearing, so I could only prepare for an under-described video that my client tried to tell us about.

The hearing went quite well, at first. It lasted a total of 2.5 hours, which was incredibly long. Most hearing go anywhere from 30 minutes to one hour. Because we were dealing with two allegations of petty theft (allegedly took a package on two different instances) and multiple videos, we knew this would go a little longer than normal.

There were two people on behalf of the Employer the last time around, but only one this time. He was one of the higher level investigators for the company. Ten minutes into his testimony, the surveillance video was ready to be shown. I made an objection as per the authenticity of the video, and whether or not it was an original, non-edited version. The judge noted the objection, and the video was played, anyhow.

The surveillance system saved to a hard drive in a digital version. To save hard-drive space, the video only recorded if there was movement on the screen. To make the record complete - and to really piss-off the employer – I made a verbal notice every time the time on the screen ran, and when there was no change in recording. Basically, the video had dozens of seconds of action missing. Every time I noted the still picture, but moving time, the employer became increasingly mad. This occurred a great many times, and the Employer was, obviously, angry a great many times. I had not even begun my cross examination and he was an upset man.

During his direct testimony, he told the judge that he was absolutely positive regarding certain dates. Of these dates was the day he began an investigation into the allegations. When it was time for my cross examination (“cross”) to start, I knew exactly where to start. The Judge had entered an internal memo into evidence as Hearing Exhibit 1. The Exhibit was very helpful to my client’s case.

H – Mr. C, you told the judge, not too long ago, that you are absolutely positive about the dates of certain events, right?

Mr. C – Of course. I am positive.

H – Are there any changes you would like to make to any of those dates?

C – No.

H – Would you say that, as a general rule, your memory gets better or worse over time?

C – I would assume it would get worse.

H – So, your memory on, say, January 2nd, was better than your memory now?

C – I’d say so.

H – You just told the Judge that you started your investigation on the 13th of December, is that right?

C – Yes, that is when it started.

H – On the internal memo that you authored, marked in evidence as Hearing Exhibit 1, you say the investigation began on December 17, but you just said that you are positive the date of the start was December 13th. Were you lying then, or are you lying now.

C – (Insert something incoherent and babbling here.)

The hearing only became better as we continued.

H – Also on Hearing Exhibit 1 (“HX1”) you wrote that my client put four items into the delivery vehicle, and removed one item. Is that correct?

C – Well, when I say removed, I meant that he took it out of the back and brought it to the front of the truck with him.

H – But, that is not what you said. I quote he “removes the shipment that had been tossed into the vehicle earlier and then closes the door.” Isn’t that right?

C – Yes, that is what it said. (He read the entire paragraph out loud.)

H – So, he put four items in, and took one item out?

C – Yes.

H – Leaving three items in the truck?

C – Yes.

H – You also said in HX1 that he delivered three items?

C – Yes, that is what it says.

H – So, to make this clear, you say he took three packages, and delivered three packages?

C – (More incoherent, fall-over-himself babble.)

H – That seems simple enough to me.

… Some time later …

H – You showed us surveillance video earlier. How many cameras are there in the distribution area?

C – 54.

H – How far off the ground are the cameras?

C – They are 7 to 10 feet off the ground.

H – Are they visible?

C – They are in your face, you cannot miss them.

H – Do the employees know there are cameras recording every movement they make?

C – Yes, everybody knows.

H – So, my client knew he was being recorded?

C – Yes.

H – Did you check the video of my client’s return to the facility on those days?

C – No. But I think I have it here.

H – So, it is possible that my client would be shown unloading the packages you say he stole.

C – I guess so, it is possible.

H – You surely identified the specific packages as the one’s you say were missing, right.

C – Yes

H –The company with the logo on the alleged boxes uses your company exclusively for shipping?

C – Yes.

H – So, it is safe to estimate that thousands of packages that look exactly like the ones you say were taken go through this area regularly, right?

C – Right.

H –And there is no identifiable mark that would set the box on the video apart from any other box from that company?

H – How many employees work for this branch of your company?

C – Hundreds.

(In reference to the man we viewed on the video earlier, where the person was wearing a hat, jacket and pants; no face was visible at any time.)

H – How many employees wear hats at work?

C – Hundreds.

H – How many wear jackets?

C – They all have those jackets and wear them.

H – How many employees wear pants? (My partner had to cover her mouth to keep from laughing.)

C – (With a bit of exasperation.) They all wear pants.

H – How many packages come through this facility on a daily basis?

C – Thousands.

H – How many per year?

C – I dunno. Millions.

H – Has your company ever lost, misplaced, forgotten, mis-delivered or otherwise lost possession of any one of these millions of packages?

C – It happens, of course.

H – How many people have access to these packages?

C – I dunno, I can’t really say.

H – Can you give an estimate? Hundreds? Thousands?

C – Thousands, I guess.

H –Can people from the public access the area and/or the millions of packages?

C – I guess it is possible. To be honest, people could probably steal it from the trucks when they are out on delivery.

H – You track the packages, right?

C – Yes. We use a scanner system.

H – Have you ever owned an electronic device?

C – Yes, of course.

H – Has any device you owned ever malfunctioned suddenly?

C – Yes.

H – Have any of the scanners not worked?

C – Yes.

H – Sometimes they do not scan?

C – Correct?

H – Sometimes they do not transmit?

C – Yes.

H – Sometimes they do not even download?

C – Right.

H – But it saves any information on the handheld device as a backup, right?

C – Yes.

H – Did you check the devices my client used on the days in question?

C – No.

H – You filed a police report, but you did not even investigate the allegations enough to check the device?

C – I did not feel it was necessary.

H – It is convenient for you that you did not find it necessary. How nice.

H – The packages that my client allegedly stole were not in his delivery area?

C – No, they were outside the area he was assigned to.

H – Do delivery persons ever go outside their assigned area?

C – Honestly, sometimes the supervisors will give them something to deliver that is not in their zone. So, it is possible that it could happen.

H – Did you ask his supervisors if he had been assigned to areas outside of his normal zone?

C – No.

H – How convenient, again.

H – The first incident for which my client was terminated for accused theft occurred on October 30?

C – Yes.

H – You terminated my client’s employment on December 17?

C – That is right.

H – And you later filed criminal charges on January 16, 2008, correct?

C – Right.

H – You waited 48 days from the first incident to look into a charge of theft and terminate my client’s employment?

C – Yes.

H – And then, you waited 30 MORE days before filing charges with the police?

C – It is my right to file charges whenever we want.

H – Is it company policy to wait 78 days to seek justice when your customer’s belongings are lost or stolen?

C – We could not investigate until our customers tell us something is missing.

H – You want the Judge to believe that a customer would wait 48 days to report to your company a package was missing worth over $850?

C – We can’t control what our customers do.

Before I was done with my lengthy cross that included far more than what accompanies above, I asked one final question:

“You want us to believe that, although you waited 78 days to charge an employee with the theft of a customer’s property, when all you have to support your accusations is admittedly low quality (at best) surveillance video of an alleged theft, without any surveillance of the accused that would show the return of the package, that somehow identifies a box without any identifiable markings, accessible by any one of a few hundred persons, that was supposedly never scanned nor tracked in a computer system that thousands of people can alter at any given time, when you have no idea where the package finally ended up, or who currently possesses the allegedly stolen goods, that my client did what you accuse?”

After poking so many holes in their testimony and evidence that their boat had become a splinter, it was my client’s turn to testify. He is not now, nor has he ever been, the smartest person in any room. He made worthless the better part of 45 minutes of my life with one of the first questions he answered.

Q – You watched the video earlier?

Client – Yes, I saw it.

Q – Was that you on the video?

Client – Yes, that was me on there.

I nearly lost it. I could not believe he said that. I spent a great amount of time to making the unidentifiable person on the screen out to be just about any one of the thousands of employees for the company. In a few seconds, he screwed everything up. I could not believe what had occurred.

There was only one other exchange that made my head spin. The employer was a smart guy, who caught on to the closed-ended questioning type that was needed for a cross examination.

C – Have you ever lied.

Client – I do my best never to lie.

C – That was not my question. Have you ever lied.

Client – (Obviously agitated) Of course I have, haven’t you lied.

The Employer, in all his stupidity, actually answered the posed question.

C – Of course I lie. What makes us believe you are not lying today.

Client – I am telling the truth. I did not take the packages. I haven’t ever taken anything that was not mine. I had no reason to.

The Employer turned to the Judge and said, “I do not know if this is a question I can ask, but…” He turned to my Client and asked, “Do you have a criminal record?”

Before you could say, “Why, golly-gee willickers!” I objected. “Objection, relevancy, Your Honor.”

The Judge directed my client not to answer and sustained the objection.

My closing was a quaint summation of ever hole I poked in the case.

“Scanner malfunction. Transmissions do not go through. Downloading malfunctions. Thousands can access the distribution area where there are thousands of packages every day. Thousands can access and alter the computer system. The trucks are accessible, and packages are regularly lost or misplaced. No video of my client’s return to the area after delivery. There is no evidence that my client even took the packages in question. There has been no chain of custody for any evidence, and no original evidence presented. The Employer said that items can be altered, and that employees can be assigned irregular duties. The employer wants us to believe that customers waited over 50 days to report missing shipments worth over $850. The employer wants us to believe that he reviewed hours of unclear, low-quality and incomplete video of multiple days in a few hours. He alleges that even though the video is unclear and incomplete, skipping a great amount of time, and freezes in recording, that my client did as alleged. All the evidence shown is incomplete, without proper authentication, and does not prove the Employer’s case. Furthermore, my client was making over 24 dollars-per-hour, and the highest education he has if that of high school. No person with his education level, making that much, who knew that there were cameras recording his every move would risk his job by stealing from the employer for which he had worked for longer than one decade. It is unreasonable. New York law provides that there must be a direct relation in point of time between the offenses committed and the discharge, and misconduct must be proved to be the direct cause of discharge. There is no such link here, and no evidence to support any allegations of misconduct. The employer has not met his burden. Find as the law requires: reinstate my client’s benefits.”

And, with that, the hearing ended. As we walked out, my client was pretty happy. He turned to me an exclaimed that the other guy looked horrible, and that he thought everything went perfectly. When he asked me what I thought, I replied, “I will not sugar-coat this. I have been in dozens of hearings, and this is the first time I have walked out unhappy with the way things went.”

He asked me what went wrong, and I explained that when he identified himself in the video, he shot himself in the foot. He retorted that he did not know what to say. I told him that he should have said anything but that, but now, he is on the record for life as being the person in the video. My partner later told me that her “five-year-old son knows better than to do that, and he is only five.” I could not believe it.

I have had clients who have had much stronger cases and almost lost, and clients with weaker cases who have won. It could go either way. Regardless of my client identifying himself, the Employer has an admittedly weak case that asks the Judge to make giant leaps in conclusions. However, administrative judges are not the most reasonable persons in the world. This is a grab-bag. Nobody knows what is going to happen.

My client sent the following email later:

-----

To: H and Partner

From: Client

Subject: you both did well

i was thinking this all over and i want you to both know i think you did a fine job. you tore this guy apart and to me he did not know what he was talking about. if the judge does not see thru this its pretty sad what can happen to anyone, at any given time of their life. i will be in touch as soon as i hear a decision. thanks again.

Client

-----

We wait and see.

After the hearing, I had the last Student Bar Association meeting of my life (hopefully). The meeting was a complete waste of time, and lasted no longer than 20 minutes.

I went home and got down to studying.

All in a Monday’s work.

Flashback Friday - April 18, 2008

2008-04-18T23:50:00.000-04:00

Flashback Friday was great. I sometimes confuse flashbacks and nostalgia, though they are relatively close. New York was graced with the first day it was not outrageous to wear shorts and sandals. I could not wait to excavate my California clothing from the heap in the back of my closet. Freedom to wear what I want, without funny looks is an amazing right I enjoyed.

The day started out with a mock employment contract negotiation, during which M and I discussed the terms of employment with a set of two classmates in an effort to get our clients the best deal possible. M and I rocked the house, and left the table with terms that benefited us quite a bit.

However, when we got to the portion regarding any misdemeanor or felony arrests and the effect of such on continued employment, we unexpectedly found a piece of disagreement. The other side did not want Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) to be grounds for automatic dismissal. From this discussion, the “Mighty Ducks Provision” was borne (ca. 1992). I have included it here for your reading pleasure:

-----

Mighty Ducks Provision

The Employer cares for its Employees and the public. The Employer understands that no person is perfect, and that addictions are as hurtful to an individual as they may be to Employer’s business. As a result, Employer agrees and pledges, so far as they are able, to assist and help the Employee help themselves break the cycle of addiction.

Should employee be convicted for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), Employee may be permitted to continue employment with the Employer should Employee fulfill the following requirements:

Employee has not previously been convicted of either a DUI or DWI;

Employee pleads guilty in an open court to DUI or DWI charge;

Employee fulfills all terms of the Court-imposed sentence in the manner and time prescribed by the applicable Court;

The act for which Employee has been found guilty did not result in the injury, harm or death of any person;

Employee enters into an Alcohol or Substance Rehabilitation Program approved by Employer;

Employee submits to no less than six (6) months regular, unpaid community service to a youth-oriented initiative approved by Employer, preferably coaching or mentoring initiatives, such as Pee-Wee hockey;

Employee reports to the applicable Bar Associations with which Employee is a member;

Employee shall adhere to any and all Bar Association punishments and requirements as a result of Employee’s actions;

All expenses borne of these requirements are the Employee’s responsibility;

Employee takes no less than one-month unpaid leave from employment;

Employee submits to a performance and conduct review at the end of the unpaid leave to assess Employee’s adherence to the aforementioned requirements; and

Employee understands that adherence with the above requirements is not a guarantee of continued employment.

This provision, in no way, condones or induces Employee to commit any illegal crimes or acts. The Employer strictly prohibits any and all unlawful acts and irresponsibility by all of its employees.

-----

Hopefully my professor has a sense of humor. We shall see. (My favorite part of the provision is: “Employee submits to no less than six (6) months regular, unpaid community service to a youth-oriented initiative approved by Employer, preferably coaching or mentoring initiatives, such as Pee-Wee hockey.”)

After the morning meeting, I drove home, windows down, sunroof open. It was the happiest I have been since I arrived in the East Coast. Suddenly, I had the urge to partake in a beverage that I have not had in quite a while: Root Beer.

The soda has not graced my palette in a very long time, because I have lovely genetics that have made me susceptible to kidney stones. Soda is one of the triggers to the creation of the miniature bowel maces that wrenches your insides like a porcupine. If you have kidney stones once, and the doctor tells you to stop doing something, you listen. I was lucky enough to have the stones of death twice. Needless to say that I did as the doctor suggested.

Today was an occasion to enjoy oneself. I stopped at the beverage store, picked up some A&W, and drove home. When I got home, I grabbed my books, a blanket, some Jazz tunes and headed to the dock in back of my house with the dog to enjoy the sunshine and happiness. Of course, I sipped on my root beer.

It felt like home, especially when I was sipping the foam from my soda, as my parents let me do when they poured sodas when I was young. Memories of my pre-law days circled my mind. It was definitely nostalgia. Or, was it a flashback? Who cares?

It was a good Friday.

The Doctrine of Erie - April 17, 2008

2008-04-17T23:27:00.000-04:00

The Erie Doctrine was finally bequeathed to us by our civil procedure professor. Law students and attorneys are most likely looking at the page with "googly-eyes" of wonderment, while the lay person is wondering why the astonished eyes are needed. The Erie case is one of the big cases taught to students during the first year of law school. These big cases are usually revealed during the first-semester. Among the big-name cases are the following:

1. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (LIRR)
2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
3. U.S. v Bethlehem Steel Corp.
4. Campbell Soup v Wentz
5. Hawkins v McGee
6. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
7. Hanson v. Denkla
8. International Shoe Co. v. Washington
9. Pennoyer v. Neff
10. And others…

My civil procedure professor is not a go-with-the-grain-type professor. He likes to teach civil procedure backwards. Basically, he teaches second semester civil procedure during the first semester, and the first semester during the second. In his view, we then have a foundation on which to discuss the highly confusing jurisdiction topics. In reality, he allows us to watch the sheer confusion and terror experienced by our colleagues as they deal with the horrible topics we will be forced to endure.

Of the most important cases in civil procedure is Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. Just under three weeks from our final, this landmark case was revealed to us. This exciting day was marked with ye old Socratic method being used by our professor, as is usual in every class. The professor is among the most laid-back and easy-going professors a student can be assigned first semester.

The professor started class with his usual cliché greeting and called on a student to discuss the Erie case. The student looked up at the professor and said, "I did not read today."

A very astonished professor replied, "You did not read today? You skipped the Erie Doctrine? What a time to choose to skip." And, with that, he moved to the next student.

I would describe the Erie Doctrine, but I would be made fun of again for briefing cases in my spare time. Just know that it controls what law (state or federal) a state or federal court is bound to in certain cases.

Stupid class made me happy today. This very unlikely occurrence was prompted because, halfway through the two hours of boredom, the professor dismissed class. As it turns out, the only way stupid class can make me happy, is if stupid class ends early or is cancelled. Oh, the irony.

… and scene.

Halfway Day - April 16, 2008

2008-04-16T23:30:00.000-04:00

Other than officially living through half of the week, there was nothing particularly interesting today. After my first class of the day, I had a meeting with the Law Fraternity Executive Board to discuss our vision and goals. We were all on the very same page, and agreed that the last year was a failure for the organization. It was obvious we need to do a lot of work.

After the meeting, I had stupid class. After the hour of annoyance had ceased, I went to relax in the student lounge. After sitting in the lounge for around ten minutes, the outgoing Student Bar Association Vice President walked into the lounge. He walked towards me and said, “H, you are Jewish, right?”

I replied in the affirmative. He asked if I had a few minutes to spare. Once again, I told him that I had extra time in my life. I was told that one more Jewish male was needed to complete a Minion. I obliged the request, and found myself a California Reform Jew enabling a very Orthodox New York group of men to take part in prayer.

I was very lost the great majority of time, as they were seemingly speed reading. The rapid rate of prayer allowed the Minion to occur and let the great majority of the guys make it to class on time.

After the Minion, I went back to studying and reading. I am not often upset or noticeably infuriated about the things I read in legal textbooks, as most of the findings and teachings are reasonable. One case was an exception. It ruined what was left of my day.

The case was: Hill v. Community of Damien of Molokai (for those of you in need of a citation, that is: 121 N.M. 353). The case, according to Lexis Nexis, was first heard in the District Court of Bernalillo County (New Mexico) where it was held that the use of certain property by defendant organization as a group home for individuals with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome violated a housing development covenant, which limited the use of lots to single-family residences, and that enforcing the restrictive covenant did not violate the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 3601-3631. The organization appealed.

The lower court found that the increased traffic due to the presence of the group home had detrimentally altered the character of the neighborhood and that plaintiff neighbors, who sought enforcement of the covenant, had no discriminatory intent. The Appeals Court reversed and held that the term "family" was ambiguous and that because the group home was designed to provide the individuals who lived there with a traditional family structure, setting, and atmosphere, the use complied with the covenant. The court noted that the strong governmental policy that encouraged locating group homes in single-family residential areas further justified an expansive interpretation of the term "family." The court held that even in the absence of discriminatory intent, enforcement of the covenant violated the FHA because it had a disparate impact upon the handicapped, who required congregate living arrangements in order to live in a residential community. Finally, the expansive interpretation of the covenants was a reasonable accommodation required by the FHA. However, the denial of attorney's fees to the organization was justified in light of the neighbors' nondiscriminatory intent.

Basically, the AIDS group home won the case. For this I was happy. There was an obvious element of discrimination involved. The actions of the neighbors were upsetting, but not grossly shocking.

At the end of the case, there are usually problems, explanations or notes. The very first note after this case described the unending harassment the neighbors commenced against the dying inhabitants of the group home. The note described harassment that went so far into the appalling that I had to take a break from reading. Once, as one of the AIDS-stricken tenants was being rushed to the hospital in an ambulance, one of the neighbors gathered their entire family on their front lawn, opened a bottle of champagne and toasted the ambulance as it drove by.

This was but one example of the constant barrage of harassment suffered by the tenants. It rose to a level where the group home moved to another location to get away from the neighbors.

It is hard to believe that people actually act like that.

And that was my day.

Caricatures – April 15, 2008

2008-04-16T01:09:00.007-04:00

I need not reiterate the recurring theme of my life. However, to ensure completeness of the record, I shall do so anyway. Things do not go according to plan.

I have begun to shirk the responsibility of failed plans by placing them upon the law school, but it is not really fair to do so. Instead, I place said responsibility on the shoulders of the caricatures (little people with big heads) that run the institution of failure.

Today, at the stroke of midnight, registration opens for the entire first year class. Hundreds of people submitting course registration numbers on the same system, at the same time, spell intensity and doom. However, I get ahead of myself.

This morning was the big day for appellate advocacy. There are a lot of things at which I am relatively horrible, speaking, however, is not one of them. I am the lone student that people hate. I am the guy who would rather speak in public than die on an airplane. Yeah, I like oral advocacy (the legal kind).

Appellate arguments are a very special skill. Whereas trial lawyers speak in prose, and rarely argue or are attacked, appellate arguments take quite a different turn. There is no jury. Instead, there are judges. These judges can cut an attorney off as they see fit, and constantly attack the stance of the attorney. It is very much like the televised congressional hearings where the person testifying is under a constant barrage of unfriendly attacks. Basically, it is fun.

I loved my ten minutes of argument. Constantly dodging bullets, knowing the record and using statutes and caselaw in argument yields much joy for me. After each pair of attorneys went (M and I versus annoying guy and quiet girl), we received critiques from the judges and our professor. M, who thought she was going to bomb, did wonderfully, and it showed. I was very confident in my performance, so when they gave me my sole piece of criticism, I was shocked. This time, M was shocked right along with me.

The judges and professor said, “You were noticeably nervous.”

What! Noticeably nervous? Not something I hear on a regular basis.

I looked to my right and saw M hurriedly scribbling on her pad of paper, attempting hiding a smirk. Her note read “They obviously do not know you! Perhaps they mistook your intensity for nervousness!”

I will get over it, though.

Annoying Guy was not a person whose abilities could be pinpointed ahead of time. M and I believed that one of two things would occur. Either he would do as we envisioned he would, and bomb the oral argument, or he would surprise us all. Interestingly, our gut instinct was correct; Guy did not do very well. He was caught misquoted the record, and was lambasted for it. He did not handle the tough questioning well, and stumbled around. It was painful to watch.

After the argument I went to meet with Professor B, who had been a roadblock in the way of the founding of the competition organization. She is a keystone to our becoming a recognized organization, but felt what we considered to be (and could only imagine was) territorial, as she is the Head Advisor for the Moot Court Association.

