children, grand juries, and big career prospects

Some random thoughts from a weekend spent reading too much law:

• In the legal world, it seems that children and the mentally insane are often grouped in the same category. In a way I feel badly for BOTH demographics in this comparison. Though I guess it makes some sense when you consider that you probably wouldn't trust testimony coming from either a schizophrenic or a 2-year old.
  

• I enjoy the term "grand juries". It makes the jury sound so regal, like they were picked specially for a higher calling than the rest of us, particularly those of us unlucky to end up on just a regular, plain jury. I like to imagine the grand jury sitting around a table in ballgowns and tuxes, drinking tea brewed by the judge in his mahogany chambers... which he also lets the grand jury (but never oh NEVER the regular jury) hang out in all the time.
  

• In my civpro book, in discussing expert witnesses, the author provided some examples of who experts can be. Here's the quote... and my subsequent analysis with my brother:
  

"On a given point, the needed expert may be a doctor, a chemist, a fingerprint specialist, a musician, a carpenter, or anyone with a specialty"

Me: What a random assortment of jobs to pick. And it sort of rhymes!
My Brother: They should have dipped into Nursury rhymes...."A expert can be a butcher... a baker..... a candlestick maker..."

If only my whole book was written my Mother Goose... and the cases were about spiders frightening Ms. Muffett and dishes running off with spoons. I think that is what I am going to do with my law degree - write the very first nursery-rhyme centered textbook. Look for it on shelves in three years.

When Rhyming and Law collide

So here I am, reading a case for my legal writing assignment, and I get to the end where there is a footnote. I start reading the footnote.. and realize that it is RHYMING. It is a footnote poem summing up the case and court's decision. I don't know if it was written by Wendell A. Miles, senior United States District Judge of Michigan, but it's not credited to anyone... so I am assuming it's his little tail-note to the opinion. Why all cases are not just written in rhyme I have no clue. Seems a better format, no?

Here is some footnote poetry, at its finest:

When your job is on the line but you've worked, put in your time
don't despair or lose your cool, dump some oil, now who's the fool
bribe the management and make them bristle
if all else fails, just blow the whistle
no response, so you try court but your time there may be short
because your claim did not have merit you were dismissed, now grin and bear it
hereby DENIED are a motion to amend
as well as one filed to extend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Van Valkenburghs are dead

Last week we read a case about feuding neighbors whose issues began in 1946 and continued for more than 20 years. The litigation was over a small piece of land where one family the Lutzes - though it was not their land - had planted a garden and set up a small home for the Mr. Lutz's mentally handicapped brother. The other family - the Van Valkenburghs - later bought the land from the government, sort of as a "fuck you" to the Lutzes because Mr. Lutz had chased the Van Valkenburgh children out of his garden one day waving an iron pipe and screaming "I'll kill you!". Why any parents would get upset about this is beyond me. Why Lutz did not even show up to his criminal trial is also mysterious.

So the arguments go back and forth, they both fire their small town lawyers and hire wall street attorneys, one builds a big fence between their properties so the other cant walk across it, Mr.Lutz DIES but his wife keeps up with the lawsuits in his honor (presumably) AND ps, the book also makes important mention that the citizens of the town totally loved the Lutzes but didn't like those Van Valkenburghs. Cause that's going to matter a lot in court.

Anyway, my favorite part of this whole mess is the conclusion the book writes as a "here's what happened after the trials ended":

"Eugene Lutz and his wife [caretakers of mentally handicapped brother] continued to live in the Lutz house. The traveled way, bound by a tall chain link fence, and the house were guarded by two ferocious dogs, whose menacing barks warned strangers away. The Van Valkenburghs are dead. The triangular tract - the subject of this bitter dispute between neighbors - is now owned by a church."

Absolutely ridiculous.

Wheel of lawsuit

Did you know that in 1993 Vanna White sued Samsung Electronics alleging infringement of various intellectual property rights? It's true. In part, White alleged that Samsung infringed on her right of publicity by "appropriating her identity".

