in Property on Tuesday we talked about mortgages and about how sometimes a thing can be a mortgage even though it isn't labeled as such.
if something functions as a mortgage, if you've got somebody holding property as collateral to pay back a debt, it's a mortgage and, as such, certain rules apply that give home-owners opportunities to pay back their debts, even after the foreclosure process has begun.
we talked about the foreclosure process and i got to daydreaming about just having the PSE buy a house, default on the payments, have the bank foreclose on the house, then coming in and picking up the house at auction on the cheep.
that probably won't work, there are too many moving parts, but, it was nice to daydream for a while while the Professor went on and on about some dumb thing.
when i came to again, we were talking about creditor reach.
about whether or not different creditors can foreclose on your house if you are married and own your house as joint tenants or tenants-by-the-entireties and only one of the parties as racked up debt.
turns out, no, creditors generally cannot foreclose on your house if an innocent party owns half of it.
we extended that conversation to people burning down their houses or shops for insurance money.
in circumstances like that, insurance companies are obligated to pay put at least half of their policy when one married person commits arson but the other party is innocent.
i'll keep that tidbit in my toolkit in case i should need it in the future.

like we often do, we started Legal Writing II with a round of Citation Jeopardy.
only this time, instead of me going to stand near my small group and zoning out while my three other classmates did the work, i got in the game and answered the question.
it was easy enough: “what is the proper legal citation for the court that covers the Panama Canal Zone?”
because the Panama Canal Zone was its own U.S. territory between 1903 and 1979 bu the ten-mile wide strip of land wasn't big enough to support its own District Court.
so i flipped to the part of the Blue Book that listed the Panama Canal Zone and looked up how to cite to cases that might have taken place there.
it turns out it was the court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has jurisdiction, or, in legal citation jive, E.D. La..
which is what i wrote and what i held up first for the Professor to come around and look at.
he just made a face then went and looked at some other group's paper and said they were write.
they wrote E.D. La..
'motherfucker, that's what i wrote!' i said under my breath, but i didn't make a big deal about it because the other group that one was way behind in points.
still, it sucks that the one time i know what i'm doing and i do it right, i don't get the acknowledgment for reasons that i don't understand.
it's a rigged game! the fix is in!
i spent the rest of class not paying much attention.

after Legal Writing i went down to the library in the basement to work on an Interactive Citation Workbook assignment that was due for Legal Writing a few days later.
Interactive Citation Workbook is a website that gives you information about a brief you are trying to write and some precedent cases you need to cite, and makes you put everything in precise BlueBook format.
it is probably the worst thing about Law School. if you don't get everything just right, if you forget to italicize a comma, the machine counts you wrong, because there is no arguing with a machine.
in Terminator fan fiction, this is how The Machines get their horrible start.
last semester in Legal Writing I i was able to get the Interactive Citation Workbook activities accomplished on my own after a few tries for each question but this time around they've increased in difficulty to a point where i just don't know what the fuck they want from me.
i could read the relevant sections in the BlueBook, but that's not the kind of man i am.
instead, i went to go bug my Legal Writing T.A., who was working a shift at the library circulation desk and had her hold my hand through the thing.
it was a waste of forty minutes of her time, but that's what she gets paid for.
i think. i assume, at least.

i did not have any lunch on Thursday.
normally there is food to be found at Law School for anybody who looks hard enough and Thursday was no exception.
there are always clubs having meetings or some other thing and i heard tell that there were boxes of fried chicken going around.
the Black Law Student Association, i assume.
but, because i had to spend my lunch break pestering my T.A. to do my homework for me, i didn't have the time to go scavenge.
i knew this would be a problem and i asked the PSE to pack me a lunch, but she didn't so i had to go hungry on Thursday.
i ate a few Nature Valley peanut-and-oat-and-whatever-else bars that i keep in my locker but by the time i got to Contracts, i was out of energy.

in Contracts we talked about the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods.
the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods, or CISG as its known by assholes who talk about this kind of stuff, is private international law.
as opposed to international law that matters, like the Geneva Conventions or the International Criminal Court, this is law that just controls what laws govern when international businesses contract with each other.
though, perhaps predictably, the CISG has more practical effect then the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is just a nice piece of paper somebody wrote that nobody actually gives a shit about.
we talked about the ways the CISG was different from the Uniform Commercial Code we have here in the States, and the common law.
mostly it all has to do with when and how items can be returned.
i was way too drained by the end of the day to care.
though i doubt i could muster all that much enthusiasm even if i had a healthy, well-balanced lunch.

//[ab irato ad astra]

September 2017

      1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23