The meeting, as with (seemingly) every meeting at the law school, was very adversarial from the get-go. We walked in calm and collected, with diplomacy on our minds. Our plans quickly disintegrated into an attempt to argue using reason. Reason, in law school, has been proven futile. We went back and forth, and sent volleys at each other until both our battleships were sunk.

Surprisingly, we walked away with a very decent agreement. It is a good thing negotiation is one of the three competitions in which we will field teams. Now we have to go back to the Office of Student Affairs. This is never a fun trip.

Before we left the office, we were surprised with an exchange between C – who, in the future, you will hear quite a bit regarding – me and Professor B. C is the reliable person who was elected Vice Justice (Vice President) of the Legal Fraternity, when I was elected Justice (President). He and I were both under the relatively confirmed assumption that Professor B, with whom we were battling, was our Advisor for the organization.

When we talked to her about our new positions, she was astonished to hear that we thought she was our Advisor. She said she held no such position (even though she is recorded as being such).

C turned to Professor B and proceeded to ask her if, in that case, she would be willing to be our Advisor.

We walked out of the room with a negotiated agreement and a new advisor. Surprise!

As C and I headed to class, we were quite happy with our performance, and sat through the next hour of class content.

As if the day was not long enough, registration required me – and every other student – to remain awake until the (literal) stroke of midnight. As stated previously, hundreds of people would attempt to get classes before anybody else could. Classes had already begun to fill up, and others were completely full.

It would be the first to click the submit button. I had all my classes laid-out and ready to go. I had backups prepared, and I counted down the ticks to midnight.

I had planned the following schedule:

T/Th	2:10-4pm	Criminal Procedure I
T, Th, F	12:10-2pm	Family Law (with Skills)
T/Th	(T) 4:10-6pm, (Th) 4:10-5pm	Constitutional Law I
M/W	(M) 6:10-8pm and (W) 8:10-10pm	Evidence
W	2:10-4pm	Juvenile Justice Seminar

But, I ended up with these classes:

Th	10:10am-12pm	Voting Rights and Election Law
T, Th, F	12:10-2pm	Family Law (with Skills)
T/Th	(T) 4:10-6pm, (Th) 4:10-5pm	Constitutional Law I
M/W	(M) 6:10-8pm and (W) 8:10-10pm	Evidence
T	6:10-9pm	Child, Abuse & Neglect

Obviously, plans failed. Many of the classes I wanted to take, and even some backups, filled up before I had a chance to register. This is just another sign that the caricatures are very out of touch. I do, however, have a decently nice schedule. I really hope I will enjoy taking night classes. Luckily, they get increasingly late as the week progresses. It builds of the impending craziness.

In blocked out form, my schedule looks like this:

	M	T	W	Th
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

This will give me the opportunity to engage in a part time judicial clerkship or just relax on Mondays, Wednesdays and every other Friday.

I had promised to place a follow-up call to the Judge in the prior conversation. After I spoke with my friend’s father (the Judge) I went to sleep. I was so drained from the long, exciting day that I was unconscious within seconds.

Surprise Justice - April 14, 2008

2008-04-14T23:08:00.000-04:00

Monday could not have come sooner. I feel sick for even pondering those words. However, my Saturday City adventures yielded unhappiness to the point where I had no choice but to circulate those thoughts.

A friend’s girlfriend with whom I have become relatively friendly was having her birthday celebration. She specifically requested my presence, who knows why, so I obliged by leaving my studies and suiting up for a good night in the city.

The place we ended up hosted the best house band I have ever heard, and was a lot of fun. The fun part occurred when I had three full cups and bottles of beer (all different kinds) spilled on me. The eau de beer was amazing. It was the most exciting bath I have ever taken. Three times.

On the way home, I fell asleep on the train and missed my stop by one exit. I would have missed it by more than one stop, but a gaggle of young inebriated ladies roared as they entered the train. I scurried off as quickly as I could, quite dismayed at the newly created conundrum.

I made it home in time for Monday.

M was finally called on in Property. Whereas I had been selected in the beginning of the semester, M has sat quietly until today. The kicker was that the professor spoke the great majority of time. Life is never fair.

During class, an email was delivered reminding members of the legal fraternity with which I had become associated that there was a meeting during which elected for next year’s officers would be held at noon. After class had concluded, I walked straight to the meeting. We sat down, and the current president discussed election procedures and the job description of each.

To make a long story very short, ten minutes later I was elected the President (known as the Justice). One of my favorite people was elected Vice Justice immediately after. He is a very hard working and reliable guy. Then, things became worth the added responsibility.

Cute girl from yester-year was elected Secretary (known as the Clerk) and cute-girl’s very cute and very single friend was elected Treasurer (known as the Treasurer). Insert chuckle here.

As the other positions were elected, the board was formed into a very strong element. I am quite happy with the decisions that were made, and should have a fun year.

A few hours later a few hundred students crowded into the large classroom for the mandatory Law Review meeting where it was revealed that I needed to change a flight I booked one month prior because my flight was taking off right as competition packets could be picked up. Basically, I would be at a severe disadvantage were I to not show up in person. An explanation of the competition shall occur after finals.

Oral arguments for my appellate advocacy class take place tomorrow morning. I am really excited for the exercise in oral advocacy. It is something in which I have been looking forward to taking part.

Back to life. Where life equals studying, reading and preparing.

Two Shorts, One Friday – April 11, 2008

2008-04-11T23:25:00.001-04:00

There is very little to share today. Two short stories are all that the day rendered. I spent most time inside the walls of my Appellate Advocacy class, whereupon I was released for good behavior, and subsequently transferred to the minimum security fortress in my home for a day of studying.

Appellate Advocacy is the class that seems like it will not soon end. Every time we finish one assignment, another is given. It will not stop.

Aside from preparing for oral arguments, which are to take place next Tuesday, we have been entrusted with a legal drafting assignment. We are to negotiate and prepare the terms of a contract. The subject is employment, so I feel relatively sure of myself.

M and I are partners for this exercise, and we are to negotiate with another team. We were arguing about the inclusion of a particular element of an employment agreement. We went back and forth about the item, when finally, M turned to me and said, “How do you know!?”

With a slyness that I have perfected over the years, I responded, “It is either my having worked for an employment agency for a number of years, or my having written employment contracts and such for the company I own. I cannot remember which it is, though. Oh, well.”

At that point we moved on.

As we were in class today, we discussed what would occur during the oral arguments. Annoying Guy, in annoying guy fashion, raised his hand during the explanation. The statement-type-questions and response/interruption from my professor went something like this:

AG – “For the oral arguments: my partner K and I are going against H and M…”

Before he could continue, my professor cut him off.

Professor – “Oh, you are in trouble…”

It was a moment of happiness that shined down upon me.

That was my Friday.

Denial of Permission to Apply for Admission – April 10, 2008

2008-04-10T18:40:00.005-04:00

What do New Yorkers do when it is a beautifully warm day outside? They stay inside and talk about the weather outside. The Natives reminisce about the coming summer months when the warmth is daily. Today, New Yorkers stopped staring at me with those “googly-eyes” I have become accustomed to attracting, for people retrieved their sandals from the back of their closets.

On this amazingly nice day, the only weather-based enjoyment in which I was able to partake was the opening of my sunroof. I was stuck in classes, like people workin' on the railroad: all the live-long day. Putting the unused over-head window to use is going to be short-lived. The word in the hall is that a storm is a-comin’. Welcome to the East Coast: sunshine and happiness one day, storms and depression the next.

Thursday is the terrible, no good, very bad (long) day.

The morning was quite the spectacle. While contracts class is relatively boring, and whereas the professor is lack-luster on a regular basis, at best, today’s class left a “blip” on the radar. Then it left.

Right in the middle of the class in which I do not learn a thing, a horde of staff, faculty and administrators barged in. The man who led the charge was carrying a cake with far-too-few candles lit to represent the age of my professor. A rendition of the “Happy Birthday” song was excitedly sung by the crowd of students and other persons to whose paycheck I contribute. Students sang because we did not have to listen to the endless pontification of the Birthday-Boy. The staff, faculty and administrators sang because they cared.

My professor turned 80 today. Class was still boring.

Outside of Academics, things were brewin’.

There once was a professor who was the head adviser for the Moot Court Association. This is the adviser who, for no reason at all, refused to meet with the competition organization I am attempting to organize.

I, however, am relentless.

I let the professor know that I would not stop asking her for a meeting anytime soon, and that this group of students is goal-oriented and serious about the creation of the competitive teams.

She granted us a meeting after a handful of emails. She made sure that she included how very against the idea she is in that email, as can be seen below:

-----

Subject: Meeting
------------------------

From: H
Date: Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:53 PM
To: Professor B

Professor B,

I am following up on my previous emails requesting a meeting with you. I will work with your schedule to find a time that is convenient for you. All the students involved are very serious in seeing that our goals are achieved.

I sincerely hope we can take some time to discuss the benefits the proposed group intends to bring to the Law School, and the sacrifices we are willing to make to ensure success.

Any time you will give to discuss our proposed organization is very much appreciated.

-H

--

From: Professor B
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:15 AM
To: H

H:
I can meet with you next week - either 12:30pm on Tuesday or 10:30am or
1pm on Wednesday.
I appreciate your interest and enthusiasm in participating in
intermural competitions. However, we have an intermural trial and moot
court competition program that I believe will encompass the goals you
wish to achieve.

Professor B

--

From: H
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:16 AM
To: Professor B

Professor B,

I am excited to have the opportunity to discuss our ideas and goals with you. We would like to meet during the Tuesday slot, at 12:30.

Thank you again - and in advance - for your time.

Very respectfully,

H

--

From: Professor B
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM
To: H

ok

-----

Welcome to my world. The professor has not before been educated regarding who we are or what we wish to do. Everything she “thinks” (yes, I threw a pair of scare-quotes in for good measure) she knows is based on preconceived, baseless notions and third-party rumor. The meeting should be interesting. We are going to pack her office with as many students as possible so that she understands that this is not just a one student effort – there are many of us leading the way.

Hopefully we can talk her past her unfounded jealousy and territorialism. However, I really do not expect any reason to be applied to this situation. This school has shown that they utilize the opposite.

I have also had a problem with apathy from among the students I recruited. Most of them have been sitting idle. While some have attempted to accomplish their goals, there is one who was only sticking around because he never quits anything he started. He is the proverbial “dead weight.” I wanted to reiterate the need for action and give people an easy way to back out of the leadership responsibilities to which they had previously agreed.

I sent the following message to all the recruits:

-----

From: H

To: Proposed Organization Leaders

Subject: Organization

If you all plan to eat the bread, I need to know now. Time is wasting.

http://www.bres.boothbay.k12.me.us/wq/nnash/WebQuest/little_red_hen.htm

This will not come easy. Nothing novel ever does. Steve Jobs, who we
all know as one of the most successful inventors of present day, who
has transformed our worlds, said that "innovation distinguishes
between leaders and followers." You were recruited to be a leader.

Let me know.

- H

-----

The email has seemingly achieved its intended results. The dead weight has released himself from my shoulders and the others are taking some levels of action. I think the message delivered a very powerful message to some very smart people. It also allowed them to read anything into the message as they wished, making it even more potent. Plus, when has “The Little Red Hen” ever let me down? It is one of the first (if not THE first) books that we were read in Kindergarten. Mrs. Hiatt would be proud.

Thursday afternoon was also very revealing for the Law School’s policies. I will not be on the East Coast this summer, and I want to enroll in summer school classes. In order to take classes at other Law Schools, a student must enroll in that school as a “Visiting Student.” To enroll as a visiting student, the student must, in some cases, gain permission to apply for visiting student status from his or her law school. So, before I wasted my time I wanted to make sure that my law school will allow me to take courses as a “visiting student.” I went into the process thinking that there is no reason why a school would not let their students take classes at another law school for a short period of time.

Once again, I was wrong about the ease of process.

My law school does not allow students to enroll in other schools as a “visiting student” unless that student can show exceptional circumstances. So, when I email the Dean of Student Affairs to inquire about the status of being a visitor over the summer, she requested that I meet with her in person. I was upset that I had to take extra time to meet with her, but walked into her office, anyhow.

She told me that she did not think the policy makes any sense, but wanted to “know why [I] wanted to apply as a visiting student.” I told her that “I will not be on the East Coast over the summer, but wanted to take summer classes. I would take classes from this law school on the West Coast, but they come at a premium.”

She laughed and said, “OK. That makes sense.” I told her that I tend to make sense every once-in-a-while. She then told me that the law school does not usually let their students enroll in other schools as a visiting student (meaning that they never let it happen). Then she seemed to shift to the side and winked at me, saying “but, if you are planning on transferring, these policies will not matter anyway.”

I did not respond, because even I do not know if I am going to attempt to transfer. She also told me that her boss, the next dean up, is a very workable and reasonable person. She told me, basically, that she could be persuaded, especially since I will not be on the same coast over the summer.

She gave me the form that exists to rubber-stamp-deny students who apply to gain permission to apply for admission to another law school as a visiting student. I was directed to plead my case to the higher dean, and was told that “knowing your background, you should be successful in your appeal.”

This law school is something else.

Today.

2008-04-10T09:18:00.001-04:00

Today is pink shirt day. Though everybody should know.

Banquet Al Liquorosi – April 9, 2008

2008-04-09T23:25:00.000-04:00

Minus the long, three-class day, nothing noteworthy occurred. After my morning contracts class, M, another friend (next year’s student government president, as it turns out) and I drove to a restaurant for a banquet. The organization under which my Fellowship falls held its end-of-the-year luncheon to say goodbye to the outgoing third-year students and thank the staff and faculty who makes our program possible.

The lunch was good. M filled up on some amazing bread. Sometimes her appetite is beyond the size of her stomach – this is not difficult to do since she is tiny. After the bread baskets were decimated, freschetta, fried zucchini and fresh cuts of mozzarella were delivered to the tables. As if the incredible amount of appetizers were not enough, Caesar salad was dropped in front of me. The salad was amazing, and could have been a meal in itself.

But, just as the three courses of consumption fell like stones into my stomach, the main courses were delivered. We had our choices, and we made them well. M went with the pasta dish that had alcohol in the name. She cannot resist it, apparently. Her “penne al liquorosi” was very good. I ordered ravioli in a spinach sauce. It was a spectacular choice, especially since I was unable to eat a lot and had a ready-made dinner to take home.

The rest of the day was relatively decent.

I am excited for the summer. As I was telling one of my friends, I know law school is horrible when my idea of a vacation is working an 8-to-5 job, five days-a-week over the summer. Yeah. Law school messes up everybody’s mind.

This is what I wanted. Who knows why.

Nothing But A Schedule - April 8, 2008

2008-04-08T18:51:00.002-04:00

My one 50-minute class was nothing about which I would write home to the parents to discuss. In fact, nothing happened at all. This was the quintessential boring day.

Fall classes were sent out, finally. We are going to be given the opportunity to choose which classes we wish to take, except for Constitutional Law, which we have no choice but to take.

The following is the schedule I am going to do my best to take (I hope they will not fill up):

T/Th	2:10-4pm	Criminal Procedure I
T, Th, F	12:10-2pm	Family Law (with Skills)
T/Th	(T) 4:10-6pm, (Th) 4:10-5pm	Constitutional Law I
M/W	(M) 6:10-8pm and (W) 8:10-10pm	Evidence
W	2:10-4pm	Juvenile Justice Seminar

I was also pondering enrolling in these other classes (they are backups should the above fill prior to my registration):

T	6:10-9pm	Child, Abuse & Neglect
W	2:10-4pm	Advanced Mediation Seminar
M	8:10-10am (M),	Law of Drug Disc, Dev, and Commer
M/W	10:10am-12pm (W) 10:10-11am	First Amendment: Speech, Association and the Religion Clauses
Th	12:10-2pm	Lawyer Malpractice
Th	10:10am-12pm	Lawyers' Ethics

We shall see what happens.

Admin, Again – April 7, 2008

2008-04-07T23:06:00.000-04:00

If only I had time to write forever and ever, I would relay the fact that when I was President of my elementary school, I had more sovereignty than the student government at my law school. This silly notion is among a series of let downs from the place that sucked me in 3000 miles from home.

The best sleep I have had in months could not alleviate the apparent misdeeds of the day. At the Student Bar Association meeting, a long legacy of wrongdoing and misnomers by the Administration were unveiled to the student representatives in attendance.

Amid the wide selection of controversies, two issues were the hot items.
(1) Election discussion
(2) Budget Issues

-----

1) The election scandal has been suppressed. By suppressed, I mean internally investigated and brushed under the living room rug by the Administration. Not only is the school condoning, by inference, the fraudulent and unethical actions of its students, but it is not allowing the student government to discuss and vote on how to handle our own fraud-ridden, self-regulated elections.

The school has gone so far as to quash any opinions of its students by making it all-too-clear to the President that anybody who took any actions to vote and discuss the issue would be dealt with. We know this, because the President, in an email, asked the administrators if it was to be brought up and voted upon, what would happen. These Administrators swiftly responded in an email back to the President where they stated that "Should any President, officer or member attempt to vote on the issue, that the school would have no choice but to notify the Bar Association Character and Fitness Committee of such actions."

This is ludicrous. To stop students from discussing and voting on an issue that has absolutely no effect on the school's function, especially when the issue is regarding the organization's own elections is far beyond reason.

It just makes no sense.

-----

2) Students pay a mandatory fee each semester to a student activity fund. The funds are earmarked for spending by the Student Bar Association. Whatever money is not spent each year has been rolled-over into an account. Nobody knew exactly where the money went until recently.

The Treasurer, Vice-President and President have launched themselves into quite the interesting fact-finding mission. When investigating the funds, it was discovered that over 220,000 dollars of student activity funds is sitting in an account. This money was not accessible by the student government, so questions were asked.

The administration repeatedly told these student leaders that the money would not be there the next time it was checked, but sure enough, the money still sits there. Reason was argued. The money's earmarked nature was discussed, and yet no headway could be made. Over $220,000 is a lot to have sitting around.

However, the bigger issue is the law school not allowing students to access student money. It is quite apparent that the law school wants the funds, and is taking this time to figure out how to make it usable. Earmarked funds cannot be spent on anything but the earmark. When students pay a sum of money for a particular use, to do anything with the money but spend it on that specific use is fraud. I learned this in Torts class. To try to figure out a way to make the money transfer to the law school, and not give access to the money to whom the access is rightfully due is a whole other issue. It is my stance that if the current students cannot spend this roll-over money, then it should be refunded and redistributed to the students who paid the fee in the past.

I really wish I could get a window into their thought processes. It seems that they take wherever they can, and that students are merely a means to an end, where the end is money.

I love the administration here. They make me all warm and fuzzy on the inside.

-----

In other news, M and I turned in our Appellate Brief today. Since I did the table of authorities and contents and compiled the packet last time, M did it this time. However, when I went to put the brief into PDF form after we had turned it in, I realized a nice sum of mistakes on the parts that were undertaken by the other half of my group (M). I should have more carefully double-checked and inserted my parts into the tables, but there is nothing I can do now. Sadly, it is mainly my part of the brief that has a heading incorrect in the contents. That is all I needed.

I finally have dates for my final two clients' hearings. It is nice to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I cannot wait to close the door on them and move on.

Property was no big deal today. Easements are the topic we are covering. Again, the subject is not one which I ever wish to practice. This is making the class more and more difficult for me to enjoy. I do love the professor, as she makes me laugh, has her great quirks and says some hilarious quotes that I love to repeat.

I am also pretty excited that one of my friends from home has gone out of his was to help me with my goals. His father is a Judge, and has graciously agreed to guide me in the right direction. I am never one to use other people, nor take handouts, but I am really excited at this prospect. Even if nothing results from the Judge's efforts and my friend's help, it is nice to know that my friends are there.

Anyhow, back to contemplating sleep and such. Maybe I will even study a little because reading is always my impending task at hand.

Summer needs to arrive yesterday.

Paper Time - April 4, 2008

2008-04-04T14:15:00.001-04:00

Having one class on Fridays is no fun at all. This is especially so when that one class is only for two units and is a writing class. Appellate Advocacy runs everybody’s lives around this time of year. Final briefs are due and the oral arguments are not too far away.

The cook-off had been planned for today, but was canceled because of conflicts and other interesting events. Instead of cooking and relaxing, I was starving and stressing. This paper is going to be rough. We have to edit the 35-page document using the tools we have been taught since we turned in our rough drafts in addition to the comments our professor gave us. Basically, it is harder to do than the first draft, because we are editing and rewriting. On top of that, we have the added stress of knowing that the document will be the major portion of our grades.

The paper is due Monday. So, back to work I go.

Lose, Free Your Mind - April 3, 2008

2008-04-03T23:50:00.001-04:00

Today, as may be recalled, is my least favorite day of the week. It is horrible mostly because of the stupid class. It is a painful two hours in length. I get to listen to dumb people do dumb things in such a stupid way that I am annoyed endlessly. Add that to the understanding my professor and I have, and it is a recipe for disaster. Today was no different.

So, I try to keep my mind busy on other things. However, Annoying Girl got reamed in every class today. It kept me amused. Very amused. There is nothing better than watching your favorite least-favorite person get admonished multiple times in multiple classes. Otherwise, these people would make me lose my mind, which is not a bad option right now.

I need to experience free time again. I need another Spring Break. However, it is never good to have too much of this freedom. When law students have free time on their hands, interesting exchanges take place. In my life, it is usually a sarcasm-filled festival of witty conversation. Sometimes the atmosphere is jovial and comedic, however this is not always the case. When one man challenges another man’s domesticity, the following is planned:

-----

Name:	Tin Chef USA
Tagline:	East Meets West
Host:	Tin Chef H and Challenger Chef C

Time and Place
Start Time:	Friday, April 4, 2008 at 7:00pm
End Time:	Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 2:00am
Location:	Tin Chef Headquarters

Description

A high class event featuring dinner and drinks. Bring that "special somebody," and a bottle of your favorite liqueur or wine. Dress casual, and be prepared to feast on some fine food – well, we promise nothing, except that there will be something that can be defined as food somewhere on earth.

--

The International Tin Chef H takes on newcomer Chef C for the ultimate in culinary skills exhibition.

Chef H has roughly 15 years of in-kitchen experience. His knowledge transcends the extraordinary, as he has branches from home-style Kraft Mac-N-Cheese dishes to innumerable styles of cuisine making him not only the most popular Tin Chef in the history of the competition, but the only never beaten kitchen expert ever.

"Chef" C has never challenged another Master Chef. Ever. His skills are untested, but his girlfriend says they are roughly decent, at best. Heck, who are we to deny him that?

See these two perform at the peak of their profession as they duel in the kitchen.

Master Tin Chef H will be joined by his West Coast Sous Chef K.

Amateur Chef C will be joined by the relatively unheard of Sous Chef S as they display their rather insidious East Coast "skills".

The Secret Ingredient: Seafood.

