Thursday was a motherfucker of a day at Law School.
it was a full day, with my alarm going off at 7:21 and with me not getting back home again until 5:45pm.

first up, in Property we talked about marital property and how that happens in divorce.
we talked about alimony, which is a topic that really grinds my gears.
alimony is predicated on the basic assumption that the party receiving it isn't as capable of taking care of themselves as any fucking adult is supposed to be.
that somehow being married for some stretch of time leaves you retarded to the level of a preteen.
i had just assumed that alimony was going out of fashion legally, going the way of fault-divorces and traditional gender roles.
i thought that with all the progress society has been making lately with eradicating gender roles, with letting people decide what kind of men, women and otherwise they want to be, [which i enthusiastically support and find long overdue] that a basic assumption that goes along with that is that, we are all competent and capable.
and if you're not competent and capable to take care of yourself when a marriage dissolves, then somebody probably should have married you in the first place.

we talked about one case in which a doctor had been supported all through medical school by his wife and, predictably, on his last day of residency he filed for divorce.
the court ended up awarding the woman alimony not only to make up for the standard of living she would be missing out on, but also as recognition of her investment into his education.
that one seems like an easy bit of fairness for most people to accept but it still got me upset.
a mated relationship is a mated relationship for however long it lasts. after parties dissolve their union, they shouldn't owe each other anything anymore going forward.
just because this lady paid to send her fella through medical school doesn't mean she is entitled to keep him in indentured servitude.

then we talked about a case from 1989 about Joe Piscapo.
he was getting a divorce and his wife sued him for for alimony to be calculated using his earning potential based on his celebrity good will.
they brought in some kind of expert who calculated what Joe Piscapo's good will earning potential was worth somehow, using a formula that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
the ironic part about that case, of course, is that even in 1989 Joe Piscapo was all out of good will but still his wife got herself alimony payments on the books.

perhaps most offensive, we talked about a case where some basketballer or footballer's ex wife sued them for alimony and the guy decided “fuck it, i just won't work” out of spite.
which is what i would do in their shoes. i love spite.
but, apparently you can't even do that. the court set the poor sucker's alimony payments at the amount hew as making the last time he was playing ball and the guy had to make that amount every month, like it or not.
if he didn't, he would be in contempt of court and they could send him to jail.
this kind of shit ought to be offensive to everybody but it's not.
i have a feeling that if i were to get myself all worked up about this in public i would be accused of being a “men's rights activist” which is feminist newspeak for “a creep.”
but, like, it's a totally valid thing to get upset about.

at the beginning of class, a girl named Heather passed around several boxes of doughnut holes.
i don't know why, i guess she was just feeling nice.
i took three or four but then, a box ended up next to me after it had circulated the room so i sat and ate two, three, five, seven more.
then, in between Property and Legal Writing II i went out to the bathroom and in the hallway i found the fuckfaces from LexusNexus had set up a table giving away kolachies and raspberry cream cheese strudels.
i grabbed myself a strudel. it was tasty.
after Legal Writing II, i went to go take a practice exam in Academic Support and i filled my pockets with Laffy Taffys and mini-3 Musketeers from a bowl they had in the lobby.
all of this is to say that by 1:00pm i had the sugar-shits and had to go take a crap before Contracts.
but we're getting ahead of ourselves...

after Property, in Legal Writing II our Professor talked more about how to structure counter-arguments and different style choices for section headings for our big Trial Brief that was due over the weekend.
sometimes i feel like i'm doing my Trial Brief okay and other times, he'll say some shit that'll make me thing i'm completely off.
i guess we'll find out if and when i ail out of Law School...

at lunch, like i said, i went to Academic Support to take a practice exam for Property.
Academic Support has started offering optional practice exams that we can take for our classes.
since we don't have any other tests in Contracts or Property except our finals that are worth 70% of our grades, i figured it would be a good idea to see what the things might be like.
Academic Support only gives these practice exams on Mondays and Fridays but i'm not gonna be on campus if i don't have to be, so i worked it out with the lady in charge to let me just take mine during lunch.
i got put into a little room with another kid taking another make-up practice exam, a girl i swear i've never seen before in my life, but she greeted me by name and asked me how i've been.
i played it off like i knew that she was a person. i've been doing this bluff all my life.
my Property practice exam was only three short-answer questions long.
i finished in forty minutes, which is a problem because we had an hour to do it.
i am sure i missed something important, likely several important things, but i have no idea what because, unlike all the other practice exams, there is no answer sheet.
our Property Professor is the Dean, and i guess he's got other shit to worry about then this.

after Academic Support i went and had that sugar shit, then went to Contracts to hang around for a while until class started.
i talked to a nice Irish girl i like for a while then went to the lunchroom to see if there was any food to be found.
i am a fucking bear, i know all the best spots to find a trout.
in the lunchroom i found a plate with seven or eight chicken salad sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A.
presumably leftovers from one of the many, many catered lunch meetings the school always offers.
i've never had Chick-Fil-A in my life.
i tell people it's because of their stand on Homosexuality, but also, because i'm just not all that into chicken.
if it turned out that my favorite steakhouse discriminated against the Transgenders i might think twice before getting sanctimonious.
i fixed myself a plate of three mini chicken salad sandwiches and some packages of Buffalo-sauce then went back to Contracts to wait for class to start.
the sandwiches were pretty dang good, for bigots.

in Contracts we talked about excuses for a lack of contract performance.
there are two big ones; commercial impossibility/impracticability and frustration of purpose.
commercial impossibility/impracticability is a subject we are all terribly familiar with, we had to write a big Memo about it earlier this semester.
it is where it becomes impossible or impractical for a business to do the thing they have contracted to do because of some limited reasons.
frustration of purpose is for situations where parties can still perform a contract, but because circumstances change, there is no longer any reason to.
the big example case on that comes from England back in the olden days when some dummy rented a room overlooking the parade route for the coronation of some dickbag King, paying an exorbitant fee for the privileged, but then the King got sick and his coronation was postponed so the dummy didn't show up and the room-renter sued.
the Court decided that because the dummy no longer had reason to rent the room, breaking his contract was excused.
for example cases regarding commercial impracticability, we talked about a case from 9/11.
some woman booked herself a safari before September 11th and decided to cancel it after September 11th, but the last date to cancel without losing her deposit was September 13th and the woman, who lived on Staten Island, had no way to get in touch with the travel agent who was in Manhattan.
the Court decided, in a brief from 2002 full of pandering post-9/11 jerkoff language, that it was commercially impracticable for the woman to have canceled her safari on time and she should have her deposit back.
at some point while reviewing the case, our Professor asked “why did this crash and burn?”
he was referring to the travel agency's legal arguments, and he didn't even really mean the pun, it just slipped out, to the groans of my classmates.
i thought it was funny.

after contracts i had a whole 'nother Property class because we do that sometimes.
we're clearly out of time, though, so let's talk about that in tomorrow's post.
suffice it to say, i didn't get out of school until 5:30pm and i didn't get home until 5:45.
that's asking a lot.

//[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