Want to know how they "appropriated her identity"? They aired a commercial with a ROBOT in a blonde wig and gown standing next to a big wheel. The caption underneath read "Longest Running game show: 2012 AD".

That's it. Essentially, making fun of the longevity of the show itself and not poor, mistreated Vanna. And yet she sued the electronics company for appropriating her identity in the form of a robot. Seriously? I mean, I am not even going to get into the legal issues involved here but rather just focus on the fact that this woman who makes a living (and a pretty nice one at that) pointing to a big-ass wheel took the time to meet with her lawyer about this robot. And then she took the time to sue the company. And then she took the time to go to trial because of a robot in a wig. I mean, seriously!! Was she afraid that people would confuse her with the robot? If so, I guess she has some bigger issues. Was she annoyed that Samsung seemed to be profiting off her image? But they could have put ANYTHING beside that wheel. They could have placed an elephant next to the wheel and we would get the connection because the reference is to the gameshow - not her. Would she have sued them for allegedly alluding to her as an elephant? What about a robot elephant?

If I ever run into Vanna on the street I am going to tell her that her unnecessary litigious nature makes me sad. But not before I ask her if it's really her I'm speaking with and not some crazy robot imitation version of Vanna White, cause I get confused like that. Most people would.

I am not CJ Craig

I love the West Wing. Particularly CJ Craig. She’s witty, smart, and awesome… not gonna lie, I’ve got a small girl crush on her. So it may not surprise you that she turned up in my dream last night that was sort of a cross between the West Wing, my fear of being called on in law school, and the 2008 Elections. Intrigued? Read on.

So in my dream, for some reason I was the person who was in charge of giving announcements that day at the White House. Like a guest speaker but from the masses. And they gave me some big paragraph to read where I was going to be announcing the next president.. or presidential nominee, or… anyway, it was something important. How I warranted this honor I have no idea. Dreams are cool like that. But then 30 seconds before I am supposed to go on, the nominee backs out. They still want to announce somebody in the speech though! So there is a whole panic attack behind the scenes where people were all asking “who wants to be president? Quick! We need someone! Seriously, anyone will do” (dreams don’t mimic real life at ALL, huh??). Some random guy then volunteers and CJ scribbles his name onto my speech for me. 2 seconds later, I’m up.

I walk up to the lectern and stupidly have not practiced reading this speech at all. So I’m stumbling over words, trying to speak slowly, and then I come to an entire MISSING PARAGRAPH. I try to bullshit something about how great our country is but it’s clear I have no CLUE what I am doing and then I come to the end of the speech where I say ‘Ladies and Gentlemen, the next nominee for the president… mmmphrmphh”,

Yup, that’s what it sounded like. I literally mumbled something indistinguishable because I had no idea how to pronounce this new guy’s last name... and everyone cheered anyway. Go figure.

Interpretations?

Scavenger hunts for the library-bound

Today we had the first of many trainings in the library. We were taken around in small groups by legal librarians and they began to teach us how to do legal research. We were then given a problem (mine was whether you can try a juvenile as an adult for burglary in Arizona) and let loose into the stacks to research the answer.

This is when I had what is possibly one of my biggest dork moments to date (though I guess that’s always debatable. I’ve got lots).

“Oh, it’s like a scavenger hunt!” I exclaimed.
It wasn’t until after the words came out of my mouth that I realized just how ridiculous that statement was. Even more ridiculous was the fact that this was exclaimed. Happily. Equating legal research with joy.

Maybe I’ve just been out of the library for too long or maybe this reveals that I honestly really like research. In any case, now it's out in the open. And while I could be embarrassed, I am going to choose to be proud. Proud if for no other reason than that I realize much of the next chapter of my life is going to be centered around this research, so I better learn to embrace the inner (and blatantly outer) dorkiness ☺

Fox is to baseball as law is to crazy!!!

Today we got an email sent to the entire law school community reminding us that what we say on the internet can seriously affect our job prospects in the future. The email made references to multiple law students and lawyers who had posted something dumb on a blog or said something bad about another person in a seemingly anonymous forum and then subsequently gotten fired or not confirmed for a seat on the bench, etc. Basically, the email made me fear email, internet, and ever using my keyboard again.