AFTER DINNER, THE BOOZE SHALL FLOW FORTH LIKE THE RIVER JORDAN.

Come see special the special guest band:
"See also Just For Fun(2)". The band has performed in venues across the United States, including the famed Roosevelt Boulevard Basement Club.

-----

The band is an inside legal joke based on Blue Booking, a citation method that the legal profession employs. The band is a mythical beast that we thought up during a night at a bar. It is basically what we believed would be the worst band possible. Don’t even ask.

Friday should be better for me. I have a packed weekend. I am starting my finals studying (which occur exactly one month from today) and have to edit my final appellate brief. Both these acts are incredibly time consuming. As reason suggests, I am none too excited.

Sleepy time.

Predisposition To Misconceived Disbeliefs - April 2, 2007

2008-04-02T23:17:00.001-04:00

School has not been anything more than a nice ball of stress. There is very little in-school, academic excitement. In fact, there has been almost nothing to date.

I had a one-on-one meeting with my Stupid Class Professor. These meetings are always terribly entertaining, as my Professor and I have a great understanding about my thoughts of the class and the effort I intend to exert (which is close to none). During the meeting, the Professor pulled out an in-class assignment we had prepared. She looked at me and said, "Mr. H, I won’t even ask you this question, because I know the answer to it already. You did not put any effort into this at all. I know you are capable of doing an amazing job because you have done so on all the other assignments."

All I replied is, "What can I say?" And, with that, I flashed her a smile. A grin in return was communication enough. We had our understanding. After the meeting, I had to email in another assignment to her. The following is the email I sent, and the Professors reply. See if you can catch the sarcasm and "understanding" we exchanged.

From: H

To: Professor

Professor,

Sorry for sending it later than promised. I should have done it there, in your office.

Thank you for the meeting today. I actually took something away from it.

-H

From: Professor

To: H

Glad to see you "actually" got something out of this one! See you tomorrow.

-Professor

I laughed quite a lot when I received her reply. It is classic.

In other news, my disbelief at my Student Bar Association Vice Presidential loss is coming to fruition. I originally believed there was foul play on the part of the Law School Administration. I have raised quite a raucous in my first year, to the point where the Dean avoids me. However, my aim was in the wrong direction. Shortly after the results were announced, rumors of election code violations began to fill the halls. The word on the premises was that my opponent's friends had been staffing the election voting table, and had been campaigning for and encourage votes in favor of my opponent. I brushed these allegations off for three reasons:

1) I never believe a rumor. They are unsubstantiated, and usually wrong.

2) I figured I could now expand my horizons in other organizations. Free time is never a bad thing.

3) I had resigned myself to the loss. Though it has rarely occurred in my time, they do occur. Pack up and move on with life.

When everybody had moved forward, especially me, we had just returned from Spring Break. As I left the very first class that Monday, I was flagged down by one of the other current first-year representatives. She asked me if I received "the email" from the Director of Student Affairs. I said, "no, why." She then proceeded to ask me if I worked at the tables during the election period. I responded in the negative. After that, all she said was that the email was pretty mean, and that she had no idea what was going on (yeah, right).

The next day, Tuesday, an email was authored and delivered into the inbox of every current representative, and all newly elected representatives (who do not take office until the end of the semester.

To: All SBA Reps, Old and New

From: SBA President

The next SBA meeting will be Monday (April 7) at 5pm. New reps are welcome to come, observe and participate in discussions, but will not be allowed to vote until they officially take their positions next year. We have some very, very important issues to discus and it is vital that as many members as possible attend. If you want any say in the future of our organization you will not miss this meeting. It will be in the usual room and I will send a reminder email with more details over the weekend.

Again, please clear your schedules and make it a priority to attend this meeting, it is vital and will certainly be one to be remembered.

-SBA President

Now, something has to be going on. First of all, I really hate surprises that are not really surprises at all because somebody has notified you as to its existence. Secondly, the current President is a moron who loves to make everything over-dramatic. He also does not seem to care about our bylaws, and the student voice. Anyhow, something is going on.

I put on my snooping helmet and went to work.

I quietly began to ask soft questions of certain people. Since I had the support of all three candidates for President, I slowly solicited them one by one. I began with the one who was the current vice-president. Nothing was yielded. So, I turned to the Treasurer. She gave up the gold. And this gold was plump and juicy.

I cannot make this stuff up. The big news and investigation was into alleged voter fraud. Yes, you heard it here first. Voter fraud during a law school student government election. An anonymous email from a fake account was sent to EVERY member of the law school administration, as well as the current Executive Board of the SBA. The sender witnessed a group of students literally stuffing the ballot box with what is said to be more than 100 ballots. The persons would mark off the name of somebody who had not voted, marked them as having done so, and checked of the names of the persons who, in the end, won President and Vice-President. MAYDAY! MAYDAY!

The "why in the world would anybody do that" bar is raised because of the following:

1) The two people who won the top spots were, actually, probably going to win anyhow, even without the ballot stuffing.

2) The fraud is a serious conduct violation. This is one that can get a person suspended or expelled, and most definitely goes on ye old transcripts.

3) The school has to notify the American Bar Association of things like this. One of the portions of the Bar Exam is a Character Review. And it is not easy to pass. With something like this on your record, there is little hope of passing the Bar.

4) This is for law school student government. Why!?

The only problem is that the witness will not reveal him/herself for fear of retribution, I guess. Knowing this administration, nothing will be done without an eye witness. It is unlikely that they will do anything anyway.

So, next Monday should be interesting. I intend to either abstain from voting, or vote as the new representatives advise, so that they have a voice. I refuse to do a new election and campaign, because as I told a few others, I need at least one-year in between campaigns to reboot from the process. I also do not want to assume office by default. I do not want to serve in a position I was not elected to. I do not think it is right. So, hopefully somebody has a brilliant idea of how to fix the mess.

Regardless, if the idiots who did this are caught, all I want to know is their name. I want them to know that I know who they are and what they did, and I want to look them in the eye every time I walk by them. It is really a despicable act. These people will be out representing clients in situations with much higher stakes. They will be representing me as a fellow alumnus, and as an attorney. It makes me sick to think that people will actually do stuff like this, when it does not really matter. What is wrong with people?

In other news, I won my case. "What case," you ask. The case I tried yesterday. This is absolutely the fastest decision I have ever heard about before today. Decisions are sent in the mail. Our hearing was yesterday. That should paint a good picture about the swift response.

The Judge found that our client's actions did not rise to the level of misconduct, and was merely poor performance. It looks like my questioning paid off. If only I could see the Employer's face when he finds out. It would be amazing to see. The only thing that could make this better is if Roommate and I hear back regarding the case on Appeal. It has been two months since we submitted the Brief. We should know very soon. If we win that, there will be one very unhappy man in New York. However, there will be two very elated roommates and one over-joyed client.

That will be the day.

The April Fool - April 1, 2008

2008-04-01T23:21:00.001-04:00

I very much disliked the SAT's. Scratch that. Standardized testing can go fly a kite in a lightning storm. However, I present the following analogy that solidly describes my varying partners for the unemployment cases.

Worthless, Coat-Tail-Riding, Do Nothing Partner : Rock Salesman in Siberia
AS
My Roommate : Awesome

Let us take a trip (no drugs needed) back to late November. Where there once lived an incompetent Judge who had no regard for civil rights and civil liberties, their lived the most annoying (and easy to upset) employer who sat opposite my Roommate and I, along with our client. The case involved a District Manager at a relatively successful store, of the Pic N' Save (or Dollar Store) genre. My client was accused of ordering far-too-much merchandise twice. The owner cancelled the order both times, and, as it turns out, the store actually ran out of merchandise that would have been ordered.

Anyhow, I performed (and I mean it in every sense of the word), the cross examination of the employer. As may be remembered, I am quite successful at pressing peoples' buttons to their breaking point.

Do a "hot Kriss Kross" to the near-present. My Roommate and I knew that there was another employee who had been terminated (our nice work for fired, or thrown the heck out of employment) for the same alleged issue and reason as our past client. When the new client's case came up, Roommate and I got a direct email from the organization's headquarters that we had been requested as counsel. When ask if we wanted the case, we of course obliged.

There are many reasons we agreed to take the client:
1. We knew the case incredibly well as a result of the prior hearing and the 30-page appeal we wrote regarding the exact same occurrence with a prior client;
2. We wanted to work together again;
3. The Employer is petrified of Roommate and I, always a big positive.

However, the real motivation behind our excited acceptance of the case was the one-second payoff we would receive. We wanted to see the Employer's face when he showed up at the hearing.

Roommate and I arrived at the hearing well-before scheduled. We walked into the State Building and were greeted by security guards. As we approached the metal detectors, Roommate turned to me and said, "I hope we don't need ID, because mine is in the car."

I responded in the affirmative, stating that I did not even have it in the car. It was in my pant pocket at home. I walked through the metal detector first, making a mental note that my mobile phone and other metal items did not set it off. The security waved us forward to a table where we were instructed to sign in. We were asked for identification, but we had none to present. The guard remarked that she could not believe we had absolutely no ID on us. However, she let us in anyhow. I guess we looked harmless in our suits - though, as the Employer again realized, looks are deceiving.

We sat in the waiting area for forever. There was no Employer in sight. Then, over 20 minutes past our scheduled start time, the Employer finally walked in, and a few minutes after, our case was called.

While in the waiting room, a man walked out of the room. He looked very jolly and fun. I turned to Roommate and whispered, "And, let us pray. If that is our Judge, my entertainment shall be endless." I guess our client and her daughter heard me, as they laughed.

The organization keeps ratings and write-ups on each Judge. The following was written about this Judge:
"Most advocates would ‘happily’ appear before this judge. He’s ‘thorough and fair,’ if somewhat ‘stern.’ He has been known to be interested in ‘more than just the last day of work.’ He has also been called ‘one of the best judges.’
Average Score: 8.5/10”

Sure enough, the amusement was to begin, and some of the above write-up was completely incorrect.

This case took two hours to complete, which is very long for these hearings. The reason it was so painfully long was because our client required Farsi translation. So, every few words, we had to pause for the translator. Sometimes we would have to repeat this multiple times. Painful.

To further compound the process, the Employer, also fluent in Farsi, felt the need to correct the PROFESSIONAL translator. "I have a Master's Degree," he said. "I know Farsi, and this is not right." And the Judge started to get mad. Everybody would be upset if they were told that a professional translator was wrong in their translation. He did this far too many times to count.

Then, my objections started flying. In unemployment law, the only incident, action or occurrence that matters is the final day of work/the final act before termination of employment. To best illustrate this law, I usually explain the following to people:
If you steal from your employer, and your employer fires you for stealing the candy bar, but you also blow up the store after termination, the fact that you blew up the store is irrelevant and has no bearing on the adjudication for benefits. Likewise, if you defecated in the corner of the store once before stealing the candy bar, and you were fired for the stealing, your misappropriation of bodily substance is irrelevant.

The Employer in this case is the King of irrelevant information. He is so good at not listening to my objections and the Judge's directions to not bring up any acts other than the ordering of merchandise, that nearly every time he opened his mouth, I either followed up his statement or interjected with a relevance objection. He also loved to assume facts not in evidence, and make wildly unsupported conclusions.

At one point, he produced two notarized letters bearing the name and signature of two upper-management employees. Besides the fact that there was no way for us to authenticate the document, past the fact that the signature belonged to the employees, we were not able to cross-examine the witnesses on the statements made. It was also noteworthy that the hearing transcript/record from the first hearing directly conflicted with the letters and most of the Employers statements. Usually a Judge will just say that they are overruling the objection or that they are accepting the testimony or evidence anyway, however, this Judge looked up at me and said, "H, I am admitting the documents into evidence, however, they will be given the weight they deserve." That is a cue that the Judge is disregarding the documents. Go team.

When the Employer was done testifying, it became my turn to cross examine the man. Let's just say it was a lot of fun. I posed questions in the beginning that I knew were going to raise his blood pressure beyond that which is healthy. My success would be measured by the shade of red his face reflected.

As I proceeded through my questioning, my questions were candidly basic in nature. This enraged the Employer, who turned to me and said, "This Attorney, he asks questions that he already knows the answer to. This is not right. This is not right." I looked up at the Judge and said, "Your honor, I’d like to remind the witness that the testimony is not for me, it is for Your Honor and the record."

At this point, the Judge turned to me, shook his head, and looked over his right shoulder at the Employer and told him to answer the questions asked. Then he let out an exasperated sigh.

The rest of the questioning was absolutely entertaining according to Roommate and our Client's daughter. I cannot remember everything, but I do have a few highlights to share.

As was his game during the first hearing, he attempted to launch into baseless narratives, which wasted a glorious amount of time. Though I had an amazingly great time controlling him, receiving only yes or no answers, I did let him dig a grave in a few instances.

At one point, I asked him his specific reason for terminating my client's employment. He began giving one of his brilliant irrelevant answers, when he began to speak about to phone calls he had received from customers at the store where my client had been working. He began to say that she speaks in Farsi at work.

My hand shot up like a bottle rocket filled with compressed helium. I stopped the man from his endless pontification, and said, "Sorry to interrupt, your Honor, but I want to make sure the record clearly reflects what the Witness just said." Then, to the Employer, I asked, "Are you saying that you fired my Client because of her race, ethnicity and language?"

I do believe he suffered dozens of mini-aneurisms right then. Persians, in my experience, are a very proud people, and they are rightfully so. They are raised to love their ethnicity and background. As somebody who loves his ethnicity and religion, and carries a great amount of pride, I respect these feelings. However, I also know it can set people off.

He hastily began to spout off his mouth about my question. "How dare he say that, your Honor. You see I speak Farsi, too. This is outrageous!"

The Judge looked at the Employer, staring him down in disgust at his outbursts, and said, "Answer the question."

Sheer brilliance.

I talked him in circles with the questions to the point where he made another outburst that almost made Roommate and our client's daughter laugh uncontrollably.

I began to ask him questions that unwittingly trapped him in an answer that he had no choice but to give. Once the circle had been run, he realized what had occurred and said, "This Attorney, he is unfair. It is like has forgotten where the law school and court is."

I straightened up in my seat, and quite literally had to conceal my large grin.

In labor law if an employee is fired for misconduct - an act that causes serious harm or detriment to the employer, like stealing - then the employee is not eligible for unemployment benefits. However, if an employee is terminated for poor performance - an act or acts that are below the standard of a reasonable employee, like not cleaning the floors as is required by company policy - then they are eligible for benefits. A trick that we usually try to play is to get the Employer to say that the employee was fired for poor performance. Employers and most every person does not differentiate between misconduct and poor performance, so we get them to blatantly admit such on the record.

Alright, stop. Sneaky time.

This is how that part of the cross-examination proceeded:
H: You say that you terminated my client for misconduct, right?
Employer: Yes.
H: In fact, you allege that she was horrible employee who performed poorly in her job?
E: Yes, that is the truth.
H: So, you fired her because of this poor performance?
E: No, not poorly. She performed worse than poor. She was horrible.
H: So, let me make this perfectly clear for the record. You fired my client for poor performance?
E: Absolutely.

And, scene.

That pretty much handled that portion of the denial of benefits. Score one for us.

After some more entertainment, Roommate proceeded to question our client for our direct examination.

It is amazing to have a competent partner. For the first time, I felt that I could sit back and relax during the portion of the hearing that I was not conducting. It made the experience so much more enjoyable and relaxing; not to mention the fact that it was all the more entertaining.

In fact, we both enjoyed our second hearing together so much that we are entertaining the idea of starting a small business to represent parties at hearings. This way we would continue having all the fun, and make money on top of it. Additionally, we both think that we would be able to make a great amount of money doing consultations to businesses to teach them how to document, prepare, handle and preemptively save them any mess in the future from employment-based legal issues. This is apparently a niche market. Because there are so very few people with our kind of experience, there is definitely money to be made and experience to be gained.

Stay tuned, folks. Stay tuned.

Coming Soon!

2008-03-31T14:54:00.001-04:00

Spring Break Recap, including:

1) The Near-Death, "UH, Want A Cookie," "I Almost Swallowed Shards of Glass and All We Got Was A Pizookie" Story

2) Bars I Have Known and Chugged

3) The Eagle Board of Review

4) Family Judge With No Love

5) Sorpresa!

6) Mood Lighting, Black Leather: Flying For-Ever.

7) Ideas Spring Forth - This One May Actually Work

8) Seeing April in March

9) Beds I Have Known And...

10) All I Could Think Was: "Sonofa..."

I have been MIA lately, but that will all change. And then I will be MIA again (Finals). Good stories soon to come.

8)

Sick and Tired - March 17 - 19, 2008

2008-03-19T23:58:00.000-04:00

I am not one to quote musical lyrics. As Mitch Hedburg said, in a likely drug-and-alcohol-filled stupor: "That is not my style." Doing so runs into the realm of cliché and, quite possibly, overly annoying. However, as I sat down to explain the past few days, I realize that the song that started to play on my computer could not more completely describe the words that I wanted to scribe, the things I wish to convey and document for a lifetime of reflection.

I'm sick and tired of being criticized;
I'm sick and tired of barely getting by;
I'm sick and tired of not living right;
I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired;
I'm sick and tired of being pushed aside;
I'm sick and tired of calling folks for rides;
I'm sick and tired of this petty life;
I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.
• Anthony Hamilton and the Nappy Roots

We will take each of these lines of lyrical genius, one-by-one. Perhaps this week, in terms of the song, is like a horoscope: I am merely assigning meaning to something that could be attributable to just about anybody or any situation.

On Monday I had a required conference with my Appellate Advocacy Professor. Everybody in the class must meet with her. Sign-up times were on a first-come, first-served basis. For some reason, most likely mental defect, I chose 8:20AM on a Monday. I have no clue what I was thinking choosing such an absurdly early time to meet with a Professor, but I dragged myself into her office on time. And then I left two-minutes later.

The professor that I had once adored lost a significant amount of respect upon returning the first draft of our briefs. Not only did her often contradictory comments not make sense, but they reached a level of incredulous that I did not see coming. Her main comment centered around one statement. "Could be more passionate." I have been told a great many things that did not make sense, but this comment entered the top five in non-believability.

In a somewhat shocked state of mind, I told those around me what she said. The resounding response was "You!? Not passionate enough? Are you sure she wrote that about you?"

As is apparent, I cannot open my mouth without bleeding passion. Obviously, after eight months of being around the same people, they too knew this.

Needless to say, I had little to say about what she had said. She gave me a lower mark than my partner. I read her portion of the brief, and it was wrought with errors - grammatical, spelling, formatting, and prose - and it was no better than mine. However, I was sent, in flashback form, back to my Junior Year in high school. I had an English teacher who told me that I would never write at the same level of my peers, and that I was not expected to be an "A" student. She was correct. I received an 80 percent scoring on every subjectively graded essay and assignment we turned-in. On everything objectively graded, I was at or near the top of the grades received. At the end of the semester, I received an 89.5 percent. I was definitely the "B" student she foresaw. This is ff the greatest real-life self-fulfilling prophecies that I can describe.

Again, my Father's brilliance was committed to memory, and taken off the shelf. While this was occurring, he told me the following:

"A student that a teacher believes is an 'A' student can turn in a 'C' paper and will receive a 'B'; A student that a teacher believes is an 'C' student can turn in an 'A' paper and will receive a 'B'."

I think life is very much unfair. And, it is. Apparently, my Professor is "waiting for me to have a moment of clarity, and suddenly 'get it'." I am waiting for said "clarity."

I am sick and tired of being criticized.

A subject that I have not before broached is that of finances. Without any regular or viable income, balancing my expenses, especially in the face of rising gas prices, is becoming increasingly difficult. I have always managed my money very well, and that will not stop. It is, however, becoming quite the burden to bear amid the other things in my life, namely school and academics.

It is annoying to listen to people whose parents are supporting them in one way or another (or in all ways) complain about having to pay for something. I guess this is one of those things that people do that really upset me. Perhaps people need to be careful what they say with certain people around.

I am thankful I am independent in every way. Having this independence is liberating and immerses me in skills I will need later that my peers will not have. Complete independence (financial and otherwise) is a parenting technique that I intend to take from my parents and pass on to my children, should I ever decide to spawn.

I am sick and tired of barely getting by.

On Tuesday, I had a hearing for one of my clients. This is the case in which I had attempted to get documents in an informal manner instead of obtaining a subpoena, which is quite a process. My worthless partner had no role to play since our client had given testimony at the prior hearing - testimony that was brought forth through the Judge's questions since my partner cannot comprehend the way in which examination questions are formed, where fifth graders in the mock trial program understand how to ask questions.

I showed up at the hearing and sat down to talk with my client. My partner was nowhere to be seen. When my client asked where he was, I told her I had no clue, but that he was not really going to do anything since she had already testified. She smiled at me, and said, "He does not do anything anyways. I can tell that he is not the one who knows what he is doing."

I had no idea how to reply to that statement. I cannot agree with her and badmouth my partner in front of her. So I changed the subject. I went to remove my notes and question outline. I could not find it anywhere. I ran back out to my car to search through it. Then, it hit me. I had unwittingly put it in the envelope that is now on its way to another state. Somebody is going to get a letter with about 10 pages of notes and statutes. It will highly perplex them.

Anyhow, I scribbled down those things I needed to cover in my cross-examination, included federal statutes and code regulations. As it turns out, I did not need any of these notes. The employer proceeded to really upset the Judge to the point that the Judge, quite literally, threw the file forcefully down on the desk as he admonished the employer for stating that he did not understand the hearing policies and procedures and that he wanted legal counsel. The Judge angrily defrocked him for wasting everybody's time, being that this was the fourth hearing, and that upon adjournment, we would be coming back for a fifth.

My client and I walked out very happy people. She was happy that the employer so gracefully enraged the Judge, and I was happy that my partner was not present.

I am done being taken advantage of by somebody who brings nothing to the proverbial 'table' other than a pompous and entirely egotistical demeanor that is leach-like. I keep on putting up with the guy, and he is exactly the type of person that I cannot stand to be around. Plus, the halls have communicated chatter of his less-than-acceptable talk about me behind my back. I wonder if he is living his delusions of grandeur, or if he knows how very little he has done.

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.

I also had a meeting with the Office of Student Affairs regarding the organization I am attempting to found. We had an appointment at 11:00 AM. Three of us showed up five minutes early, and sat down to wait. The American Bar Association's Accreditation visit was taking place, and as the Administration at the law school has repeatedly showed, students do not come first. A member of the ABA team was meeting with the Director of Student Affairs, while we were enjoying the cramped corner of the office, with really ugly and uncomfortable chairs. We sat there for ten minutes. One of the three of us had to leave to go to another meeting after 15 minutes of waiting. After over 30 minutes of making small-talk and entertaining the idea of picking our noses to pass the time, we were invited into the office to talk.

