i woke up at 7:04 last Tuesday morning, seventeen minutes before i normally have to wake up on full days.
i had to wake up seventeen minutes early because with the PSE away at the Drug Study [see Monday's post] i have to take the Monster to daycare [see Tuesday's post.]
it shouldn't take seventeen minutes, the Daycare place is just three minutes from my Law School, but i didn't want to just drop the Monster off and hurry out the door, i wanted to let her know that i would be back soon enough.
dogs don't speak English.
so, my alarm went off, i did my morning things and i grabbed myself a lunch that i had packed for myself the night previous.
peanut butter and jelly and banana, just like the PSE would make for me if she was here.
but she's not here, so, for the first time ever, i think, i had to make my own lunch.

after getting my difficult morning squared away i reported to Property class.
we had two case files to talk about -hypothetical problems that we are asked to solve- one concerning tenant's rights and another about commercial zoning restrictions.
we spent the first fifty minutes of class talking about tenant's rights.
the case concerned a poor woman who had mice in her apartment and what could she do about it?
she couldn't move because it was the cheapest apartment in the neighborhood and she couldn't get a cat, as her landlord suggested because one of her kids was allergic.
we read different precedent case laws that dealt with tenant's rights and we read the relevant statutes in Connecticut whee the make-pretend problem was set and it all seemed to point to the landlord having an obligation to remedy the situation if there was an infestation of mice.
but our Professor who is also the Dean kept getting hung up on how many mice constitute an infestation.
motherfucker, one! one mouse is an infestation of mice when you're paying rent to not live around mice.
if this woman and her children wanted to live around mice, they could go sleep under a bridge for free.
but apparently i seemed to be the only one upset about the fact pattern.
everybody else seemed to share the Dean's opinion that having to live around a certain number of mice is par for the course in apartment living.
at our break, one of my classmates caught me in the bathroom and commented on my zeal for the subject.
“you might want to consider poverty law” he suggested, doing this kind of shit, tenant's rights and whatnot.
“i just might,” i told him.
i've been telling everybody that my interest is criminal justice reform, and it is, but i could see going to work for some kind of legal aid, maybe, handling piss-ant shit like this that is only a problem for poor folks.
that could be good work. anything that gets me fighting the man will do.

on the other side of our break we talked about another hypothetical case involving a group of prudes who were trying to run a local titty bar out of a college town by using zoning regulations.
that one also got me riled up.
i don't want to work for people working against titty bars!
i don't even like titty bars personally, those girls are always gross, but i like that they have a constitutional right to exist.
the first case law we read was a Supreme Court case City of Erie v. Pap's A.M. which said that municipalities can regulate the “secondary effects” of free expression like crime or garbage or whatever, but not the free expression itself.
that meant that the fictional group of prudes likely had a good chance of getting zoning ordinances changed to put the titty bar out of business so long as it was under the guise of cutting down on crime or litter or whatever.
but, i didn't want to help a group of prudes put some good, decent hard-working strippers out of business so i decided to argue for the other side.
the Supreme Court said that there is a higher bar on restrictions of expression when speech is overtly political.
what the titty bar needs to do, then, what every titty bar in America needs to do, is to hang a little sign somewhere in their lounge area that reads “these girls will remain topless until Democracy comes to China.”
that should cover their bases.
protecting scumbags with Constitutional law is another practice area of interest for me.

after Property, in Legal Writing II we had Oral Arguments.
we were to divide up into pairs, Plaintiff and Defense, and argue the Trial Briefs we spent so many weeks working on before our Professor who was playing judge.
we did this down in a mock courtroom on the first floor, and we had to pretend as if we were in a real courtroom.
half the class was set to go on Tuesday, the other half on Thursday.
i was in the Thursday group so on Tuesday i had nothing to do but watch my peers mumble and stutter their way through their arguments.
at some point, one of the kids who presented on Tuesday came over to sit next to me in the jury box after he had finished presenting.
as the next pair of plaintiffs and defendant's took their positions this kid started coughing and hacking and hacking and coughing up a fit.
i figured his nerves got the better of him and i offered him some of my ice water from my mug.
he gulped down several sips and eventually relaxed.
the next chance we got to talk i asked him “what's wrong with you?”
he told me he had a terrible cold.
this was after i myself had drank several sips from my ice water mug.
i went and washed out my mug after class but, damage done.
so far, though, i haven't come down with anything, but, goddamn, what a dick move.

after Legal Writing i went down to the library in the basement to work on my Oral Argument for Thursday and to eat my peanut butter and jelly and banana lunch that i had to make myself.
i did not have time to go visit the Monster at daycare.

in Contracts we talked situations that will limit the amount of damages a non-breaching party can collect in the event of a contract breech.
there are three, foreseeability, certainty and the duty to mitigate.
a contract breach must not be entirely unforeseeable. if two parties have a contract to buy and sell tomatoes and then a gorilla gets into the farm and smashes every last tomato into nothing, then the party who misses out on their tomatoes is just going to have to find their tomatoes somewhere else.
a contract breach also cannot be too speculative.
the non-breaching party cannot say “well, if only i had gotten the delivery of tomatoes i was promised, i was going to invent a new kind of engine that runs on tomato paste and i would have made a billion dollars, easy peasay.”
that is too far outside the realm of certainty to be considered as damages.
finally, a non-breaching party has an obligation to mitigate damages as much as they can.
if the party had a way to chase away the rampaging tomato-stomping gorilla, say, by firing a shotgun at it to make it run away, then they had an obligation to do so.
to allow the gorilla to continue stomping tomatoes thinking all the while “whatever, i'll just et the tomato salesman to reimburses my losses” doesn't fly.

we read several cases on the subject, but the only one that stuck out to me was about Zsa Zsa Gabor who got herself involved in some kind of scheme back in the 1980s to make movies with regular people on vacation.
Zsa Zsa Gabor pulled out the of the deal at the last minute and the company ended up going bankrupt.
they sued Zsa Zsa Gabor for breach of contract and then demanded several millions of dollars because, were it not for her breach, they were all going to be rich.
the Court threw that one out because, come on, guys, you just have a shite business model.

at 3:20pm i got out of class and drove over to Daycare to pick up the Monster, then we all went home to sit drained and stupid until it was time to go to sleep.

//[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 212223