None the less, I decided to press on with the blog. Because I am not a bad person and while my entries may laugh at legal cases, they do not (or hopefully do not) offend people. But let me just put out there now that if you are a person who plans on suing me in the future, please stop reading this blog now because I don't like you very much and I think you should find some other website on which to amuse yourself.

Now on to the important things.

For my property class today we read 4 cases related to who has possession of foxes, whales, ducks, and a baseball. Obviously I am leaving out details of the cases and simplifying things here but in the middle of class I was sitting there, furiously typing notes, listening to people make incredibly intelligent comments over whether a whale who sinks to the bottom of the ocean is the property of the whaler who killed it and how does this relate to foxes and is killing foxes in the public good and how does all this relate to a headmaster poising himself outside a school with a shotgun to scare away students (seriously) ...
and I took a step back and just thought - what the heck are we doing here?!?!? I mean, I followed the logic and the discussion and I DO understand why these cases are significant, but property rights to a fox you are chasing down the beach? Why did you even bring that case in the first place, you 19th century litigation-happy fox killer?? Was it worth that much effort? And did you realize, in bringing that lawsuit, that you would be forever studied by law students around the country and in turn laughed at FOR said lawsuit? Did you??

And isn't it funny that this ancient case about foxes was later referenced in the court decision over the Barry Bonds baseball that 2 fans fought over?
Moral of the story:
Foxes and Baseballs. So different... and yet both have inspired property lawsuits. I heart America.

Cannibalism, and other fun labor day activities

Here are some short summaries of the cases I have read over this long weekend, for your enjoyment. This way, you too can learn the law! While not in formal case briefing format, I still think they give a good sense of the issues (and of some of the ridiculousness of the law).

Torts:
Can you sue a 5 year old for pulling a chair out from under an old woman who was about to sit there if he did it intentionally? Turns out you not only CAN, but you can get $11,000 in the process. Pretty sweet, if you don't mind that whole bringing a lawsuit against a kindergartener part of the deal.

Criminal Law:
If you are shipwrecked in a small boat and decide to kill the kid who’s too weak from starvation and dehydration to defend himself, you may get a good meal out of it but it turns out you WILL be tried for cannibalism (casually referred to back then as the "custom of the sea")... because after ignoring it for a while, it finally became time in 1884 to set the example that eating your shipmates does not make for good sailing.

Property:
Yes, the Native Americans were here first but really, they were just savages who didn’t know how to use the land so it’s not a big issue that they can’t technically OWN any of it. But hey, we still let them live here because we believe in freedom, justice and all that other stuff in our constitution.
(By the way, in reading this case I had the enchanting melody “Savages!” stuck in my head from that oh-so-politically-correct Disney movie Pocahontas. If you don’t know the song, I do NOT suggest googling the lyrics. They’re possibly more offensive than this case itself)

Back to school...

Remember that part in Billy Madison where Adam Sandler is standing on the side of the road singing about returning to school? Everything seems so great. He's going to prove to his dad that he is not a fool. He's got a lunch box packed with delicious treats.
I sort of feel like Billy Madison. Not in the "I'm about to begin Kindergarten" way, but in the "I am sort of old and starting school again" way. I think a couple of years off can do that to you.

Anyway, I don't really know if anyone is going to read this, but after reading for most of the weekend I realized I am going to need some sort of outlet to talk about school. And life. And sorry, sometimes law. But hopefully in a fun way that does not exclude those of you who have made the life choice not to subject yourself to law school. I respect you and your decision and also wonder if in the next few months I will come to envy your decision making skills.

In any case, I am at the point now where I am pretty excited about school. Nervous about all the work and all the things I am going to learn, sure, but also really looking forward to forcing myself to think in new ways and dive back into that library. Maybe i will look back at this entry in a month and laugh/cry/freak out about what I just said, but that is ok. Because it's all just part of the process (or at least, that is going to be my mantra from now on).

Thanks for reading.