We already composed a 47-page set of bylaws, an honor code and team rules for two of the four teams being proposed. In addition, we had already secured two advisers (one had firmly signed on and the other told us he would advise us as a very last resort if needed), so we were quite confident that we would have a successful meeting.

We were wrong.

I do not understand why the Law School insists on stifling student activism. Where we are an organization that not only provides numerous opportunities for students to gains practical knowledge in real-life skills where none previously existed, we would be competing with other Law Schools. The representation of a school helps to promote its name; recognition of a school is a portion of what is incorporated into a school's ranking. It is a win-win situation. And yet, egos and unexplained feelings run everything.

Moot Court has long been established. They think the world of themselves, and because of this, they feel they own the world. As a result, they want no other organization around that could be good. I tried to explain it to everybody through the following metaphor. The situation is like that of a newly broken-up couple. When you break up with somebody, you usually want nothing to do with them. You don't want to talk to them, see them or be around them. However, for some unexplained reason, you do not want anybody else to be with them. It is a weird form of jealousy.

In our situation, even though they have not ever entered into the proposed competitions and though we will not be taking from their membership base, they do not want us around. It makes no sense. The meeting with Student Affairs was made very much adversarial by the administration from the very first words out of their mouths. The Administrator even received and returned a text-message during the meeting.

I am tired of being pushed aside.

The people here are also very unreliable and not loyal. I am finding it increasingly difficult to really find people with whom I wish to be friends. As a great generality, the character of people on the East Coast is not the highest quality, nor do others expect quality from others. On the West Coast, I have met people who will be my friends for life. I know that my friends from home can be trusted without question. On my current coast, I do not feel like I can completely open up to anybody. I am perpetually in a guarded state of being. However, I am getting used to the area. Perhaps I am adapting, or finally given in to the forced assimilation.

I want people I can count on to fulfill a promise or be true to their word. I want loyalty. In fact, I demand it. It is a good thing my friends from home remain understanding and receptive to my minimal contact. Under the circumstances, it is very humbling.

I am sick and tired of calling folks for rides.

On Wednesday, I called all the students I recruited for the organization for a meeting to brief them and present a memo. The tactics I proposed became the first point of contention for the group.

Because we had been met with great hostility from the outset, I preemptively decided to engage in tactics that were necessary. In what became, probably, the most diplomatic arrangements of words that I could have assembled given the outright adversarial circumstances, I sent an email to the Moot Court Adviser. It is attached below:

--
To: Redacted Professor's Name
From: H
Subject: Meeting

Professor,

As I am sure you have been notified, there is a group of students who have gathered with the purpose of creating an organization to field competitive teams at four ABA competitions. {The Law School] does not participate in any of these competitions. One of these competitions is in Appellate Advocacy. We understand that this competition, and any related organization, would seemingly overlap with those of the Moot Court Association. We want to put these fears at ease.

As such, a few of the student leaders who are behind the organization would like to sit down with you, and discuss any potential conflicts that could arise. We are certain that after a meeting, we will have settled any uneasy feelings and come to an agreement that is best for both organizations (potential or existing) and the students of the Law School. We are dedicated to creating the best possible outcome for all involved.

Because time passes quickly (and the approach of Spring Break), we would like to inquire as to setting up a meeting as quickly as possible. We will work with your schedule to host a meeting-of-the-minds. We are hoping we can meet prior to Spring Break.

Thank you in advance for your understanding and taking the time to work with us to create a viable solution to any potential problems that could arise.

Very respectfully,

H

--

A few hours later, I received the following response:

--

To: H and Student Affairs Director
From: Redacted Professor's Name
Subject: Re: Meeting

H:
I cannot meet with you prior to the spring break, unfortunately. I don't think that the creation of an organization devoted to competing in the various ABA competitions is necessary, however. I think that if there is enough interest to participate in one of the competitions, we can endeavor to field a team under our existing trial and moot court programs.

Professor

--

Well, thank you for hearing us out before passing uneducated judgment. Welcome to what I am dealing with at this school. It is lovely.

How curt and excessively unwarranted? If the Adviser wanted to shut us down, at least give me the opportunity to explain the organization. Egos running amuck, eh?

And, on top of that, the five page memorandum outlining (in perfect paradigm format, the legal writing form of organizing an argument) was signed by all the members of the organization. However, before I could send it out, trouble brewed from within. Some people had second thoughts about it. They just wanted to meet the demands of the Administration, who had not even allowed us time to explain what we are doing, and drop two out of the four competition teams. As I told everybody, last time I checked, only doing half is a failure. And we are now at a standstill.

As it has played out, the people who have complained the most in the organization have been the people who have done the least. The most fervent fighters for our original vision for the organization have been those who have done a great wealth of work. I am thinking about changing us from a Democracy to a Percentage-Based Authoritative Autocracy. Perhaps the world should do the same. The wealthiest would be the hardest-working, most highly contributing persons in society. Hope? Change? Not even.

Why do people think they can complain about things to which they have not contributed? This is always the case. People in demographics known for being apathetic about politics are usually the first to complain about taxes and politicians. Students who do not study or read, and subsequently earn a bad grade in a class are always the most vocal about their hatred of a Professor, while the students who learn the most say nothing.

I am sick and tired of this petty life.

I am coming home for Spring Break. I really was not very excited about the trip home until today. I talk with my Father every day, sometimes two or three times a day. Whenever there is good news, he is the first person I call. Whenever doom graces my existence, he, too, receives the first call. The order of calls that follow those to my father vary, but inevitably, they include my Mother and my elder Brother. However, back to the point: I have not been home in over four months. It does not feel like that long to me, but it is a very long time. Last time I was home, most of the nation was not in session, so I got to spend a lot of time with my family. I did not go home over the winter break because my parents were not going to be around. I did not want to be at home when they were gone because I felt it a wasted trip - this is a testament to my family being the most important part of my life.

A call I made to my Father changed me from apathetic (probably because of how packed my schedule has been lately) to overly excited. I realized that my parents would be working all week while I am back. I also realized that I have not seen my father in the practice of law since I started law school. Now that I actually understood a great detail of the procedure and laws, my experience watching him would be all the more intriguing. On the call I asked him if he had any hearings or trials. He told me that I would, in fact, have the opportunity to spend time with him, and watch him practice the law in a courtroom setting, a place I see myself in the very near future. Now I am excited.

I will have a chance to recuperate from the stresses and unnecessary drama that I hate so very much. It is a break from everything I dislike and a chance to experience things I love.

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.

I am ready to be over it all. Why can I not fast-forward two years?

Three Day Stretch - March 12 - 14, 2008

2008-03-14T15:55:00.000-04:00

Life has become very hectic lately. I think I have a lot of time, but then, somehow, I wake up the next morning without having completed many of those things I had wanted to. This feeling is probably the best I could possibly ask for.

Law School is a big burden, so anything to make the days pass with great haste is, quite possibly, the greatest blessing a Law Student could have. Because I am so busy, there is so very much to share, but so very little time in which I feel I can spend time sharing. We will take each day, one-step at a time.

-----

Wednesday was glorious. March 12 was very exciting, and marked many "firsts" for me. After not sleeping, at all, at night, I attended an unforgettable field trip that made me giddy. The Criminal Law Society arranged for a tour of the Medical Examiner's office ("ME"). The ME and Coroner rarely grant outsiders access to their extensive fleet of laboratories and tools. Having a member of the organization on the inside is invaluable.

The ME had persons from different divisions of their office give us lectures on various duties and skills involved in medical forensics and investigations. Among the many things I learned, was a great many ways to beat the Breathalyzer, or cheat the .BAC analyzing system. I have no idea why they made strident "over-shares," but I enjoyed the talks nonetheless.

After over 1.5 hours of lecturing, the real fun was to begin. We had been told that, although there were two autopsies being performed, we would not be allowed access to watch. I guess they were just covering their behinds by giving us the line. As we entered the secured area behind the lobby, we entered a hall that smelled like the mink I dissected in Anatomy/Physiology class my sophomore year of high school. (As an aside: we had the most obese mink our teacher had ever seen. We named him Billy-Joe, and subsequently gave him a Bar Mitzvah, complete with Tallit, yarmulke and mini-torah. His Hebrew name was Mordecai. But I digress.) The smell was of formaldehyde, and permeated the furthest corners of the corridor.

Even though the stench said otherwise, we did not know what it was we were about to view. Sitting not 10 feet from our gathering place, a (hopefully lifeless) body laid motionless. Upon further examination, we realized the thing was a body, and that the body's chest cavity was open. Were I as observant as they attempted to teach me in second grade, I would have quickly notice the hollow cavity that previously enshrined the body's brain. However, there was absolutely no brain, no skull cap, and the man's scalp had been pulled forward. As I was making creepy shrieks of wonder-filled joy, I noticed one of the autopsy specialists pick a medical gown up from the ground. I watched as he crumpled the gown into a shockingly solid ball of unsterile gut-covered, and what turned out to be very useful autopsy instrument. I had thought he was cleaning up, but really, he was preparing to stuff said gown-ball into dead-man's head. After jamming the multi-faceted gown into the corpse' brain-bucket (now a gown-bucket), the man replaced the skull-cap, peeled the scalp back into place, and sowed the incised hairline back together.

Now, you are probably wondering the same thing that the rest of us were: "Where is the guy's brain?"

As it turns out, they place all the organs and slimy stuff into plastic bags, and place all the bags (including the brain" into the chest cavity, and sew it on up. It gives new meaning to having your mind over your matter. (Insert rim-shot here.)

After the autopsy talk was over, we made our way into Second Amendment Heaven. The room we were ushered into had just about every shell casing and bullet one could imagine. There were ballistics tests displayed, and nifty targets with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein papering the walls. We discussed how ballistics testing occurs and all the nifty effects of bullets and gun-shot residue. The tour guide (a Senior Level Forensics Specialist) took out his scan card and a key. Usually you need just your scan card, but this room was special.

As we walked into Red Neck Central, we understood why there was so much security. Displaying the immense glory of our right to bear arms, were, what I can only best estimate, over 350 guns of varying types. Lugers, 6-shooters, water-cooled machine guns, can guns, automatic assault rifles, single shot business-card sized guns and just about everything else in between. As we entered, the Guide told us to not even think about touching anything, as there were cameras recording every movement. And, of course, as we all looked up, there were a great many security cameras smiling back at us.

The DNA lab and other testing areas were not quite as entertaining or exciting, but were great to see nevertheless.

After the tour, I left the building and made my way back to campus.

The rest of the day was relatively uneventful. Voting continued in the elections, and the games never stopped with the opposing party for the hearing I have next Tuesday. They agreed to give me the documents I requested, but somehow "neglected" to give me all the pages that were supposed to be in the transmission. Pages skipped and the fax did not include as many pages as it purported. This will be fun.

-----

Thursday beat-out Wednesday for busiest. I was to attend the Award Banquet for the unemployment association, where I was being recognized as the Advocate of the Year. I was to leave the banquet early, to make it, albeit late, to the Law School Spring Formal. There would be a wealth of alcohol at each event, and a very happy me.

However, not everything goes to plan. Ever. I had planned to skip my final class of the day to make it to the train on time to go into the city. I waited around school an extra three hours, and patiently awaited the arrival of my worthless partner. It took him over two hours to shower and put on a suit. Meanwhile, the deadline was closing in which we would be able to make either one of two trains. Mr. Worthless had us arrive at the train station roughly three minutes late. His elation at missing the train and the banquet proved dismaying to me. It was quite obvious that he had planned our arrival to be late. He wanted nothing more than to miss the award ceremony.

This just goes to show his perpetual leech-like attitude.

Not only did he inconvenience me, but he inconvenienced the girl I was dating. She agreed, without prompting, to drive back out to school to pick me up. The 45 minute detour proved to be as annoying as missing the train had been.

As if I was not already upset at life, the night began to get worse. Girl went home, showered and got ready. I sat on the angry spot of the couch, and let my feelings fester. Roughly one hour later, I received an email.

--

from Redacted SBA President's Email
to H
date Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:30 PM
subject Election results

Mar 13

Dear Candidate,
We're sorry, you did not win a position in the election. Thanks for running; it was great to have such a strong candidate turnout and your
involvement was integral to that.
The winners will be announced at [the Spring Formal] tonight. Thanks again for your effort.

--

That was it. No signature, no personalization, no emotion. Nothing. As this election would show, only six people total could have lost. Was a personalized call or email, at the very least, too much to ask? I wrote a reply:

--
From H
to Redacted SBA President's Email
date Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:12 PM
subject Re: Election results

Mar 13

[President Name],

I appreciate you taking the time to notify me that I lost the election. However, with only six people losing a position, it would have been more professional were a call made instead of an email. Furthermore, were six phone calls too much work, it would have taken very little time were the emails personalized. It is hard enough to hear this news, but it is worsened when the person relaying the information to a scant few persons does so without any compassion or empathy.

Thanks for your service.

-H

--

Needless to say, I was having a bad day.

When girl showed back up at my house, we left. As I locked the door, I noticed her beginning to walk towards my car. I asked her what she was doing, to which she replied that I had agreed to drive. This was not the case, and as I later pointed out (and as she later realized and agreed) this was a figment of her imagination. She had agreed to drive us to the venue, but her attempts to renegotiate and offer to drive were heeded as empty attempts that fell on my deaf ears.

I angrily drove to the venue, had a pretty horrible time, and had a minuscule two drinks in the course of six hours.

After driving home angrily, I recapped the night in my head. One good thing did happen. I began to speak to one of my friends with whom I had ceased conversing during the first semester because of a falling out. She was too much drama for one me. However, we had matching personalities, and really appreciated each other. When I got home, she was online, and we chatted for nearly two hours. It was a decent way to end the day, given everything else that occurred.

-----

For some reason, my Friday class Professor decided to move the start time up one hour, to 9:00 AM. As if everybody was not going to be tired enough at 10, the extra hour of not sleeping was absolutely wonderful. Not only did I have class, but the fellowship was hosting the next class of fellowship finalists. They were to be interviewed and see the campus.

We were all assigned "Buddies" for the day. We were expected to usher them about the campus, ensuring they arrived at their destination on time.

One room was designated the headquarters. It was where all 15-plus Finalists returned after completing their scheduled task or appointment. At one point I was sitting in the room, minding my own business all alone, when all 15 Finalists piled in. The Fellowship Coordinator, a Law School Alumnae herself, entered as well. I took it as my chance to answer any questions. I told the mass of Finalists that this was their time to ask any questions they felt otherwise uncomfortable asking with Faculty or Administrators around. They stared at me blankly, until I relayed some dismaying scholarship information to them.

The questions then flowed. It was as if Drain-O cleared the clog. The questions were unstoppable. I have no idea how the answers were perceived, but I answered them with all the honesty I sought when asking the very same questions merely one year ago.

After dropping off two Fellowship Finalists at the train station, I drove home to relax for a bit. That afternoon, I met with Girl and told her that she wanted a commitment, and I only wanted to date, and that I was not enjoying time with her as much as I once had, and that I wanted to stop dating for a bit. I was then smited for my honesty. I spilled a fresh cup of hot chocolate all over my lower-mid-section. The chocolate warmth promptly ended the meeting, and I drove home very quickly.

Later that night, I was supposed to go to a bar to see another friend's band play, with girl and our two friends, a nice Jewish couple who met in Israel (he is my age and in law school, while she is the breadwinner.) Those plans were put on ice as per the pre-hot chocolate incident conversation.

Instead, my roommate and I drove to the bar, where the other three were, anyway. The ice thawed, we all watched the band (who played two hours later than they said they would). After the band played, my roommate left, and the four of us demolished two large cheese pizzas and an order of bread sticks.

-----

That was quite the three day stretch. I have been tired ever since.

Dr. Jarvis and Mr. Woods - March 10-11, 2008

2008-03-11T18:12:00.002-04:00

An interesting day is just what I needed. It is definitely what I got.

Amid political controversy that follows me like gnat on an alley dog, I have been waging a war on candidacy, founding an organization, juggling three cases for the Unemployment organization, catching up on my reading, and tending to my duties as a class representative on the current student government board. I did, however, get a chance to listen to a Justice of the Supreme Court speak, a rare treat for any legal professional.

We will peruse my life, one topic at a time, hopefully allowing a piece of insight to seep through the cracks of an otherwise normal setup in my life: chaos.

The battle of good versus the other guy came very quickly. I had thought that I would retire the winner of an election. Little did I know – Scratch that. I knew that I could not stop. When election time was nearing, I told myself: “Self, no running for another position.” But, like everybody else in the world, I did not listen to me. Instead, I heeded the call of nearly every other person on the current student government to run for a position.

I get too far ahead, or perhaps we need to spring forward. Either way: When I started on the candidacy mission, I did not want to work for the election. I was only running because I was upset with the current leadership, and wanted to transform my disillusion into action. However, what really threw me to the flames was being approached by each of the three candidates for president separately. I thought that they were possibly pandering to me, but, as it turns out, each of them actually wanted me to be back.

Who was I to deny them my presence?

But, in all seriousness, I was thoroughly upset with how the class reps were treated and the leadership of the executive board. As is always my way, if I think something is broken, I attempt to fix it. The best way for me to fix it, was to run for Vice President. I can count the number of times I have run for a supporting officer role in an organization on two fingers. This time, running for the number two spot feels “right.”

I was faced with an opponent that is more popular than I – he is of the crowd that thinks they are still an undergraduate in a fraternity. However, this opponent was convincingly unaware that I am strategically savvy in elections. If only we were allowed to run attack ads, I would be able to seal the deal. However, I have been through election where careful planning was needed.

I employed the same poster blitz of my September 2007 run, where I won the race against three others. With one opponent of the three a virtual “nobody” I was really just planning everything around my fellow class rep from the other section. He is latch-key in his position, at best. He is the type of guy who runs for the title, but is not willing to do the work to earn it. My opponent is, at best, the guy who will do the absolute minimum, while everybody thinks he does the best he can. He is the guy who missed his last two Student Government meetings, but wants to be one of the leaders on it next year. He is nice, though.

My name shined brightly in large print on the most luminescent paper I could find. Simple, memorable, me. I modeled my campaign after the Howard Dean pre-media-hating-him era. Grassroots and word of mouth would be my method. Instead of starting groups on social networking sites, I allowed others to do so for me. Each club in which I had been active began driving its members to support their own.

The kicker, however, was the key to the lock of my candidacy. Because I understood that each Presidential candidate wanted me as their Vice, I carefully devised a plan in which each campaigned on my behalf, all quietly, none knowing about the others. I let the candidate I supported and hoped to work with know what I was up to, and that she was my choice, but nobody else knew.

Voting is today and tomorrow. There is a large chance that I will not succeed, but I can only hope that my efforts will be realized with reward. The announcement is made at the Spring formal on Thursday, which is already a packed day (three classes, the Unemployment Association Banquet at which I receive the Advocate of the Year award, and the student formal).

Wish me luck.

As if campaigning against somebody, who was banking on his popularity alone, was not enough, the founding efforts of the competition association was in full bloom. We had our first meeting on Monday, and we ensured that each of the eleven of us were on the same page. We set goals and made priorities. Appointments have been made with various faculty and administrators, correspondence has been flying around willy-nilly, a 38-page set of bylaws has been authored (and is in editing mode) and an extensive honor code is in the works. On top of that, I recruited the final law student to assist in founding the organization, putting us at a twelve student corps of leaders and go-getters.

I was worried that those recruited would not follow through or understand the commitment they made, but am pleasantly surprised that they are doing their work, and doing it well, at any rate.

The professor we pegged as a potential adviser (the lead adviser of five total advisers) turned us down because of his already-packed load of things to do. Resilient, as always, we moved to the next on the list. He is probably even busier than the one who turned us down, but I happened to know that he has trouble saying “no”. This professor is also the one who is very much one of the reasons I chose to attend the school. We await a reply on that front.

As long as everybody stays excited, well, as long as I can keep everybody excited, all will go as planned. More on this later.

Add to the foregoing three pending hearings, all with high-maintenance clients (one loves to call after 9:30PM). I love doing the hearings, but sometimes they all fall around the same time, making my life pretty hectic. When it rains, it pours, or so they say. Each case has a quirk that I will definitely enjoy. One is against an employer that is already scared of and frustrated with me because we have argued a case against him before, another is highly complex, very challenging and deals with criminal elements, and the final has me pitted against an employer with a very short temper (always a fun cross examination).

But wait, we are not done. My current role as the first year class representative has gotten increasingly difficult because the other reps (including my opponent for VP) have stopped showing up. Leaves me in a glorious position. At least the other officers recognize my dedication, or just-plain follow-through. Either way, it is both a positive and negative for me.

Catching up on reading is still going strong. I am slowly making my way back to “square-one”. In the middle of the square is me. Work, work, work.

However, bright spots do emerge. I was able to set my eyes upon and position my ears at attention in the presence of a Supreme Court Justice. However different his views may be, and how opposed I am to almost every decision he has signed, I was elated that Associate Justice Samuel Alito gave the students at my law school the opportunity to talk with and listen to him speak.

This may not seem like an occasion in which one should become overjoyed, but meeting and listening to a Supreme Court Justice is the equivalent to a Cardiology intern meeting Dr. Jarvis, or an aspiring tennis player having the opportunity to watch and learn from the Williams Sisters. On the SAT, the analogy would go along the lines of: Tiger Woods, Masters Champion is to Golf, as Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Justice is to the legal community. He may not be everybody’s favorite, but Alito sure is a power-player.

I enjoyed the experience, wrote of his ineptitude in interpreting the law correctly, and went back to reading for the rest of the day. And, here I sit: hoping my self-proclaimed popular opponent loses to what he described as “the most qualified for the job,” me. There are bigger things in life, I guess. Perhaps winning the three cases I have pending, or being the founder and leader among leaders of a competitive organization at the Law School is bigger.

Perhaps.

Amazing Young’uns - March 6-7, 2008

2008-03-07T20:32:00.000-05:00

While other classes are rewarded with a week of relaxation upon turning their appellate briefs in for grading, my class was busy recovering with a meager 125 pages of reading and a very taxing assignment. Life just is not fair. The professor removed every iota of “like” I had for her.

She basically said: “Congratulations on your completion of the most major assignment you have had to date, here is a large assignment to celebrate.” However she did not say that.

On Friday, I attended the final session of the elementary school mock trial program that I started over one month ago. The three sessions seem to fly by, as they should. Teaching fifth graders about the civil law system in addition to how to operate a trial and, just when their brains have been pumped with information that is over their heads, we throw them into a mock trial.

During the mock trials, the Law Student Mentors are always amazed at their secure grasp of the procedure and methods. The children on Friday were no different. I sat back as the clerk of the court while my appointed Bailiff and Judge, both 11 years old, ran the courtroom with precision. I brought the young lady who played the Judge a black robe to wear, and made the Bailiff a “badge.” The young attorneys grilled the witnesses, made opening and closing presentations and wowed the jury of their peers. The witnesses knew their information to the smallest detail, though they were often no match for the attorneys who often caught them in misstatements.

