xtitsx: (Default)
( 14 Mar 2017 04:05 pm)
Thursday was a great big long day at Law School.
i woke up at 7:21am, left the house at 8:07am, my first class of the day started at 8:30am, and the last class of the day ended after 4:50pm. i didn't get home until 5:10pm.
i spent the rest of the day sitting stupidly on the sofa, totally devastated from the effort.

first up in Property we spent the first half of class talking about Reciprocal Negative Easements.
for those of you that don't know, an Easement is a property right that some other person or persons has against your land.
the right to walk across it, or string up power lines or some such...
a Negative Easement is something that you can't do to your own property, paint it purple or keep your car up on cinder blocks on the lawn.
Reciprocal Negative Easements are a thing where, even though you might not have any easements specified in the deed of your property, you might have them imposed on you anyway because your neighbors have them on theirs.
that seems totally dicked up, but, it's a thing.
so, if all of the lots in your neighborhood have deeds that say they must be used for residential purposes only, but yours doesn't say anything like that, you still might not be able to build a commercial building because it might change the nature of the community.
it's an example of community rights trumping individual rights, which offends the libertarian in me.
the Dean said that there are plenty of reasons while Reciprocal Negative Easements are a good thing, about how they help preserve property values or whatever, but, fuck you, don't tell me what i can and cannot do with my own shit!
we spent the second half of class reviewing the Rule Against Perpetuities because i good hunk of the class still doesn't get it and i guess it's really important for the Dean that he teach it to us so we understand.
i still don't understand, but, i think we've beat the horse dead trying to explain it already.

after awkwardly dancing once more with the Rule Against Perpetuities class got out ten minutes early.
i spent the time pacing back and forth in the room until my Legal Writing II classmates came in.
we started Legal Writing II off like we often do, playing a round or two of Citation Jeopardy.
i went with my group and the Professor gave us a case to cite.
i started writing my answer and before the rest of my group had something to put up, i thought i might have something so i stuck up my submission.
i wasn't correct, but i ended p being more correct then the rest of my group.
it took the rest of the class several minutes worth of guessing and guessing and flipping back and forth through the Blue Book before finally somebody else in some other group figured out exactly what nit-picky shit the Professor was looking for.
it wasn't quite a victory for me, but i was proud of myself that for once, i had an answer that was kinda-sorta close to being a little bit right.
most of the time i just zone out during Citation Exams.

for the rest of class our Professor talked about the big Trial Brief that we have to turn in the first week of April.
it will be around 5,000 words and, for the first time, it won't be objective but subjective.
we will have a fake client to represent and we have to write a brief either opposing or advancing a motion for Summary Judgment.
half the class will be writing for the plaintiff in a civil suit, the other half, including myself will be writing for the defense.
our situation revolves a civil suit stemming from a car accident when a father was teaching his son to drive a car.
the question is whether the son was an employee of the driving school that the father operated, or if he was just a father teaching his boy to drive.
that will determine whether the defense of Parental Immunity applies.
another variable is whether the stature of limitations for the boy to sue his father has expired. the day that it was supposed to expire was Rosh Hashanah, two years after the boy turned eighteen.
the Court's website said it would be closed for Rosh Hashanah, but they turned out to be open.
i have to figure out what difference all of that makes by reading precedent case law.
the Professor won't be giving us any case law or pointing us in any directions, we have to do our research on our own.
i hate this shit already.

during lunchtime our entire First Year class had a mandatory meeting in the assembly hall to listen to the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs talk to us about planing our Second Year course of study.
the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs is a mean, nasty prison-guard of a woman and she started the meeting out by yelling at all the people who didn't show up for the meeting.
lady, we're the ones that are here. what are you yelling at us for?
unlike First Year where all of our classes were mandatory and we didn't have any choice in determining what we would learn, in Second Years get to pick their own schedules.
except for me, and the five other Part Time kids, our schedule is predetermined to be all the classes we did not take during our First Year, so, the meeting wasn't really for me.
there was free pizza, though, Domino's not Pappa John's like they normally have.
i ate two slices, then, at the end of the meeting, i waited for everybody to leave the assembly and i nabbed a pizza box with seven slices of sausage to bring home for the PSE and i to have for supper.
when i went to Contract, my classmates all looked at me like 'look at that motherfucker, taking all that pizza' but, what, i should let it go to waste?

in Contracts we talked about Contract Interpretation.
what to do when terms are ambiguous or in conflict or are just generally incoherent.
we were talking about patent ambiguities, ambiguities that could be obvious to somebody with just a basic understanding of how grammar works, as opposed to latent ambiguities, which are ambiguities that only emerge once you know the facts of the particular deal being contracted for.
with patent ambiguities, you generally want to abide by the Four Corners rule, if meaning can be found within the confines of the document, you go with that, but, if meaning cannot be found, you have to apply an interpretive methodology.
what are the circumstances of the deal? what are the dictionary definitions of the terms used? are the terms of trade different from the dictionary definitions? how are the terms used in relation to the performance of the deal contracted for?
then you have to work out what party has the burden of proof to support their interpretation of the ambiguous meaning.

after Contracts, 3:20pm, is normally quttin' time, but on Thursday we had the second of four bonus Property classes that are required for the entire class of First Years.
i don't know what the deal is with these “bonus” classes, if Property is going to end two weeks earlier then the rest of the semester's classes.
i sure as shit don't want to end up getting any more of an education then i am required to by the American Bar Association.
but, attendance was taken, so, i didn't have any choice but to turn up.
the entire class of First Years gathered back in the assembly hall, all three sections of Property Class, to listen to a guest speaker prattle on at us for an hour and a half.
the guest speaker was a former English professor back in the 1960s who inadvertently became a property developer when he tried to start a hippie commune in the North Carolina woods.
he wrote a book that our Dean Professor assigned us to read about how he started off just letting any ol' body move into his property but ended up having to put in all kinds of easements and restrictions and covenants.
the guy was a big believer in the use of covenants to limit what people can and cannot do on their property.
at the end of his talk, during a question and answer period i asked the guy if his experience as an inadvertent developer had changed his politics, if 1960s hippie him would be surprised at the way he turned out.
he didn't give a very good answer. i would have pressed for depth, but it was damned-near 5:00pm and my classmates just wanted to get the fuck home already.
the guy had an accent like Bernie Sanders but looked a lot like George W. Bush.

//[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