The boy who played the Defendant mis-answered a question, and I leaned back while enjoying the Plaintiff’s Attorney’s grilling of the misstatement. The young lady turned the Jury in her “client’s” favor with ease. After the Judge directed the Jury to deliberate in the hall, I listened to them elect a Foreperson and vote on the verdict. The Foreperson announced that the Jury found the Defendant guilty, and the case ended.

It was a spectacular showing of the depth of young people to comprehend some of the most complex and unbelievable things. Their brains are like sponges, for sure. I told them that I have peers that could not do nearly as well as they did, and that they were all very gifted. Indeed, I know other law students who could not handle a direct or cross examination, nonetheless give an opening or closing statement. Some people just cannot handle public speaking. Not only could they handle it, but they did so very well. It was a fantastic way to end the day.

I am pretty upset that I lose an hour this weekend. Daylight savings ruins my life.

The Unigroan is Born - March 4 - 5, 2008

2008-03-06T13:26:00.000-05:00

I thought I had seen it all. I never fathomed the situation in which the astonishment of an entire class was exhibited through a "unigroan." The class, eerily, enjoyed a premised statement where hilarity ensued, right before the "unigroan" was introduced into my life. The spectrum of "whoa" was definitely seen.

I have mentioned annoying boy many times. He is the guy who over-shares everything, lies a lot and loves to tell everybody how he "feels." The problem with the last part is that the law could care less about what or how somebody feels about a certain situation. The law is the law. His feelings have become quite the target of hatred.

The "Girl" I have been dating has those shining moments where she is of the most attractive beings in the world. If time had allowed, I would have run to the jewelry store, picked out 1 karat of glory and proposed on the spot. What she said was sheer brilliance and probably the best one-liner any person in the over 100-person class has heard this year.

The topic was prenuptial agreements, the sanctity of marriage and all else divorce. The professor rarely lets a debate ensue that is outside the scope of the law, however, she let the class go wild. Between annoying girl, annoying boy and rally guy (always has some radical stance or a rally to attend, as he makes blatantly obvious in class), I thought I may poke my eyes out. Annoying guy let us all know how he felt about the situation. We are all frustrated every time he speaks, and though we all think the same thing, never has anybody publicly displayed their true affections for the guy.

This is where "Girl's" hand went up. With perfect timing and delivery, the following left Girl's vocal chords, deploying purely blissful joy into world of Property Law.

"I hate to publicly announce that I agree with [annoying boy], but …"

The simple premise left every person in the room laughing, except of course, annoying boy himself. The state of affairs during the ensuing seconds of hilarity were completely unexpected and very much deserved. To say what we were all thinking with the poise and nonchalance of Girl was magnificent. It was probably a "you have to have been there" moment.

But then, much to everybody's shock an alien hand shot into the air with lightning speed and quality precision. We had been warned that potential students could possibly be joining us for class, but there was no preparing us for what happened next.

The alien hand belonged to a student alien to the class. Were there ever a time to deport somebody, this moment was exactly what was needed. The prospective students were seated in the very front row on the left side of the room. Having somehow snuck into the room without my uncaring eye noticing, they had sat in silence, casually watching the class debate all things marriage and divorce. As it turned out, the hand belonged to said visiting potential student.

A double take was not enough. I had to look over, shake my head like a Yoohoo, look back, question those sitting around me, swirl my eyes as a washer in its spin-cycle, and look back again. The process of my disbelief must have been amusing in its own regard. However, the scene I and nearly every other student in the class was busy enacting was only half as unbelievable as this college student who had not before read a case, had no background and was in a second semester law class trying to enter himself into the conversation.

Sadly, the alien was successful in his attempt, wherein he launched himself into a over-zealous soliloquy that I did not care to listen to. It was unbelievable. People were actually asking each other if he was actually speaking in a law school class. This is where the “unigroan” was first introduced to the law school community. Everybody was grunting or groaning about the un-naturalized visitor’s interjections. It was quite a horrific sound.

What was going on?

In less outrageous moments I have been trying to catch up on lost sleep and a lot of reading I neglected while writing the appellate brief. The assignment really threw me back on everything, and I have yet to reconnoiter with my old self.

I feel like I am actually starting to get used to being a law student. It all seems so very normal now. The days are passing with greater speed, and the weeks are faster than a speeding Superman.

Tomorrow is another day of catch-up and fall-behind.

What a mess I am busy cleaning up. I hope my grade in Appellate Advocacy reflects the work I tendered.

Just Wow - February 28 - March 3, 2008

2008-03-03T15:16:00.002-05:00

My entire week, minus fleeting thoughts of happiness and short-lived times of optimism, has been dedicated to Bliss. Do not be misled, Bliss is not as good as it would suggest.

My fake client for Appellate Advocacy happens to have sued her employer in a U.S. District Court. Sadly, she decided to take her case to the Court of Appeals when she lost her case. The U.S. Court of Appeals is in the District of Bliss. Thus, I have given my client every single thought that I could muster over the last few weeks - with no time this last week for me to do another thing of interest. Let's just say she will be sending my kids to college on the bill she is going to receive.

The 35-page limit seems like it is more than enough. Again, do not fall for the rhetoric. My Professor demands triple-spacing, which has become enraging. The brief is written in pairs, with one student taking one of two issues. My partner is pretty obvious, as we are pretty inseparable when at law school. She decided, without looking at the issues, that she felt that the first issue was the right one for her. As it turns out, it is not so fun. We both wrote our issues separately, as the instructions require, and had a very easy time collaborating on the parts that necessitated joint work.

Hopefully the feeling will continue when the grades are returned on them.

I have also been given great news since my last posting-based indulgence.

I was working late in the library at the law school on Friday when my phone began to alert me that an incoming call was yearning to be answered. I looked around, and noticed that there was not another person within a great distance (nobody that I could see), and against library rules, I picked up the phone.

Without incriminating myself or a potential employer, I can only describe the call as less than usual. I did not know who was talking to me on the other side of phone. They asked me if I was still interested in a position. Even though I had no clue who was asking me if I was still interested, I answered, "Of course I am." I figured it could not hurt to have interest in an organization.

They then proceeded to make me an offer for the coming summer. I should have been very excited, but I did not know who was making the offer. The call was awkward in that sense.

I was told that I would be receiving a packet in the mail. I was trying to come up with a plan as to how to figure out who this person was calling for. I really thought it was a friend playing a prank on me.

The light-bulb then went off in my densely populated brain. I asked the man on the line if he could supply me with his email address so that I could contact him if the package did not arrive, or if another problem was experienced. I figured his email would tell me from where he was calling. And, I was correct.

The Los Angeles County Public Defender made me the offer. I was incredibly excited and relieved that the interview that I thought went well, did in fact go well.

Now I have big decisions to make: do I stay in New York and explore the opportunities that I was just given, or do I go to California to work for one of the organizations for whom I wish to work when I graduate.

Tough decisions like these should always be this good.

In Property Law, we began to discuss a topic about which my Father is actually knowledgeable: Marital Interest. During class, we began to discuss and debate the merits of community property and what each spouse should get upon divorce. Again, I was stuck in the minority.

Before I tell you how I feel on the issue, try to guess if you can tell what position I took on the following:

What and how much property interest does each spouse retain upon a divorce, including property that was owned or made prior to marriage and during marriage when, for example, one spouse worked and the other stayed at home? (Also ask how much ownership does one spouse have in a Degree ascertained before or during marriage?)

While my classmates were arguing that any prior property was not to be ascertained by the other spouse upon divorce, and that any willed property was to remain in the name of the person named in said will, I argued that everything should be split right down the center. The basic "you are a union, and as one legal entity you share everything that is ascertained before or during marriage" argument, I reasoned with the class that "if a wife stays at home while her husband enters into a long-term occupation, with heightened earnings, then that husband should have to support his ex-wife until such point that the earnings equalize. The wife would have lost the income capacity over the years because she was at home, instead of having a career, thus losing her years of potential while tending to the needs of her husband." I also argued that one should not get married unless you are completely ready to share everything.

Welcome to the get-divorced-and-be-selfish-"me"-generation. It looks like family law attorneys have a little piece of job security in this generation. What happened to the sanctity of a marital union? Divorce is much too easy an option these days, and the in-class discussion proves it. How can people say that they are, completely and with steadfast resolve, ready to join another person in a civil union for the rest of their lives, and then, also not be prepared to completely divide their assets with another person to whom they took an oath to share everything for as long as they live? It makes no sense.

As my parents say in regards to marriage: "you should only do it once, so do it right the first time." If you do not do it correctly the first time, you then have to live with the consequences.

After the short debate, one of my friends had the following conversation with me via messenger. It made me laugh:

-----

ME: I can’t understand any of these kids
Friend: hahah true
ME: way to freaking restate the question in the answer, _______ (insert name of confusing-annoying girl)
Friend: I hate that _______ (your guess as to the fill-in is probably right)
ME: I loathe her
ME: I swear to all that is holy that I will end up in jail one day because I lose it… thank you law school.
ME: "Who has right to property in the community estate?" - She answers: "the community has the right to property in the estate"
- A Few Minutes Pass... -
ME: welcome to generation divorce
Friend: hahah so true
ME: why get married if you aren’t going to share everything?
ME: you east coasters are messed up
Friend: please you west coasters are weak
Friend: weak sauce
Friend: like hunts ketchup when it’s clearly Heinz time
ME: oh please
ME: 57 varieties?
ME: too much
ME: give me 32 flavors, and I am set
ME: the rest is all a waste
Friend: did u know that there are actually like 250 flavors, 57 was the original amount
ME: all the more egregious a waste then
ME: wasteful corporate idiocrity
ME: take your Heinz, and shove it up your tomato
Friend: aright hunts
Friend: that’s ur new nickname

-----

Anyhow, there was an upside to being a part of this vocal minority. The non-vocal minority (ie: the persons who do not participate or like to talk in class but usually agree with my view) was very much enamored with my stance. Apparently it is an unlikely position from a man. As I got up to leave class, the gaggle of gorgeous women who sit behind me stopped my hasty exit.

"By the way, H," they began. "We totally agree with you and your position of marriage. If you are not willing to share everything, then do not get married. Marriage is a one-time event, and should not be redone many times. Divorce and community property should not even be an issue."

Then Michelle joined the crew with a few comments of her own. Of course, I was too busy soaking up the ladies' comments to completely listen to her.

The middle of the three women, who I thoroughly appreciate for her presence, relayed that she loves how passionate I was. Michelle piped in, and I actually heard her this time.

"You always get like that when you speak in class, H!" she exclaimed.

The Middle-Gaggler then reinforced Michelle's comment. "That is true. Very forceful opinion and persuasive argument. I like that."

Oh, how life is good. I did not know what to say, but something left my mouth to the effect of: "Yeah, I guess so. It is hard to be any other way."

A great way to end the only class of the day.

In other news, the "Girl"-dating scene is interesting. One of my favorite people ("C") at the Law School was invited to the same get-together in the very same way I invited the girl I am "seeing". Like her, C was busy that night, and invited me to join he and his girlfriend at a bar that next weekend. "Girl" was invited to join as well. Girl and C are partners for the aforementioned Appellate assignment. He was very unaware that Girl and I were seeing each other. When we both arrived at the bar, C greeted us at the door, and we chatted while his girlfriend was fulfilling the five-hour bathroom quota women must complete each week. After a few minutes, Girl grabbed my hand. A few minutes later, he looked down, saw the hand-holding, and created a lasting picture of realization that I can only hope will occur at a later date.

He placed both hands on his head and, with great excitement, went "OHHHH!" Then the hands went straight into the air, "Ohhhhh!" Hands together: "OHHHH!" Hands on cheeks: "I didn't even reali…. Ohhhh!" C's girlfriend arrived at this point. He turned to her and said, "Did you… oh my! Now it all makes sense."

"Wow, that is all… this is… just wow!" he ended.

It was a fantastic night. The one outing has turned into a weekly double-date. They are great people, who are fun as can be. C and his girlfriend met on a Kibbutz in Israel, and have dated for quite some time. She is from California, while he is from New Jersey. As it turns out, Girl and C have quite the connection also: their mothers went to the same high school and graduated in the together. So, that is fun.

Dating Girl has been interesting in the least. In a two-week period I have had some pretty interesting experiences (not dirty, so don’t even think about implying such here), and have had mixed emotions. It is not fair to share too much with the world, but she may be the furthest thing from what I am used to. I am also not wanting to rush into anything, and I have a lot of time. No need to make a poor decision or get into something serious right now. Dating, however, is good.

For some reason, one of my Professors that I originally thought had no idea who I was knows me. The Property Professor (the one who I emailed about being upset that we did not explore a topic in further detail) was exiting class at the same time as I was lavatory-bound. I took the opportunity to hold the door open for her. Again, I did not know that she put my communications with my name, and definitely did not think that those two items were recognized as belonging to my face. As I held the door open, she looked at me and said, "Mr. H, I really hope you enroll in and look forward to having you in my Wills, Trusts and Estates class next year."

Oh, man. She knows me. I replied that, "I certainly hope I have the opportunity to be in that class." What else was I to say? "Uh… yeah. I really… enjoy?... your class?" That would not work out well.

It is funny that when we think we have everything figured out, life goes and mixes things up. I am not liking New York any more than I did weeks ago, nor am I becoming more satisfied with the current situation of schooling, but I am having experiences that I did not expect to have, and opportunities that I never considered possible are being lobbed my way.

For a guy who started planning his life (including career) in third grade, having plans that regularly get reassessed and changed is a new experience. Despite other unmentioned problems I have had, I am impressed and optimistic that I am attaining and experiencing all that I am.

Everything is "…just wow!"

New post soon...

2008-03-03T01:39:00.002-05:00

New BIG post coming soon ... Just finished a 35 page brief that is due Monday.

Cheers!

Honored Smiting - February 27, 2008

2008-02-27T11:43:00.001-05:00

Lessons are just a part of my life. While others learn lessons on occasion, the big, omnipotent master planner smites me daily.

Here are a few reasons from this last week why I know Mr. Big Stuff is playing games with my life (followed by explanations below).

1. Advocate of the Year.
2. Property Class Discussion Shenanigans.
3. Contracts Class Has Become Study Hall.
4. Blood Letting.

------------------------------------------------------------

1. Advocate of the Year.

In a surprising turn of events, the "powers that be" somehow felt it necessary to award the honor of being named Advocate of the Year (for the organization in which I try the unemployment cases) to a first-year law student. Even stranger yet, they decided that, for the first time ever, the award would go to not one, but two advocates.

But, trust me. The irony of my life does not stop there.

My worthless, never-asked-a-question-on-the-record, take-credit-for-doing-nothing partner and I received a curious email from the President of the local chapter of the organization.

-----

can you meet me, at your convenience, before the end of the week?

I propose the Dunkin Donuts on Old Country road, directly across the street from the County Courthouse;

you have my cell

v

-----

When I received this email, I freaked. Who wouldn't?

So, I replied:

-----

It is going to be rough to get a solid amount of time this week, but I am free tomorrow from 2-4.

What is going on? This sounds bad.

-H

-----

Then, he replied:

-----

not a big deal; nothing to worry about. i'll even buy you guys coffee.
let me know.

-----

So, needless to say: I was an anxious mess leading up to the meeting today. What in the world could we have done wrong? As I told my partner, "We have taken the most cases out of any Advocates; we are bound to have screwed something up." I am just so happy free coffee is involved! That just made everything better. Come on.

When we showed up, he asked us about how we liked everything, how we were doing in school, how our hearings were/are, and other non-urgent questions that could have been answered over the phone or email. We were waiting for the buzz-kill.

After small talk for a lengthy period of time, he non-chalantly said the following:

"Oh yeah. You two are being recognized as the Advocates of the Year."

Wait a second. Can you repeat that for me? Advocates of the what? Year? There must be a mistake.

Alas, there was not. My Partner and I were recognized as the best and most highly valued Advocates out a great many persons. Good lord! We are only first-year law students.

As we were told about the award/honor, two thoughts quickly shot into my head. A) This is going to look great for jobs. And then, suddenly, B) Wait. Did they actually recognize my partner also?

As per the timing of this award with my stating the worth(lessness) of my partner: I know games are being played. My life is a giant ball of irony. However, as my Father so succinctly stated: "Welcome to the real world of law. In a law firm, the partners will take credit for your successes." Thank you Swami-Daddy. How right you are.

I tend to agree.

I am excited that I have my first permanent resume accomplishment. Talk about reinforcing good behavior - it is true that we are "getting so much better" (please read the sarcasm here). He also talked to us about paid summer positions doing exactly what we are doing now, as well as taking on the top leadership roles in the organization.

We have to go to a big banquet now to accept our award (which is supposedly a gavel). Good times. Go team.

------------------------------------------------------------

2. Property Class Shenanigans.

I tend to speak and be spoken to a great amount in this class. When I am not talking, I am engaged in great conversations via online messaging. Sometimes both occur.

During one class, I was having a very impassioned discussion with my Professor about something that was not worth remembering. We went back and forth. In the middle of the exchange, a window popped up on my computer.

"Fight! Fight! Fight!"
Then it flashed again: "Get it H. Handle the Professor."

These are not helpful messages when you are trying to have an educated exchange with a Professor. Thanks instant messenger.

But, for each distraction the program offers, there is an equally musing conversation that it allows. The following is my favorite thus far:

-----

Me: this blows
Friend: unfortunately it doesn't
Friend: that might be enjoyable
Friend: this is just god awful

-----

And lastly, the most recent debacle was a public policy question that my professor posed where I was one of just two hands raised in support of a very liberal ideal. I think that people just did not want to get called on to explain, so they went with the crowd. Darn me and my beliefs!

------------------------------------------------------------

3. Contracts Class Has Become Study Hall.

Must I repeat myself?

------------------------------------------------------------

4. Blood Letting.

A word to the wise: if you are going to donate blood, make sure that you eat breakfast and do not drink coffee prior. The nurse asked me if I ran to the location to donate because I had such a fast pulse. I also learned that they do not want you to write comments or specifics on their forms. Just when you thought it would be nice for them to have all the information about the blood they are receiving, they reprimand you. Sorry.

Seriously though, nearly fainting from planned blood-loss is never a good part of the day. I did get four boxes of apple juice, 2 packets of cheese-its and pizza. Helping others never tasted so good.

------------------------------------------------------------

Today was a relatively good day. Other than being smited with irony, no big complaints.

Five Minutes - February 26, 2008

2008-02-26T22:23:00.001-05:00

Tuesday morning was another early morning (for the second week in a row). If this keeps up, my hatred for Tuesdays will beat out my dislike of Thursdays.

My groggy self did all the same morning deeds, except I was so very tired that I ran into more than my fair share of doors, walls and dogs. I make a brisk morning drive to the Department of Labor for my second hearing in two days.

This case is, by far, the most complicated case I have taken. I was sought out by another newly trained advocate (one of my classmates), and could not have been happier to have a new person to work with. I allowed her to pick a case - of course with advice - and she picked out quite the dizzying assignment.

The client has us dealing with far too many highly complex issues. We were juggling criminal charges, surveillance video, a collective bargaining agreement, union arbitration, and a litany of evidence as well as a host of other mind-bogglers. I had told my client that I advise that he not testify on the record because of the pending charges, because anything said in the labor hearing could be used as evidence in a court. As such, the plan was to ask the judge to adjourn and re-calendar the case; our showing of cause centered around the short amount of preparation and research time (one business day) that counsel had prior to the hearing as well as the pending criminal case.

Of course, as my luck goes, the Judge (surprisingly) denied the requests. I then told the Judge that my client would take a default and would later exercise his right to reopen the case when we believe the time sufficient. The hearing then came to a close, and not five minutes after we walked into the building, we were walking out.

As we left the hearing, my client turned to me and said, "You are going to have to explain to me what just happened." When we were outside of the opposing party's earshot, I explained what occurred, and how we will proceed.

As my partner and I walked away from my client, she then turned to me and asked, "You are going to have to explain to me what just happened."

I almost burst into laughter. Luckily, I refrained and re-explained what happened, and gave her a short list of reasons why we did what we did. A few hours later, I received an email from her. She was obviously very worried and uncomfortable with what occurred. She was also not happy with how very little she feels she is doing. I sent her back a letter outlining eight distinct reasons why she should not worry.

That letter is attached below.

Back to my work I go.

-----

The Response Letter…

Let's sit down and talk at some point today.

In the meantime, here are a few points to help settle your nerves:

1) He has two pending charges. Anything that is said on the record at the hearing would be admissible in court, and could be used against him. By taking the Default, we are protecting him from screwing himself.

2) The default does not mean the case is closed. The Default in unemployment law is like a preliminary ruling, except the ruling is only temporary. When we move to re-open the case, the default will be set aside, and we will proceed as normal. Basically, it is a temporary judgment subject to a new hearing.

3) He is desperate for money, and we both understand that. However, in the best case scenario, he wins the unemployment hearing and is found innocent in criminal court. Worst case scenario it that he loses both. However, he can win the unemployment and still lose the criminal case, or win the criminal case and lose the unemployment. Because the criminal case is more important, and because we need to consult with his criminal attorney, we basically have no choice but to give deference to the criminal case.

4) If he is proved innocent in criminal court, which looks likely given the very limited information we have gathered, we can use this in the unemployment hearing (via the judgment, testimony and the evidence presented) as evidence of wrongful termination.

5) Trust me, you are doing a great job and you are contributing a lot. I have had bad partners, and you are already doing better than most. Just having prepared the direct examination competently and being ready to go is a great contribution. It took me eight cases, one year clerking in a DA's office and being on one of the nation's best collegiate mock trial teams to get to where I am, so do not worry about how much you are or are not doing. We are partners in this case, and work to both supplement and complement each other where needed.

6) The case has not gone away, and we were only in the room for five minutes. So, there was not much to do. The other side did not even get a chance to speak. They are probably feeling great that a default judgment was entered, so they will have a false sense of security. They did not bring any evidence with them, they looked supremely unprepared, and they do not have any counsel. This is great for our client (and us). There is nothing to be worried about.

7) If you take your worse-case scenario, and our client gets screwed, we write an appeal and move for a new hearing. Not a bad option at all.

8) Imagine what would have happened had our client walked into the hearing without two people who knew what they were doing and how to proceed. Then you would have reason to worry.

Relax. Breathe. Everything will work itself out.

You rock!

Moral Support - February 25, 2008

2008-02-25T23:21:00.003-05:00

Every once-in-a-while, things just lock into place, and this hearing was one of those times.

The hearing was a continuation of an adjourned case that was closed and rescheduled because we ran out of time at our last go-around.

My Partner was already "done" with his part. He had already not asked any questions the first time we were there. The Client is the really nice, very naturally believable one, so it made my job doing the direct examination a breeze. Unlike just about every other time, I got through the examination without being interrupted.

I was going to bring out background about his living situation (where he takes care of two mentally disabled kids, a mentally disabled and extreme diabetic Brother, a 17 year-old niece along with his wife - during my closing I was going to draw attention to the fact that he is the provider for a 17 year-old girl, enough to run anybody crazy), but decided against it as I thought the judge was going to disallow the line of questions for reasons of relevance.

However, the judge then began asking questions about his home and driving situation, drawing out reasons why he would ever be late to work. The Judge did my job for me.

It was spectacular.

After we were done with some spectacular questions and answers, the employer had a chance to cross-examine my client. What followed was even more beautiful, as every time he asked a question, my client gave him an answer he was not ready for. It was wonderful. After he asked a few questions, my Client was done.

The Judge then said that he wanted to, once again, telephone a witness from the employer (who had already testified via telephone at the previous hearing).

The Judge asked if we had anything to say before the call occurred, and I questioned the Judge's reasons for recalling the witness. He said he had questions to ask, if that was alright by me. I told him that I would love another opportunity to re-cross the witness, and to go right ahead.

This next part is key.

The Judge asked the employer if the manager would be available by phone again. The employer answered that the Manager was "ready and waiting by the phone for a call." (Keep this statement in mind for later.)

Once on the phone, the Judge asked a few questions, followed by some questions from the Employer. Then the Judge asked me if I had any questions. I told him that, in fact, I did.

My very first question to the Witness was regarding any conversations or discussions he may have had with his employer about this case and my client since my client's termination.

He answered, very surprisingly, "No. I have never spoken with my employer about this case."

I, obviously taken aback, asked a clarifying question.

"So, you are saying that you had no idea you would be getting a call today during the hearing."

Again, he answered "No." Deal sealer. Insert damaging character impeachment into my closing.

So, after a number of questions that he answered to my liking, I asked a final one, which the Judge stopped me from asking at first. I was trying to disprove an element of misconduct, that with which he was charged.

The Judge explained to me that I could easily get an answer from my client. I told him that I understood this, but wanted to hear it from the Employer's witness. I got the answers I wanted, and we proceeded to dismiss the witness.

After the call, the Judge asked if we had anything else, and I figured I had nothing to lose. I asked him to subpoena a witness, who we had not been able to get in touch with. He asked who the witness was, and all we had was a first name.

Unluckily, the name we had is one of the most common Latino first names in the world. The Judge turned to me and said, "Mr. H, you cannot be serious. Do not even get me started on how many people have that name."

I responded by saying that I understood the problem that this could potentially amount to, and that he had to give me at least some respect for trying.

He asked for an offer of proof - basically what the witness would provide and how we knew he would provide it.

I was unable to do so, and he told me what every judge in the world says: "No fishing expeditions in my room."

I said, "Understood. We are more than ready to proceed with closing arguments."

The Employer stumbled and mumbled along in his two line closing statement.

After he was "done," it was my turn

During the closing I drew the Judge's attention to the fact that, today, on the record, we have two very different statements, and that we have no reason to believe anything that was said.

I drew his attention to New York Labor Law, the employer's failure to meet his burden, and the fact that the employer himself said that this was an issue of performance, which is very different than misconduct.

I included a discussion regarding his living situation, and that there was no evidence of any warnings, verbal or written.

I also covered the fact that the Employer, in his closing argument, and during testimony was not even able to say that he verbally warned my client. All that he could say was that he "verbally coached" my client. I couldn't make that up if I tried

What in the world is "verbally coached" anyhow?

I finished the statement by re-emphasizing the fact that he worked for them for 7.5 years, and that each of those years he was given a bonus. Employers do not give bonuses to employees who do something wrong. I cited the Labor Law, and left the Judge with the statement: "Do what is just, do what the Law requires, reinstate benefits for my client..."

My Partner was stoked about the hearing. Everything went pretty darn well. As we were driving back to school, the guy turned to me and nearly made my spleen rupture from the internal laughter it provoked.

He said, "We are getting much better."

Yes. WE have done so much better. The four questions that you weren't allowed to ask this time were of a much higher quality than those that you weren't allowed to ask last time. Thanks for nothing, jerk.

I did not actually say that. He is big. This, I guess, is karma. I remember a time when I recruited him for his physical presence. I got exactly what I wanted. I got nothing more.

He wrote down all of two notes during the hearing, both of which he was writing down to assist me defend our client. The first one was completely wrong, and the second I obviously knew, because I was asking questions to prove it.

"Thanks, dude. Thanks for everything."

What is he good for?

Moral support.

-----

Closing Argument

My Client is a hard-working employee and caring provider for two disabled children and a wife. Mr. Client gives only his best, when others would give just enough to get do the job. He is a respectful man who values a hard day’s work. We know this because, for each of seven years prior to his termination, his Employer rewarded him with a sizeable monetary bonus.

Mr. Client was so very highly valued as an employee that the management fervently pushed and persuaded him to stay with the company, even under his known circumstances. They condoned and tacitly consented to Mr. Client’s situation. The Appeal Board has found that doing so removes the ability for the employer to claim misconduct. Mr. Employer, himself, could not even state outright that Mr. Client was ever warned. All that he could say was that Mr. Client was “verbally coached.”

When called into Mr. Employer’s office on his final day of employment, Mr. Employer warned Mr. Client, that “if he ever showed up late, even five minutes after 9:00AM, Mr. Client would be fired.” The firing then occurred suddenly and without discussion. He was warned about being late one minute, and then fired the very next. Mr. Employer did not even consult Mr. Client’s supervisor before terminating his employment. Something does not add up.

There was no company policy about lateness. There is no evidence of warnings about Mr. Client ever being late. The only evidence the employer could produce were timecards that not only have no identifying marks made by Mr. Client, but at least three other, very distinct handwritings, none of which belong to the him. Additionally, the signature line on each of the timecards is not signed by my Client.

Drawing Your Honor’s attention to New York Labor Law, the employer must demonstrate, using clear proof, that the employee acted knowingly and willfully in his actions in an attempt to disregard the employer's interests in a manner that was detrimental to the employer's interests. Not only has Mr. Client’s former employer failed to prove such, we know the opposite. In fact, the Employer and their witnesses unwittingly testified to these facts.

Finally, we know that somebody sitting here is lying. Today we heard Mr. Employer say one thing on the record, when the very next moment Mr. Employer’s own witness stated the opposite. Fortunately for my client, we now know which party is lying.

Mr. Client was a hard-working employee who received raises, promotions and bonuses. What we have here, is a man who has no reason to lie, while there is a company that has everything to lose.

Everybody loses their temper at one time or another. Unfortunately for Mr. Client, his boss lost his temper and fired him without reason. Find for Client – give him the unemployment benefits he justly deserves.

Wasted (Snow) Day - February 22, 2008

2008-02-22T11:45:00.000-05:00

My Friday class had been rescheduled for earlier in the week. As a result, I had no class today. As is my luck, we received over five inches of frozen rain, and our first snow day.

What a complete waste.

"Stupid" Meeting - February 21, 2008

2008-02-21T00:04:00.001-05:00

I knew Thursday was going to be fun before I went to sleep on Wednesday. It was not going to take any stroke of brilliance to know that I was going to have an interesting story to tell; I was slated to meet with the Professor of "Stupid Class".

The day started with two hours of Contracts. The senile professor never ceases to amaze me. I sometimes wish the class were longer. I get a serious amount of work done while the professor pontificates on nonsensical topics that boggle the mind.

After class, I made my way to the ground floor of the law school. I opened my computer, and entered a number into my phone. I needed to get an update from one of my clients who was not responding to our requests. After having a wonderful conversation with him about the reason for doing what my partner and I requested, I made my way to the professor's office for the meeting.

I had been engaged in an internal debate about whether I should just tell her exactly how much of a waste of time, boring and worthless the class has become to me, or whether I was going to sit quietly and pay her lip service. Until I opened my mouth to speak, the debate was not settled. As has become my nature, I just put it all on the table. I figured I had nothing to lose. After I told her how horrible the class was, I waited for her response. What she said next blew me away.

"I did not expect to hear anything different from you," she said.

Wow. Doth mine ear deceive me? No, she actually said that she expected me to say exactly what I said. Furthermore, she understood why I was saying what I did, and agreed that the class may be as I described it for me. She followed up these statements by concluding that the class is structured the way it is for a reason, and that I just need to stick with it.

After the meeting, I sat in the library for a few hours, readying myself for Civil Procedure.

The 50 minute class played into my prophetic visions. I plagued myself one again with the phrase: "I just know we are going to get called on today." My row had not before, in the 21 weeks of class, ever been called upon. As can be guessed, today was the day it would all change.

I was at the opposite end of the row from where he started. Sure enough, one-by-one, the professor mad his way closer to where I was seated. The closer he got, the more I felt the need to relieve my bladder.

I had nothing about which I should have worried. Civil Procedure is my strongest class, and the reading was not the most difficult we have had. Instead of waiting to be called upon, I raised my hand to answer a few questions. Megan sits to the right of me, and Michelle to the right of Megan. I started to volunteer myself to answer the questions to which I knew I was correct right after Michelle was called upon. Sadly for Megan, that left her as the perpetual next person to be called upon. Sure enough, when I ceased answering, questions were heaved in her direction. After much of the subject had been discussed, and as class began coming to a close, our professor discussed settlements in cases where there are a numerous amount of Plaintiffs, but one lone Defendant. He was trying to illustrate what happens when a number of Plaintiffs win verdicts of a relative number. I raised my hand, and gleefully completed the illustration by making an allusion to the television game show "Deal or No Deal". Met with laughter, I ended my day on a high note.

Later Thursday night, I watched the Democratic debate with Stacy. As she left, snow began to fall.

What a dandy day.

-----

Senile Professor Quote of the Day:

"All white guys look alike to me."

Out of the Comfort Zone – February 17 – 20, 2008

2008-02-20T11:25:00.001-05:00

When Sunday arrived, I felt that I had more time than I could utilize. Before I could say “vested remainder in fee simple on executory limitation,” I found myself awake late at night on Wednesday plucking away at my keyboard.

I had forgotten what a simple change or exciting addition can add to life. I had been quietly wasting away – all alone and in a foreign state. My roommate and I invited some of our friends over to our house on Sunday for some board games and bottled fun. At some point during the night, my multi-tasking abilities took flight. I somehow set up a date with a girl in my class (the one who pointed out my vulgar statement to my Professor at his house). The date was slated for the very next day.

I awoke the very next morning (Monday) with a dead phone battery, and a high level of disbelief that I accomplished this feat in a very altered mental state. The wakeup on Monday was harsh. I had planned to utilize every hour possible to study the inside of my eye-sockets from the comfort of my bed, but this prophecy did not come to fruition.

Once my dead-phone was charged, I check to make certain that the asking and answer were as I remembered them. The phone displayed the good news. Date on.

The girl with whom I went out is not my "normal type." That is to say she is definitely out of my comfort-zone. The Monday Night Consortium went so much better than I expected. As it turns out, East Coast boys are without the same chivalrous actions with which I quickly became associated. I believe in a tried-and-true, tested-and-bested theorem on dating. Traditional, old-school or chivalrous – call it what you may – I believe in some basic conservative dating principles that I have fused to some very much 21st Century ideals. However, this theory is my theory. I share it with nobody.

Opening and holding the car and restaurant doors impressed the girl enough to make her actively advocate for a second date. I had a great time. It is so relieving to have found somebody with whom I see eye-to-eye on many things. I feel like I have an outlet onto which I can unload my problems – luckily, the outlet is located in very close proximity. Did I mention she lives two minutes from my house?

Anyhow, on Monday, when I dropped her off, I left her without a kiss, as is my normal practice on a first date. For some reason it really throws a curve-ball at most women. Who knows why? But, as my Brother says “those who slowly enter into a relationship, slowly leave (if at all). Those who move quickly, find themselves quickly through.” Fast-in, fast-out. I like to slow the bus down a bit and enjoy the scenery; I appreciate everything. Plus, I have time.

So, I have been seeing a lot of her ever since, and I enjoy every minute. I have, apparently, been noticeably more upbeat and easy going this week. I guess excitement is good for a law student every once-in-a-while.

Class on Tuesday morning was death. When the Professor told us class would begin at 8:30AM, my classmates and I did not realize how early it was in all actuality. The Appellate Advocacy class is normally on Fridays from 10:10AM to 12:00PM. For some unknown reason, the class was moved to the deathly morning hour on Tuesday. The only class I normally have on Tuesdays is my 50 minute Civil Procedure course which occurs in the afternoon. Basically, what I am trying to illustrate is that my day was ruined. I was tired the entire time, no information stuck in my head, and I zoned. I zoned for a long time. I was in the zone, but it was not one in which learning occurs.

I had planned on going home and undertaking some research and other work, (like reading, briefing and outlining) but found myself watching two episodes of Law & Order with the Lady. I cooked dinner – always impressive – and relaxed for the rest of the night.

Then came Wednesday.

Usually today comes with a serving of senile, and a side dish of G-d hates me. Contracts Class was an uneventful waste of time, as is par for the course. I would usually leave Contracts and head for the library for an hour. After the usual one-hour prep, I would attend Stupid Class. Dummy Class is canceled all this week so that we can attend one-on-one sessions with our Stupid Class Professor. My meeting is tomorrow. That should be a barrel of joy. Pray for me.

After spending the six hours in the library between Contracts Class and Property, I started to get a little antsy, and who would not?

Property was the same miserable mess that it has always been. Today, the Professor took what would have otherwise been a relatively simple rule and made it unbelievable confusing. I am sometimes amazed at how Law Professors can make even the simplest idea the most baffling policy imaginable. I just don’t get it.

During class, the Professor asked how we stand on a public policy issue dealing with adverse possession, community property, public interest and rich people. I was one of two people to raise my hand on one side of the issue. The other 118 students raised their hand to the opposite. Welcome to my life.

Because Lady and I are carpooling – we realized we should have been doing the carpooling thing since the beginning of the year because we live so darn close and have almost identical schedules – I drove her home. Somehow I got suckered in for dinner. She cooked soup and shrimp. We watched a few "girly" shows, and home I went.

This time she got her kiss. Leaving my comfort zone has brought me back to reality.

Comfort zones are overrated.
Sleep in underrated.

And scene.

-----

Property Professor, “Mr. R, what is the first step in applying the Rule Against Perpetuity?”
Mr. R, with a pseudo-raspy voice: “I’d love to answer, but I have bronchitis.”
Michelle, the girl to my left, my friend on instant messenger and myself in unplanned-unison: “B.S.”

Life in Six Words (Or Less)

2008-02-20T00:46:00.001-05:00

Los Angeles Times Six Word Biographies

A friend's biography was recently published. The LA Times printed six words. Thousands of subscribers received the article. "Chinese immigrant loathing drama in Anaheim."

His life, shortened to six words.

I have not before solicited feedback. I now break my own rule. I am intrigued by this idea. Ernest Hemingway attempted this unlikely feat. His challenge: a six word novel. "For sale: baby shoes, never worn." Concise in form, but truly telling.

-----

I wondered if I could write the story of my life in six words or less.

I will post what I finally decided upon in a few days. In the mean time, post your own six word (or less) biographies. I dare you.

Some biographies I entertained about myself:

- Loves writing; applications to law school.
- Can't say no. Must do more.
- Full resume, empty head. Fools everybody.
- Life displayed. I'm in the dark.
- Gives great advice - could use some.
- Life's a book. Used Cliff's Notes.

Your turn...

Standard Emphatics - February 15, 2008

2008-02-15T23:46:00.000-05:00

Friday was abnormally exciting merely because everybody was excited for an extra day off of school the coming Monday. I was excited because I was already dreaming of the extra sleep I was going to undertake.

Class lasted one hour, and I made a hasty escape to relax at home and get the weekend started. My total flat-line of activity would have to wait until after I finished a telephone interview with the organization whose recruiter I spoke with at the Career Fair in Manhattan (the recruiter who attended my university's cross-town rival).

The organization actively sought me out for an interview, so I entered the conversation with a very relaxed and confident demeanor. Below are some of the questions, and an occasional answer that was exchanged during the interview.

-----

What do you know about us?
What would you tell your friends about us?
Why do you want to go into public interest law?
Have you ever worked with children, and if so, what age groups?
- How long do you want to be on the phone? (I jokingly gave this as my answer, whereupon I outline my extensive history.)
Have you ever had problems with anybody racially or ethnically different than you?

-----

After the slow-ball questions were answered with powerful hits, the interviewer prefaced the next question in the same fashion the Public Defender interviewer had. "The next question is a hypothetical," she said. "There is no wrong answer. We simply want to see how you answer it."

Of course, there is a correct answer. However, they do not want us to get over anxious and worry too much. Really, they are just looking for how we intuitively answer the question. See how you do before reading my response.

-----

You have been appointed by the court as the representative of a new-born baby. The Baby’s Mother has nine other children, all in varying placements. The Mother is a habitual drug-user and has been charged with and found guilty for abuse and neglect. At the time of your hearing, the mother has stayed clean – passing multiple drug tests – and has gotten her life on track. As the representative for the Baby, do you (a) advocate for immediate adoptive placement of the Baby, or (b) seek a family reunification through a six-month process.

Here was my answer, in all its glory –
- Reunification is always the best choice, if it is a viable choice. Placing a child in a family atmosphere is always the goal; placement in a natural family atmosphere is even better. In this scenario, the Mother has stayed clean for a period, and is making a concerted effort to turn her life around. With the reunification, drug tests and random visits from Child Protective Services will occur, as well as ensuring that the Mother is meeting court-mandated bench-marks in care. If the mother cannot show that she can properly care for and provide a secure environment for the raising of the Baby, at any time during, and at the end of the six-month process, then I will seek immediate adoptive placement for the Baby.

-----

I must say, however, that I was very lucky. I tried finding information on my interviewer prior to the call, and the only item available was a case summary where she had represented four children. During the case, my interviewer actively sought reunification. Being an internet stalker paid off.

After the hypothetical, besides the standard, "do you have any questions for us," one question followed.

I was asked if I had any goals for this summer.

"Absolutely," is stated emphatically. "My goal is to have the best, most full experience that I can possibly have. I want to walk into my placement as a first year law student, and come out a very changed or polished lawyer-in-training. Basically, I want to squeeze every ounce of education, training and experience that I possibly can."

The rest of my day was very relaxing and somewhat uneventful. This was my kind of day.

No News - February 14, 2008

2008-02-14T23:42:00.001-05:00

Three classes, five hours, one giant pain in the behind. The two hours of contracts is a complete waste of life. To make things worse, ten minutes after I wished a fare-the-well to the two hours of mindless contract jabber, I had to be in my seat ready to "learn".

Thursdays, as has been well established, smash the happiness from me. “Stupid” Class runs for a very long two hour period. I cannot escape the doom that is the class. It makes me question all things fair and just in the world.

Good News: I was granted an interview by the organization whose recruiter I met at the career fair (who attended my rival university). Apparently I made a good impression. The interview is tomorrow afternoon.

Bad News: Not only does this make things more complex for the decision-making area of my already over-taxed brain, but all I have been thinking about lately are the other organization with whom I have interviewed. I do not think I can handle more anxiety.

Good News: I am really tired and will fall right to sleep from the energy-burning classes today.

Bad News: I have a Dentist's Appointment at 8:30AM tomorrow.

Good News: I am mentally ready to send the Dean the letter that will most definitely make waves at the Law School. The letter will be in the mail tomorrow.

Bad News: I am mentally ready to send the Dean the letter that will most definitely make waves at the Law School. The letter will be in the mail tomorrow.

Wednesday Revisited - February 13, 2008

2008-02-13T23:26:00.000-05:00

Wednesday is a long day with classes that bring me down, as has become well-known at this point.

The same old wake up and get going practice never changes. Every morning my shower starts warm and then turns icy. Our water heater is a piece of junk, but definitely does the job of waking me up. I have about two minutes of heat before doom flows through the pipes and onto my body. I have perfected the art of fast showers.

Of the most entertaining happenings occurred in the coveted Idiot Class. I was minding my own business, reading for another class. The professor felt the need to ruin my day. She called on me, knowing I was not paying attention. I asked her to repeat the question. She glared into my soul with the sharpened dagger eyes, which relayed the "death to you" thoughts that must have been circulating about her head. I glanced down at the case, answered her question to perfection, and went back to not listening to her ruin my life.

It was glorious.

The second low-light of the day was property. I do not think I understood half the things the professor was saying. The vocabulary and the combination of the vocabulary is intense.

Property law takes something as simple as my giving you a piece of property on a set of conditions, and turns it into: a Life Estate with a contingent remainder in fee simple subject to divestment in C and D, subject to executory interest in B. Lost? So was I.

As I before stated, property law takes ordinary terms and gives them meanings that have nothing to do with their common use definitions. They then slam a bunch of them together and look in awe at the masterpiece of confusion that is left in its wake.

And I sleep.

Being Engaging - February 12, 2008

2008-02-12T11:11:00.000-05:00

For the first time that I can remember, there is not much to report. I had gotten used to having long days that were packed with all kinds of interesting and quirky situations. Today was a great change from the quick pace that has dominated my life lately.

I woke up this morning relatively late, which is not an entirely bad occurrence. I have one class in the early afternoon, so shut-eye is allowed late into the morning. After showering and doing my get-ready dance, I sat down to eat my sandwich and peruse the internet. My favorite social networking site always keeps me up-to-date on my friends, so I usually start there and work my way to websites that offer more intelligent information. This morning my roommate left me a message wondering if I am still alive, because I have been sleeping more than I have been awake. She reminded me of our weekly dinner-date, which is always nice, because I get to actually enjoy another person's company for a guaranteed one night per week.

I have also been waiting with baited breath to hear back from the District Attorney out here. I do not even like this state, but for some reason, I really want this position with them. I think it is great that they called my references, but the only call I care about is the one they will make to me.

Civil Procedure whizzed by, and before I knew what had happened, the class was dismissed. I made my way to the library to do the volumes of work I have been assigned. No more than ten minutes into my studies, I was alerted to the fact that it was snowing outside. It was not like the snow of yester-month. It was actually piling up outside.

With this newly acquired information, I decided it best that I get home before driving became to precarious. I got into my vehicle, turned the ignition and let the engine warm up. I made it home safely, but the drive was not without a few mishaps. My brakes occasionally played games with me. A few times, the brakes did not actually brake my car. It just kept on going. It was a good thing I was driving a manual, and even luckier that nobody was around when it decided to act up. It turns out that New Yorkers not only fail at driving in normal weather conditions, but they are pretty horrible in all conditions. I counted eight accidents on my way home. Most of them were the trees' faults. Those things come out of nowhere.

The snow is beautiful, but probably will not last because of the forecasted rain.

My life is rain on a snowy day.

Day in review:
Short day. One class. Late wakeup. Class starts, ends. Library study. Lots of snow. Crazy drive home. Failed snowman. Roommate date. Roommate screams. Roommate's sister engaged. I write.

All The Luck - February 11, 2008

2008-02-11T23:11:00.000-05:00

This weekend I slept.

I broke all kinds of personal records over the last two days: hours awake; hours asleep; percentage of time spent drinking wine with a professor. Yeah, I broke some records, alright.

Friday night I went to sleep at 11:45PM. I woke up Saturday at 5:15PM. I did not have much time to enjoy my incredible 17.5 hours of slumber, as I was slated to be at a dinner with my professor at 6:00PM. I did not think to set my alarm to wake up, because I did not believe there to be a need to assure I would be awake. Apparently, there was a good reason; a reason that made me run through my house in an effort to get ready to go in the blink of an eye. I was running late.

I have had many meals and meetings with professors, but this was very different than that with which I had become accustomed.

Besides the fact that everything was surreal (it felt like one of those times where I got home from school and fell asleep, and woke up a few hours later: when I awoke those times, I thought I slept through the very next day; this time I actually did sleep through the very next day) the conversation was much more intense and amusing. Not only did the professor persuade all six of us in attendance that the world was flat, and not globular, but, for the first time, I accidentally made reference to a sexual act by its name. The slang for oral copulation never sounded worse, as if that is possible. To compound the situation, one of my classmates became very inebriated from the fantastic wine we were served, and made it a point to bring the professors attention to the sexual reference by saying "I can't believe I just heard H say _______!"

Thank you Ms. S, I shall not soon forget your deed! It was all fine, though.

Anyhow, I thought that there would be no way I would fall asleep when I got home from the dinner. I was wrong.

I got home, got in bed, and slept another 14-plus hours. When I looked at this last week before it happened, I had no idea that it would leave me this drained. And yet, all I can think about is more sleep.

This morning swiftly approached my sleep quenched soul. The loud beep of my alarm was a cruel sound that left me no choice but to get on my way to school.

One class was all that today brought.

I did not check the weather before I left my house this morning. I did not think it was going to be too cold outside. As with most things, I was wrong. The wind brought the temperature to an astonishing nine degrees. I thought my face was going to fall off; never mind my sandal-clad feet.

Property was as dissatisfying as I have come to expect it to be. Estates, wills, trusts, and plain property-based law can be the goldmine for another to trudge. I'll stick with something else.

After the class ceased, I rushed to my car and zoomed back to the town in which I reside. I had a dentist appointment to take care of my teeth. I had to threaten them over the phone to give me an appointment today. They put off finishing my other tooth problem for so long that the tooth started to have new problems. Luckily, my threat and thank tactics paid off with a fantastically quick appointment. I wanted to schedule my next few visits, and as it turns out, they had an opening later today for a check-up and normal cleaning.

I had a three-hour window to spend my time pondering life, so I decided to tackle another issue I had been having: my phone bill. Basically, I got a nicer phone, and the idiots at customer service added a new line of service without my knowing. When I received my next bill, I noticed the new line and the exorbitant charges, and called them up. They removed the charges, but not the line of service. I had the same problem the next month, and they did the same stupid thing the next month. Finally, after this occurred three times, I wanted to make sure everything was removed. When I talked to them, they said they could remove it, but that I would have to pay a termination fee. I told them that I would be agreeable to a termination fee I had agreed to the contract in the first place.

They then told me that by using my phone, I agreed to their terms of service and their contract. I replied that not only am I on a month-to-month plan, but I have not used even one minute on the line I want off my plan, that I never asked for in the first place. Girl on the line told me (when she found out I was a Law Student) that I should know that when I use a service I agree to the provider's terms and contract. I basically gave her the "what-for" textbook response and told her to do two things. (1) She was to go find anything that shows I agreed to a new contract; and (2) Transfer me to her supervisor. After a 20 minute wait, the supervisor told me that I would have to either live with the over 150 dollars of overcharged bill, or pay them back for the phone discount. I told her that I am the one who has an even better set of options to give her. Either she can be reasonable and credit me back the over-charges on my account, or I can file a small claims action for the fraudulent charges and my time. I explained to her that her corporate attorneys probably charge somewhere over 300 dollars per hour, and that my even filing a complaint in court would cost her company more than that which I am seeking to reply. I even added the fact that my evidence was going to include the phone records that her own company supplied me. Oh, the irony. She said "see you in court." Then, she hung up.

I love customer service.

After having a wonderful time pointing out inadequacies in their logical thinking and deductive reasoning skills, I went back to the dentist.

After the cleaning I went back to school for a meeting, after which I came back home to tackle stupid assignment for dumb class.

My life is hectic. However, it does provide me a lot of entertainment.

What more could I ask for?

In other news, the organization at whose interview I thought I performed miserably called two of my three references. I have not before had a possible employer call the references I supplied. I hope this is a good thing. It definitely cannot be bad. Stay tuned for periodic updates.

"Some guys have all the luck;
Some guys have all the pain;
Some guys get all the breaks;
Some guys do nothing but complain."
- Rod Stewart

Up In The Air - February 8, 2008

2008-02-08T23:29:00.000-05:00

I had no idea why I was going back to the career fair. I thought everything was planned out for this summer. At worst, I am going to end up at a highly respected District Attorney's office in California. Not a bad choice. I was not interviewing today; I was merely planning on discussing opportunities with employers at their table during the sessions the fair aptly named "Table Talks".

These impromptu interactions are pseudo-interviews disguised as a laid-back discussion. My goal was to make the best possible impression in the shortest time possible.

Let's back up a moment, though.

I woke up at the awful hour of "way-too-darn-early" and had the roommate drive me to the train station. Do not feel bad for her, not only is she already up that early, but she owes me. Big time.

The plan was to meet Michelle and Megan before the fair to chat-it-up a little. I instantly became the magnet for the Law School, and began attracting all kinds of people who are in my classes. After a nice group chat, we went to go discuss potential opportunities with those organizations we had previously circled in our fair packets. The group split-up to find the room that housed the organization's table we most highly targeted.

One of the most popular tables was Legal Aid - a highly sought after non-profit organization that is especially sought after by those wanting to enter into public interest law. I made a point of going to their table first because I had seen long lines of law students waiting to own the attention of the recruiter for a very brief stint the day before. I hastily strutted towards the table with the Legal Aid label atop its stand. I was the very first person to greet the recruiter - in fact, there were two recruiters and one attorney who sat at the table. The three-on-one atmosphere was overwhelming, but very manageable. After I exchanged pleasantries, dodged questions and posed a few of my own, I went back towards the open area of the room where I was greeted by Michelle.

She had spoken with another employer while I was with Legal Aid. We then discussed what we were going to do next. Michelle was debating whether she was going to talk to another organization; I helped her along and persuaded her to action. I had to barter my accompaniment to get her to approach the representatives. We both walked to the table and proceeded to double-team the duo of recruiters at the organization's table. It must have looked like a well rehearsed Ballet. I picked up where she left off; she finished my sentences when I was at a loss for words. Quite frankly, it was a thing of beauty. A performance that was too good to be planned.

Michelle and Megan left before lunch. I met Christina and we went to a fantastic lunch a few blocks from the Law School. We had the kind of deep conversation that I have not been able to undertake in some time now. It was a fantastic two hours of discussion that perfectly complimented the sushi we were consuming. Yeah, it was that good.

After lunch - which I had not planned on having - Christina and I went back for the next session of "Table Talks". Again, this was not planned, as I was quite content on my worse-case-scenario for this summer. There was one organization that I did want to talk to, more out of curiosity than anything else.

I sat down and proceeded to trade barbs with the recruiter who happens to have graduated from my cross-town rival university. I was able to discuss such subjects that are interview questions that an interviewee is, as a general rule, forbidden to breech. These topics include salary and benefits. She told me that she wanted to interview me by phone when she arrived back in California, and asked for my resume. These are always great signs.

Just when I had everything perfectly planned, these organizations had to show their opportunities. Options mess everything up, but are a great addition to my life. What a horribly great conundrum.

This summer is now up in the air, right where it started.

The "Wow" Factor - February 7, 2008

2008-02-07T23:01:00.000-05:00

I interviewed this morning with the Los Angeles County Public Defender where passion became the hot topic. Well, at least for me.

I did not want to interview for the position. I was going to miss a total of four hours of class, I had to take the train into the city, take the subway to Manhattan, and navigate the city campus of NYU to meet with the interviewers. I was not even considering working for them over the summer. I just wanted some interview practice time.

I knew I wanted to go home this summer, but I had no idea that the interviewers would be the ones having the impact on me. This was role-reversal at its best.

As with my last interview in Manhattan, I had to get up far too early to be happy about life. The train schedule runs at weird times. I arrived in Manhattan, hopped (well, walked) of the subway, paying special attention to the gap, and was one block from NYU. The University is not in any central area. It is spread throughout many different blocks, in varying buildings. Basically, the university buys buildings as they become available in the area. Everything is scattered about without any master plan. Knowing this, I arrived about one hour before my interview was scheduled to take place.

I could not find the Law School Building for check-in. I literally walked all the way around it.

After I checked in, I sat down to pass the time. I was not experiencing any anxiety whatsoever. I did not really care about this interview. I was just going because it was going to give me interview experience. With this in mind, I was as relaxed as was humanly possible.

I was greeted with the kind of warmth and cheer that was not of the New York breed. It was a relaxed, "it is actually nice to see you" type of welcome. I excitedly shook her hand, and down the hall we went. Waiting in the room was a man (whose name I will not even try to recreate) and two open chairs. I asked the Interviewers, both high ranking Public Defenders, where they would like me to sit. They asked me for my resume. I produced a beautifully prepared packet, secured by a very nice clasp-folder. Then they asked for another resume. Including the electronically submitted resume, they now had three copies total. They asked for a minute to look the resume over. I nodded in acceptance of this proposition - it is not like I really had a choice. I leaned over to my belongings, and pulled out my leather portfolio - to make it seem like I was sincerely interested in what we were discussing. The male interviewer turned to me and said, "Relax! Put that away. It is not necessary."

Heck yeah! Relaxed. Kick back. This is good stuff.

I told them that I missed this California attitude. Questioned as to where I grew up, I gave them the stock California response. When asked if I wanted to be in California over the summer, I responded that I can only handle so much New York. They nodded in agreement.

As they read, they picked out a few highlights. They wanted to know about how I got my internship with the Publisher of a significant newspaper. I explained my straight forward "I want to be your intern" approach.

The next statement was something close to, you get pretty involved in everything. "You have quite the initiative. A go-getter to say the least." I told them my parents continually remind me of this non-flaw flaw. "I do just about everything," I replied. "Which leaves me time for nothing. However, I manage my time to the smallest detail which allows me to do all that I want, when I want, with the highest possible quality. Passion."

I told them that when I undertake something, it gets my full attention. They wanted to know about wrestling, and I explained that every wrestler comes with an interesting story. I explained that I confronted the soccer coach, asked him if I would be awarded playing time. He asked me if I really wanted to know the answer. I responded that I would not have asked if I did not want to know. He told me most likely, very little playing time would be awarded. With that, I literally walked off the soccer field and into the wrestling room. I was horrible my first year, but after that, the rest was history. I told them that wrestling became a pretty significant part of my life, and was definitely a love - I miss it.

I continued to explain that my passion bleeds through in everything I do. I highlighted my two favorite passions: politics and journalism.

They caught right on to this potential problem, and dug right in. "Being a criminal defense attorney is not a popular choice if you want to go into politics. How do you reconcile this?"

I responded by explaining that the answer to this question is the same as defending a criminal I know is guilty: criminal defense should be held in high regard by the public. It is the fabric of our society, insomuch as it protects and defends the rights of individuals. Without a competent defense, our political system means nothing.

I proceeded to dispel the popular negative sentiment by using a California referendum as an example where voters overwhelmingly passed that changed the medical malpractice maximum award for a Plaintiff by making it significantly less. The people were worried that doctors were being unfairly sued for far too much. As it turns out, the measure ended up working against those who were adamantly in favor of it. The lesson is, people dislike defense attorneys until they need one, and chances are, either you or somebody you know will someday need one.

They replied, "You have no idea! We get calls in the middle of the night."

The male interviewer said that he gets calls all the time from police officers who he cross-examined in trials; people who otherwise loathe him.

In the end, everybody calls.

They then saw that I was already a clerk for a District Attorney's office. I chuckled. They looked at me funny for laughing. I explained to them that I did far too many things that I had no business doing. I then told them one of my favorite "Adventures in Law" stories.

The highly shortened version: I wrote many motions and briefs when I was a clerk. The one I wrote most often was a response to motions to suppress evidence. I had always submitted these motions to the Assistant District Attorney for review before they were filed. At one point, I wrote the opposition and gave it to her, business as usual. The next day she marched into the Bullpen - as it is commonly referred to by the practicing attorneys, the Bullpen is the room that is home to all the law clerks - and in front of everybody said, while pointing to a big red circle on the motion I gave to her, "How could you make a mistake like this? Any first-year law student knows how to do this correctly!"

I responded as calmly as one can when being dressed-down by an authority figure. "I am only a sophomore in college."

She turned bright red, and apologized. She then proceeded to teach me how to fix the problem. The other law clerks got quite the show.

I looked at the Public Defenders and said, "So, when I say I did many things I had no business doing, I really did things I had no business doing. That year I fell in love with criminal law."

Then the interview really started to get under way. They told me that they wanted to turn the interview around. The question they next posed was: "Why would you make a great prosecutor." Like just about every question asked, they are looking for something more than what is apparent on the surface.

I responded that I would be a great prosecutor because I infuse my passion into everything that I do. I added that any field of criminal law is something that would be exciting. I also discussed my love of debate, quick thinking, rhetorical speaking, and my ability to convey my thoughts, feelings, passion and reasoning through written and spoken word.

This was my way of answering why I would be a great defense attorney. Go me.

Then they asked me why I would make a poor prosecutor. To this I replied that I think that the prosecution has everything easier than defense and that regardless of the rule of law (innocent until proven guilty) that the defense always has a tougher time in court. Furthermore, the jury always looks at the defendant as guilty. They legitimize their projection of guilt from the start by reasoning the Defendant would not have been arrested if he/she did not do something wrong. Police do not just arrest anybody off the street. Because the prosecution has an easier time, I think that I would get bored with practice after a long time, and that I thrive on challenges. If I am not continually being challenged, I lose interest in that which I am expected to do.

I followed up that answer with the fact that I admire the Public Defender because they are very highly worked, underpaid and under-appreciated.

Near the end of the interview, things got serious. The male interviewer turned to me and said, "I am going to give you a case hypo, and we want to see how you answer the questions."

As he outlined the following to me, my mind was off to the races with where the question was going to come into play. Could it be about: malpractice, his verbalizing his guilt to me, witness tampering, ethics, etc.? Little did I know that the issue was all about a person's rights. Even though the hypo was based in criminal law, civil procedure was the knowledge that I tapped into.

The hypo took about five to ten minutes to completely verbally outline, and my answers were expected on the spot. It was a true test of knowledge, as there was no time to think. They pressured me to give answers within seconds of the question: they wanted to see what my instincts and thought processes would reveal.

Not difficult, right?

__________

The story is best told in person, but to summarize it as best as I can, the hypo dealt with me as a brand new Public Defender, assigned to my first case. My Client is a homosexual-hating, illegal immigrant loathing Born-Again Christian. He is charged with assault with a deadly weapon, the weapon being a beer bottle. Your Client says the police report and the charges are completely true, and that he did as charged. He will not, however, make a deal. He says that he is only with you, a half-rate attorney, because he does not have money. But, he makes it clear that there will be no plea or deal made. He is the only caregiver for his two daughters, and he is a trucker. Any record of a conviction causes his trucking license to be automatically revoked. As a life-long trucker, he will lose his income if he loses his license, and he will not be able to support his two girls. It is very clear that no deal will be made. During the night in question, your Client went to the bar to get his usual after-work beer. His days are spent sitting in traffic, so he unwinds by getting a beer and watching ESPN on the bar's television. He does this with normalcy. The entire bar was open, and he was sitting alone minding his own business when a Latino man came and sat down next to him. Your Client became agitated that the Latino man was invading his personal space, and because of his Latino looks, immediately thought he was an illegal immigrant, which upset him even more. My Client thinks that Latinos are the dirt of the world, and that they are ruining the economy, spending tax dollars and other such negative descriptions. Not long after, the Latino man started to "hit" on your Client. My Client started getting really upset and told the man to stop numerous times. The man took each denial and request to stop as a challenge, and tried to "hit" on him even more. My Client could not stand it anymore and hit him over the head with his beer bottle. The bar tender saw everything.

During the jury selection phase, when 11 of the 12 jurors have been selected, the Judge calls for a recess for lunch. He gives the specific instructions that no Juror is to talk to any of the Parties or the Parties' Attorneys, and same the other way around. Since it is my first trial (where I have been inside, cooped-up all morning), I decide to go to Quizno's to relax for a little and get out. When I park in the parking lot, I notice a woman - I only notice her because she is in front of me. She is wearing a shirt that reads "Homosexual = Sin = Aids" and in big letters underneath are the words "Burn In Hell". I also notice that her car has a bumper sticker that says "Illegals Deserve Death".

When I get back to court, the Judge calls the potential Juror Twelve to be questioned. I realize that this is the same woman I saw in the parking lot, but she is wearing a jacket, and her shirt is now covered. The Prosecution and Judge ask questions of the Juror, and you then follow up with my questions. The Prosecution has no problems with the Juror and does not use a peremptory challenge. All that is left is my approval, and she will officially be Juror Twelve.

I was now faced with three options:
1) I can say nothing and dismiss her with a Peremptory Challenge;
2) I can ask for a sidebar with the Judge and the Prosecutor and explain that I saw her, and what she is wearing - tell them all I know; or
3) Say nothing and allow her to be Juror Twelve.

-- What would you answer, and why?--

I told the two highly ranked Public Defenders that I would choose option (3).
__________

The male PD said, "Hmmm. OK. You say nothing and proceed through the trial. You get to the end, and the Jury is sent to deliberate. You become excited because I completed a trial through Jury deliberations, a milestone that 99% of attorneys never reach. Day one goes by without a verdict. You are getting really happy. Day two passes without a verdict. You are living on cloud nine - this is good news, a sign that the Jury is most likely hung or going in your favor. Day three passes as well. On day four, the Foreperson sends the Judge a letter saying 'Juror Twelve will not listen to anybody. She is set in her ways, and is a bigot. She is the only one will not agree on a verdict.' The note also says that Juror Twelve knew you saw her, and that you had knowledge of her beliefs.

The Judge calls for a sidebar. You and the Prosecutor approach the Judge. The Judge then asks you, "Did you know see Juror Twelve?"

-- What would you answer if you made the same decision as I? --

I then evoked my civil procedure knowledge. I told the Interviewers that I would answer, "Absolutely. I saw her in a parking lot."

He then asked, "Did you know about her beliefs?"

I replied that I had seen her wearing a shirt with statements on it, and that her car had a bumper sticker.

The male interviewer then turned to me and said, "Why did you not tell the court about this knowledge."
__________

My answer was the following:

First, my duty as an Attorney is to zealously advocate for my client. As such, it served my client no good by saying something.

Second, I did not violate the orders of the Judge. I did not speak to the potential Juror, I only saw her. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect me to avoid all contact with any potential Juror. If the order required no contact, I would have to walk around in a blacked-out bubble. I followed the order as stated by the Judge.

Third, if my client were "filthy-rich," not only would he have a high-powered Attorney on his behalf, but most likely Jury Consultants and Private Investigators that would have found out this information. Consultants and Private Investigators are legal, and would have provided the same outcome as my Quizno's sighting.

Finally most importantly, my client has the right to a jury of his peers (7th Amendment). My job is to protect my client's rights. Juror Twelve's beliefs happened to have perfectly paralleled those of my Client. Juror Twelve not only has as much right to be on the Jury as the rest of the Jurors, but arguably more so, because she is of the same background as my Client.

-- How did you answer? Close? Here is what one of my Professors said about my answer:
"Great story--great hypo. And you gave absolutely an A+ answer. You should apply for the criminal clinic next year." --

__________

I think my answer pretty much blew them away - heck, it even blew me away. It was surreal, like I was possessed. They were content, to say the least - the Interviewers were speechless. All that they could say was, "Okay! Do you have any questions for us?"

I proceeded to ask what clerks would be able to do in the office. "I know the website states that clerks research, interview witnesses, subpoena evidence and do other such assignments," I said. "But what do law clerks really do?"

The hands on nature of their answer, and the passion for allowing clerks to experience everything from arraignment to trial very much impressed me. The Public Defender's office went from the very bottom of my list - between clerking for an Eskimo in a small village outside Juneau, Alaska and just taking the summer off - to the very top.

I arrived at school with enough time to make it to my Civil Procedure. Again, the class zoomed by, and finally I went home. I had not eaten all day and my stomach was going crazy. I ate, and checked my email.

One of my past employers sent me a message asking me to call him. I use this past employer as a reference and letter of recommendation writer. I called him, and we chatted for a bit, catching up on each other's successes and news of the day.

He then made my day even better. He had been called by the Manhattan District Attorney's office. When I interviewed with the New York District Attorney (aka Manhattan District Attorney), I walked out, head hanging down and very much beaten to a pulp. It was pretty much the worst interview ever. I had very little in common with the ADA with whom I interviewed. I did not really understand the interview tactic until I discussed the substance of the interview with a friend. He pointed out that interviews of this caliber are not poised at finding out who you are - resumes and cover letters do that for you - interviews for positions like this are aimed at seeing how you hold up under pressure. Being the high pressure person I am, I guess I did relatively well. I am still not holding my breath. It is definitely a long-shot.

And that was my day. Pretty good, eh? I'd say so. I was pretty wowed by it. More days like this are just what I need. I go back to NYU in Manhattan tomorrow to drop by tables and schmooze potential employers. What's the worst that could happen?

I could be wowed.

Singing to the Preacher Teacher - February 6, 2008

2008-02-06T23:52:00.000-05:00

My powers of prophecy are getting stronger with each passing day. It is a shame that I can only foresee my own tumultuous downfall, for my premonitions work only when I sense my doom.

I knew today was going to be interesting. It was the only day which I was (and will be) able to wear normal people clothes. Wearing my sandals has begun to be a security blanket of sorts. It reminds me where I came from and most definitely where I wish to end up.

After staying up late watching Wolf Blitzer pontificate with pundits of all sorts, I was poised to have a rough start. Going to bed late and waking up early does not make for an easy life.

The "how close can I cut it" game (where I see how late I can wake up and still make it to class on time) is beginning to take its toll on me. Contracts is rough as it is; my continuous need to yawn and stretch helps nobody.

I sit in the back of my Contracts class. It is not so much a choice as it was forced upon me. It is a class where participation can lift your grade quite significantly. The method to gaining the most points is to not necessarily participate the most, but ensure the Professor recognizes your name when allotting final grades. When the teacher is senile, this is all the more difficult.

Luckily, I have a last name on which Professors tend to fixate. I do not know why, but just like Apple Jacks, they just do. I just try to make it easier for them to remember my name.

I am not a contracts "wiz", nor do I pretend to be. Civil procedure, however, is where I shine. So, when the Professor asked a question about the options an executor has in ensuring the correct dispersal of items on a will that has inconsistencies or trouble with wording, everybody just sat quietly - the door to my world suddenly opened.

He could not believe there were no hands being raised. He again repeated his question, following it up with, "you must have been taught this in civil procedure, people."

The switch flipped so quickly in my head that the light bulb most likely shattered. Up went my hand; to his memory went my name. The glory of my answering the question was the fact that I was not even paying as close attention as I should. Let's just say I was multi-tasking (I needed to prepare for Property later in the day - a great decision by me).

I was correct in my answer, and the glory was mine.

There was a blink in time where I nearly died from overwhelming annoyance. Having previously discussed "Annoying Guy" and "Arch-Nemesis Girl," I was asking for the perfect storm of annoyance to occur. It was just a matter of time before they combined their efforts. "Girl" gave her usual confusing answer that was originally simple (she loves to throw in ever big word she can find in addition to reading large sections of text straight from the book). After the Professor took a minute to try to understand the answer, up to the sky went the hand that is connected to "Annoying Guy's" brain. When his hand goes up, the brain shuts off. He always confuses the life out of me and loves to give his personal feelings about every issue - most of the time connecting his thoughts to a personal story about somebody he knows and should not have shared.

Annoying Guy added his powers of confusion to Annoying Girl's, and when their powers combined I became Captain Annoyed-Face. I wish Ursula from The Little Mermaid would take their voices in exchange for making them no longer annoying. However, I don't even think a Disney villain can help. Woe is me.

After Contracts, Michelle and I went to the library for a very brief period to do some work. When the 12:00 hour came, she and I gathered our belongings and made our way to a meeting. I am usually the only person who identifies with the male gender. This makes the meetings all-the-more fun for me as most of the women are very pretty and incredibly smart - just the way I like it. It is even better that everybody involved is very into public service and altruism. Very sexy.

Pizza was served, and boy did we need it - Michelle has a pizza addiction, so she had been awaiting this meeting since it was scheduled in early January (yeah, she is addicted a little too much - I told her that she has a problem).

After the meeting, off I went to the stupid class where I managed to remain inconspicuous. The Professor did not call on me, which was a safe move for her as I become a volatile creature upon entering the room. Nobody knows what I may do if forced to participate.

Upon the conclusion of class, I jumped for joy, clicked my heals and made my way back to the library. They are pondering dedicating the cubicle I use to me. A bronze placard on which my name will be inscribed is currently being prepared for the naming ceremony. Bars are not the only places that have "regulars".

Nearly two hours later, off Michelle and I went to Property. The reading is as confusing as possible under the circumstances. The material is dry and everything we read is a new definition. This week alone, there have been nearly 50-such definitions, and they are not easy to memorize. The law takes normally used words and gives them a new legal definition that is nowhere near the same as its common meaning. Take a fee simple, for example. What in the world does that mean in common usage? Nobody knows.

We walked into the classroom where I proceeded to flirt with the good looking, and highly desirable girl behind me (the same one who always initiates conversations where I am enabled the opportunity to shamelessly promote myself). Mere minutes before class began, I turned to Michelle and told her that I knew I was going to get called on today.

The Professor always starts class by "randomly" selecting three students who will be on call for the entire two-hour class. After she announces those names, it is off to the races. It is like the lottery short story where names are drawn by the town and a person is stoned each year. They do it because it is tradition. Nobody cares if somebody else is getting stoned, but it is not so good if the stones are being hurled in your direction.

Premonition: Confirmed.

Mr. H, the Minister of Property preached from her pulpit. "Son of a Baptist," I audibly exclaimed. I knew it.

The girl sitting to my left (Michelle sits to my right), turned to me and said good luck. I scoffed at her a big "Thanks. I hate you." She giggled at my demise. I shook my head in disgust.

I managed to make it through the first hour of class without being ceremoniously tied to a lead weight and thrown into the water like a witch in Salem. The question was: would he float during the second hour of class?

While the two young ladies whose names were called along with mine were enabled the opportunity to share the unceasing barrage of questions, the second hour was declared my own. Though my classmates sometimes raise their hand and volunteer the answers, I was without a choice in the matter.

Round one through six was scored in my favor. Seven was not to be had in my scoring column. The question was meant to trick me. The answer was the subject of discussion nearly two weeks prior, and I had no chance going into it.

Eight, nine and ten found themselves in my win column. But, then came eleven. It turns out that any number that rhymes with your name is a number that hates you with a passion.

Question eleven was my Vietnam: I had no business trying to answer it because there was no way I was going to get it correct. The answer was a new type of property that we had neither read nor discussed. When I assuredly got it wrong, I looked perplexed, and my classmates must have looked the same. The Professor is fantastic at perceiving our questions and feelings. The smallest eyebrow raise, slanted mouth or miniscule body movement is taken in by her seemingly all-knowing eyes. What a gift.

The type of property was explained, and we moved on. Questions twelve and thirteen were denoted with a big "W" in my on-screen scoring tracker.

Near the end of class an instant message popped up on my computer screen. "Great job, man," the box displayed. "Great job," I questioned back.

"Yeah! You handled it!"

I proceeded to be perplexed by what was being displayed. I did not think I did that well.

Not long after, my screen blinked again - a message from Michelle - and again, and again. As it became clear to me, my hesitation to be content with my performance was a feeling that only I possessed. From the last five minutes of class and throughout the rest of the night, I received words of congratulations from most of my classmates who had my screen name.

I dedicate this big win to the Dean.

At one point in class, the Professor wanted everybody to answer a question as to the type of property conveyed. When three people of the over 100 answered alone, she stopped. Then she turned slightly to the left and lifted up her head in unison with her arms.

"Come on," she gleefully announced. "I'm workin' on a choir."

Sheer brilliance. I held back from saying, "Amen, preacher teacher." Remaining silent is a decision I regret. It was far-too fitting for this class. I wanted to continue to remain under the radar for as long as possible - as is now known, it was a futile attempt.

I got home, prepared my resume, cover letter and writing sample for my interview tomorrow. I do not want the position as much as I want the legal interviewing experience. Another summer position offer would be nice, however. It would make my decision fantastically hard. As my Mom always said, "To have to decide between two great choices is not the worst thing that should happen." I should be so lucky.

Plus, the interview is giving me a great opportunity to miss my two-hour Contracts class and my two-hours of stupid class. How bad could this interview be?

Sometimes being in the choir is a great option. I will leave the solo performances for the annoying students. Plus, what preacher likes to give the spotlight to somebody else?

Instincts Are Everything - January 5, 2008

2008-02-05T23:08:00.000-05:00

Super Tuesday was not so super.

I thought Monday was harsh; Tuesday crept up out of nowhere. You always have to watch the silent ones.

The day was more awkward and surreal than it was hectic and eventful. I started later than I had planned. Lately, I have been waking up nearly one hour after my alarm sounds-off the first time.

I needed to turn in my research assignment for Appellate Advocacy. The document had to be time-stamped by my Professor's secretary before 12:00PM. The plan was to go to school and turn the assignment in then saunter over to the Department of Labor for my hearing - the hearings take place about two minutes from campus. I was running very far behind. I was so far behind that I had to use my backup plan (read: roommate). I quickly entered my car and drove like a New Yorker towards my destination. I had places to be and middle fingers to show people. New York is an ugly place; I am just trying to fit in.

I swung by my partner's dorm, and off we went to the hearing. He was to perform the direct examination of our client. Because of the special nature of the case, the burden shifted to our client, so she was to testify first. This means that my partner was going to go first as between the two of us.

We told our client to clean up her image for the hearing. We asked her to remove her lip-ring and cut down the earrings to one in each ear. I wanted her to project an innocence that her jet-black half-spiked hair was not accomplishing.

When we arrived, she followed our directions to the detail, and no more. I shook my head as we walked in.

To get to the meat of the story, the employer did not show up, the Judge continued to refer to us as law students on the record, and my partner fizzled. He made very large leaps in questioning, often going from the beginning straight to the conclusion. There was no foundation or story element in his questioning. It was hard to watch - I was going crazy.

During questioning, my client continually played with the pen I had given her. She found a way to make the pen click incessantly in every way possible. I wrote a note to my partner who was seated to her left. The note read: "Take her pen away!" And he did so.

I think the Judge caught on to who was really wearing the pants in the partnership. Every time there was a general question about law or procedure, the Judge would direct it to me. Once I started to read his thoughts and juxtaposed that against our case, I got the picture. It was like discovering the Rosetta Stone.

I really wanted to close at least one of my three cases this week, however nothing I want ever happens. The case today was postponed. Two cases prepped and ready this week, two cases still open. Oh man.

After the case I drove to school. I had asked my roommate to turn in my paper. I trust the gal, but one can never be too sure. I went to go make sure she turned the assignment in, as it was not quite noon. I was right, it was not turned in. Instincts are everything.

I called her, and it turns out she was just walking into the Law School. I met her halfway, complained to her about my frustration with my partner, confirmed our meeting with my third client, and took the paper from her. I turned the assignment in and walked to Civil Procedure.

Civil Procedure is a blip on the screen of my day display. It came and went, and I do not remember much about it, other than the fact that it happened.

Then the fun began.

I met Client Three in the lobby of the Law School and was joined by Lindsay not too much later. Before I go forward, let's go back.

Lindsay is a fantastic partner. The girl can hold her own, and actually understands the process. It is like projecting another one of me into another human being for hearing purposes (and nothing more). Needless to say, taking cases with her is a relief.

So, when a new case is available, an email is sent out to all the advocates. Cases are claimed on a first-come first served basis. When we saw this case come up, though I already had two, and the location of the hearing were not great, we snatched it up. We did this for a few reasons, but one stands out the most: the client was involved in the case that we just appealed. She was terminated for the same reason as our last client. Let's just say that Lindsay and I know the case, just a little.

We sat down with our client, and told her she had to ask for an adjournment - this is when a case is temporarily closed - and we were met with hesitation. The client did not want to reschedule, she wanted to get it done. We told her that the choice was up to her, but that we not only knew the case, but we know the system. We explained how much benefit she gains from having us there. Her daughter, who was there with her, went to go call her father to get his approval, and long story concluded: she is doing as we asked.

When Lindsay and I discussed who would do the direct examination and who would take care of the cross examination, we unanimously decided that Lindsay would do the direct and I would do the cross. We both reasoned that the employer is already scared of me quite a bit, and that the second time around would be classic.

After meeting with the client I sat and waited. The next meeting was going to be interesting.

I have a history of being on a first-name basis with the top administrators at schools and colleges. There are a number of reasons (including my Type-A personality) that I am given such attention. The biggest reason is usually my yearning for fairness and justice. If I feel something I wrong, I try to fix it.

I walked towards the Dean's Suite. I walked in to a smiling Dean and walked out no better off than I was when I entered. The Dean, however, was no longer smiling. But this is a story for another time. Sorry, folks.

I came home very drained and only wanting to sleep. So, that is what I am going to do now.

My subconscious is my happy place. So is CNN. And, Carl Bernstein is old.

Bat To Head Syndrome - February 4, 2008

2008-02-04T23:25:00.000-05:00

Monday hit me like a corked bat, straight to my head (not corked).

In order to understand my woes, it is necessary to understand my schedule.

Monday:
- Property Class
- Meeting with Student Bar Association Rep to Budget for a Big Event We Are Planning
- Case with Client 1
- Meeting with Professor 1
- Meeting with Professor 2
- Work to be done: Research and Research Report; Prep for Case 2

Tuesday:
- Case with Client 2
- Turn in Research Report before 12:00PM
- Civil Procedure
- Meeting with Client 3
- Meeting with Dean
- Work to be done: Reading for Contracts; Reading for Property

Wednesday:
- Contracts
- Fellowship Meeting
- Law for Dummies Class
- Property
- Work to be done:
- Reading for Contracts; Reading for Civil Procedure; Prep for Interview

Thursday:
- Interview with Los Angeles Public Defender in Manhattan @ NYU
- Missing: Contracts and Law School for Idiots
- Civil Procedure
- Work to be done: Prep for Appellate Advocacy; Prep for Career Fair

Friday:
- NYU Career Fair with Michelle
- Pass out on couch.

It is important to note that I only go one day without wearing a suit this week; this is a tie of my personal record.

Keeping me busy is a good thing. Most anybody who knows me will attest that I do the best under pressure with what would otherwise be too much for a normal person to handle. In fact, whether subconscious or with active knowledge, I seem to hunt down the most packed schedule possible.

Today was an interesting day. I got a quick start with Property class. The assigned reading contained nearly 50 definitions, just enough to make me go crazy (brought to me by the makers of the "G-d Hates Me Lake"). Property law is quite interesting and very useful, but is not my favorite. I could not see myself settling disputes between owners of land, estates or any sort of Chattel (look it up).

I got through the two-hours of preaching - revisit the description of my professor - and was ready to get my hearing on. The excitement began when three gorgeous - and very religiously desirable - ladies who site behind me ask me why I was looking so "snazzy". This is the moment that a guy like me cherishes. I never like to brag or make myself sound good, unless somebody opens the door and invitingly asks me. When that door is open, watch out. Perhaps this is why I like interviews.

I turned to the object of what was to be my verbal affection and proceeded to make insinuated and very non-literal love to myself. I told them that I had a hearing today.

Cue the disgusted faces.

What did I do? Hearing? And then it hit me that when a student says they have a hearing, it is usually a bad thing.

I had to counter the disgust. I am trying a case today in front of a judge for unemployment law. I told them about how it is a real case, in front of real judge, in my best Judge Judy intro impression. I included that I get to do all the stuff that we don't get to do in law school, and that basically, it is what keeps me coming back.

After I finished building myself up, nothing could stop me.

Cue the Judge.

I had spoken to one of the third-year law students about the Judges at the site that I go to most often. Of course, my disdain for the incompetent Judge, and he told me about his least favorite. Two out of three Judges in this one location were the subject of the conversation. I finally got my chance to meet Bad Judge number two.

There is a spectrum of Judges and two scales. This is a lot to contend with. The first scale, or what we shall call the "Ego Scale" goes from hating the job to loving ones-self. The second is one I know as the "Rule Scale". This one is a bit more complicated. It starts at a total disregard for any rules of evidence or procedure to a love-affair with the application of the rules. Judge One, or the incompetent Judge, hates her life and hates the rules. Judge Two loves the rules almost as much as he loves himself and his title.

Judge One despises me, so of course, I am only going to take cases in front of Judge Two. And, today I had Case 1 in front of him.

We will play a game about the worth of my partner. Finish this sentence: "What is he good for? Absolutely _____ "

If you said, "nothing," you win a prize suitable for this occasion - nothing.

He saw me take out my notes and questions. He said, "You printed it out?" I told him, "uh, yeah!"

I asked him if he did, and upon his answer of no, I looked puzzled and asked him if he memorized his, then? He said, "Dude, I am going to do it from my computer." I relayed to him that he was not going to be able to use it, he argued with me, and ended up not listening.

We walked into the hearing and he placed his computer on the desk. The inquisitive Judge looked at him and asked what he was doing. After he tried to explain to the Judge that he had notes on his computer, the Judge lambasted him and told him to shut it.

My partner also has Bronchitis, and put a cough drop into his mouth without asking the Judge. You could hear the hard cough drop swishing around his mouth, hitting his teeth. The clicking and loud swallowing was quite a scene-maker.

I had to do something. I then turned to the Judge and explained for my partner that my partner is a little under the weather and that it was not candy.

He was also wearing very nice, but very-not-suit-pants, pants.

You now understand where I am coming from when I say worthless and semi-embarrassing.

As I said, my client is the most believable man ever, but we did not even get to him today. I was tending to the direct examination of our client, so my partner had his chance to show me his worth when performing the cross examination of the employer. My partner struggled along in his cross of the lone employer present. He tried three different times to ask three different questions, and all three times he was shut down by the Judge for one reason or another. His grand total of questions answered by the employer was zero.

I was blown away. He did it again!

The Judge decided to get two witnesses on the phone for questioning during the hearing. After asking his questions, the Judge turned to us and asked us if we had any questions for the witnesses (after they were asked one at a time). After the first witness was questioned, when the Judge turned to my partner to ask him if we had anything, the famous blank stare was returned. Super Me to the rescue. On the spot I cross-examined the witnesses and dealt with an adversarial Judge. He made me fight for my questions.

At one point, the employer pulled out a stack of time cards and wanted to enter them into evidence. I had suspected this would occur, so I prepped my partner on how to object, and what to do. Again, he froze when asked if we had any objections to the time cards being entered. I answered with an objection as to the time card's authenticity. The Judge recessed for five minutes so that we could "look the cards over". The truth is, I did not need the time. I knew exactly what was on the cards and their condition.

When we returned, the Judge asked me if I had any further objections. I stated that the Claimant renews his objection as to the authenticity of the time cards, and that I wished to bring to the Judge's attention the fact that there are three identifiably different handwriting styles within the stack of the time-cards (of handwriting on the cards, where my client's name was printed) and that not one of those three handwriting's belonged to that of my client. I further pointed out that on not one card was there any signature on the line that said "signature". As such, there was no way to authenticate the cards, and so on and so forth.

The Judge said, "Do you have any evidence that shows that these are not his time cards?" Did he ever go to law school? He said he practiced, but there is no way to know when the man made a statement like that?

I wanted to reach across the table and handily place my New York Labor Law statutes in his face and point out the definition of "burden of proof" and then show him the rules of evidence.

Anyhow, with my objection clearly noted on the record (an appealable issue), he entered it into evidence.

It became clear that the only rules that applied were those that weakened my client's case.

He also kept referring to us as law students on the record, which irked me to no end. I wanted to call him by his normal title of Mr. instead of Judge, but I don't think that would have made him happy.

The Judge decided that he wanted to hear the Employer's other witnesses, so he decided to adjourn the case to a later date.

I really wanted to get this out of the way.

Of course, the Employer and his witnesses (via telephone) lied through their pants. They contradicted themselves and gave highly calculated answers. For example, one owner said that my client's supervisor did not make an announcement, but the supervisor said that he did make an announcement to the workers, including my client, but then he said that he never spoke to my client.

My head was spinning, and it has not stopped.

My two meetings with my professors went exactly how I foresaw them going. The production was the same that administrators and professors nationwide are notorious for: nothing. Their infallibility is not to be challenged.

When I got home, all I wanted to do was sleep. Alas, that was not even possible. I had to finish my research report that is due tomorrow, and read for civil procedure.

The rest of my night (as if there was a "rest") was filled with laying in bed, contemplating sleep and preparing for tomorrows case, with the same Judge. I planned on going to bed before 10:00PM, because I really was tired, but my lifeless body had work to do.

Hopefully my partner is more prepared for the case tomorrow. The Great Puppet-Master in the Sky knows he will not be. I do not know why I even try.

This is my life.

The Kiddos - February 1, 2008

2008-02-01T23:04:00.000-05:00

My normally quiet Friday was not so silent. I awoke much-too-early to attend an appointment with my dentist at 8:00 AM. I showed up on-time and sat in the waiting room.

I watched the news for about 10 minutes, when another dentist walked out, gave me a funny look and summoned me to t he receptionist's desk. After asking me why I was there - which is a normally odd question to ask a patient in a waiting room - he told me that the person who scheduled me for the appointment must have made a mistake because (a) my dentist is never in on Fridays, and (b) my dentist is on vacation for five weeks. After telling him that I think I may be going into the wrong profession, I left his office. I was pretty upset that I was up so early.

I made my way to school, and sat in the student lounge until my class began. Class was enjoyable, as is usual, but after the fun was to begin.

I know I swore that I would never do the mock trial program with the fifth-graders again, but I am a sap for children. I arrived in pouring rain, with cold feet (I stepped in "Lake G-d Hates Me" in the parking lot wearing my sandals). The school was the very first all-indoors school I had ever been in. It was a "Saved By The Bell" experience.

Anyhow, I entered the classroom and was greeted with very excited and very respectful fifth graders. This was a complete contrast from the last class of kids I was assigned.

I ran my usual session with them. The kids call me Mr. H, and I have them all make name placards that say Mr. or Ms. _____. I refer to them as Mr. or Ms. or counselor (if I cannot read their handwriting) because I tell them that we are going to operate how the courts operate. When they started to get unruly, I reminded them that in court they have to do whatever the Judge says, and that they cannot speak unless they are given permission to do so.

I taught them the basics of the civil court system, from the ground up. At one point, I asked the class what we call the two parties who go to court. I did not think they would know, but I like to keep things interactive.

One girl raised her hand. I begrudgingly called on her, as it is never fun to tell somebody that they are wrong. She answered: "Plaintiff and Defendant?"

My face must have been classic. The complete feel of "stun" ran through my body. I asked her if she had any lawyers in her family. She told me that she did not. So, I followed up with, "That was absolutely correct. How in the world did you know that?"

"Judge Judy," she said.

I turned to the teacher and quipped, "That may be the first good thing Judge Judy ever did on TV."

After we got through how a trial progresses, I taught them how to ask direct and cross examination questions. Because they are getting to know me, I have each student ask me questions about me. We start with direct examination (open-ended questions) and after everybody asks me one question correctly, I have each student ask me a cross-examination question (closed-ended questions).

These are always classic, and because of the nature of the questions, I always tell them that they can ask me anything that they would ask their teacher. It keeps things safe.

These kids were very smart. Usually, I can tell a lot from the kinds of questions the kids ask. The basic questions are always asked: "What is your first name? How old are you? What is your favorite sport. What kind of law do you study?"

I got all those questions, but I want to share my favorites.

When asked who my favorite NBA star is, I answered Kobe Bryant, and the kids nearly mobbed me. They half-booed me and the hum of chatter rose quickly.

One of the girls ask me "Are you married?" The teacher nearly lunged in an effort to make the student stop asking the question. I answered "No." The girls giggled, and on to the next question I went.

The first time around, one of the boys asked me "Who are you going to vote for on Tuesday?" Again, the teacher went to stop the answer, but I proceeded anyhow. "How I am going to vote is for me to know, and for me alone." And then, the teacher smiled appreciatively.

But, the kids are smarter than that. The second time around - for cross-examination questions - the same boy asked me "Do you like Obama?" I hesitated, and answered, "Yes, I LIKE him..." and left it at that. Sly little people!

Tomorrow will be interesting. I have a meeting with Client 1 and Client 2 back-to-back, a research project to complete and I have to prep for hearings for Client 1 on Monday and Client 2 on Tuesday.

Plus, the Super Bowl features a team based where I am living for the first time in forever - and I do not even care.

Life will be fun.