It's been forever since I've posted to LJ. (Sorry!) The bar exam preparation was simply insane toward the end, & after the exam I took a long break from my computer & the internet & anything remotely associated with bar preparation. Of course, now that the MA Bar exam is done, I'm studying for the NH Bar exam in February. It's not that different, and the main challenge will only be keeping the information fresh in my memory during the months between.

The NH bar application contains a much more thorough background questionnaire (requesting detailed info on things like traffic tickets, military service, creditors, etc) than did the MA application. An interesting question at the end:

Do you advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States or that of any state by force and violence?

I was a bit shocked to see the question, but I guess I'm pleased by the wording. It's good to know that I can be a nonviolent, peaceful anarchist & still be a member of the bar. I've always taken pains to distinguish my brand of philosophical anarchism from the bomb-throwing species (which I often wonder whether it's truly anarchism or just an excuse to be a pinhead).

The lawyer in me wants to know if the wording "force and violence" (as opposed to "force or violence") carries any different meaning. Not that I advocate either, but I just wonder why the different conjunction is there. I guess you could think of violence as a more extreme species of force, like unlawful force, or injurious force, or intense force. I don't think you can have violence without force, but could you have force without violence? (Like maybe some kinds of protests or civil disobedience?) Or maybe it's just a mistake in the wording. Not too important, though, because however you read it, my answer is truthfully "no." But the question struck me. At least they're not asking whether you're a communist.

Current Mood: thoughtful

An exam question...

Phillips, a law enforcement official, was transporting a prisoner on a plane from Hawaii to California to testify in a criminal case. Unknown to those on the plane, an assassin hired to kill the prisoner had bribed an airport baggage handler to sneak a timed-release crate of poisonous snakes into the cargo hold of the plane. Once the crate was triggered to open, the snakes were able to slither into the passenger compartment through gaps in the conduits between the cargo hold and the passenger compartment. In the ensuing panic caused by the snakes, Phillips was struck in the head by a fire extinguisher that another passenger threw at a snake, and suffered a severe concussion.

Phillips filed suit against numerous parties, including Jackson, who designed the conduit system on that type of plane. At trial, evidence established that the design for the conduit system that Jackson had used had been rejected in the industry because of the danger of pressure loss between the cargo hold and the passenger compartment. An industry-approved design that Jackson could have used would have kept the snakes from getting into the passenger compartment of the plane.

As between Phillips and Jackson, which party is likely to prevail?

Current Mood: amused

So I sat down to take a 3 hour (1/2 day) practice exam, & we're supposed to simulate exam conditions as nearly as possible (be in a quiet place, without distractions, sit at an uncomfortable table & chair instead of lying on the sofa, etc). In the middle of my essay writing, THE KILLER CAT came walking up the stairs meowing loudly, with a twitching chipmunk in her mouth. When she saw me, she dropped it on the floor & looked up at me as if it was a treasured gift, & the chipmunk was still twitching. So sad!

If she hadn't seen me & stopped abusing him, the poor little guy probably would have died more quickly & less painfully, but instead I had to watch him twitch for about 30 seconds & die. I couldn't bring myself to put him out of his misery. :( It's easier when you have a big animal & a gun... just shoot it in the head. But what do you do with a little chipmunk? Beat its brains in? Eek! Doesn't seem that much more humane to me. And then there was the cleaning up afterward, & dealing with the intensely curious kitten -- Killer Cat does *not* like it when the kitten touches her Tributes to the Humans. lulz

I hope there won't be wild animals bringing in their kills in the middle of the real exam... if so, I suppose I'm now prepared for it.

Current Mood: ambivalent

My bar review torts lecturer is *very* funny, & he sounds like Adam Carolla. My image of Adam Carolla teaching torts, however, was shattered when I checked out the faculty bio at his law school -- he's a bit more nerdy looking. Anyway, today's amusing bit...

When you see law latin, it's almost always a judge making up some crap. A favorite example of judge-made-up-crap is "res ipsa loquitor" meaning "the thing speaks for itself."

In 19th century England, this poor guy walks down the street, gets hit by a barrel falling out of a warehouse window, & sues the warehouse owner for negligence. But the big glaring problem? He has no idea what (if anything) the warehouse owner did wrong, & judges hadn't yet made up discovery. Normally the judge would have thrown him out of court, but feeling particularly generous that day, the judge made up some crap. (Hence the law latin.) Normally barrels don't fall out of windows unless *someone* was negligent in *some way*, so plaintiff gets a free pass, and defendant has the burden to prove that he was *not* negligent. (If a burglar did it, the warehouse owner can present that evidence & avoid liability... otherwise he's on the hook.)

That sets the stage for the severed-human-toe-in-the-chewing-tobacco case. From the end of that opinion: "We can imagine no reason why, with ordinary care, human toes could not be left out of chewing tobacco, and if toes are found in chewing tobacco, it seems to us that somebody has been very careless indeed."

Ya think??

Current Mood: amused

With this bar review thing, we're supposed to do waaay more than is humanly possible, but it is occasionally amusing. And who would have thought that Wills & Trusts could be one of the most amusing topics?? Two favorites:

I bequeath $$ to my wife "on the express condition that she remarry. I want at least one person to be truly bereaved by my death." -- allegedly Heinrich Heine (German poet), though I can't find a source for it.

Another left $240,000 "for reserach [sic] or some scientific proof of a sole of the human body which leaves at death. I think in time their can be a Photograph of sole leaving human at death." -- James Kidd, miner

Current Mood: amused

Oh, my. I think Shaq is off Kobe's holiday card list.
"Kobe, tell me how my ass tastes."
Not a bad rapper, actually.


Still studying 24-7 for this silly bar exam...

Current Mood: amused

Ray Allen, aka Mr. Adrian Monk. (OK, he's actually aka Jesus Shuttlesworth, and I'm the only one to have dubbed him Mr. Monk.)

This totally endearing & charming story about Ray Allen, complete with a bunch of great OCD anecdotes, came out in April.[1] His OCD is one of the reasons why he's such a great shooter -- he sticks to a consistent routine, works incredibly hard, & is a perfectionist over even the tiniest of details. If Monk is still airing, they *totally* need to do an episode with Monk & Ray Allen.

( what happens when an OCD NBA player's routine is completely trashed? )

To top it all off, The Onion featured him in their fabulous article: Pro Athlete Lauded For Being Decent Human Being. The story's not far off. He really is soft spoken, gentlemanly, professional, family man, team player, mentor & stabilizing influence on the young players, and perhaps the hardest working guy on the team. And beyond that, seriously heroic to overcome OCD & turn it into a positive force in his life.

The Paul Pierce & Kevin Garnett jerseys are the top sellers, but I'm getting the #20 for myself, tucking it carefully into my shorts, & making sure my socks are pulled up to precisely the same length.

( favorite endearing OCD anecdotes )

Current Mood: impressed

Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta Boston sports fan.

A lot of cool things happening with the Green last night, and it's hard to say whom I admire most out of the Big Three Big Fifteen. I have to say, though, that I've fallen in love with OCD Ray Allen, aka Mr. Adrian Monk -- so endearingly cute! If you read nothing else in this post, at least go read that article. Seriously good & funny & inspiring.

First, my runners up for the Celtic For Whom I'm Happiest title...

How cool was it to watch Doc Rivers completely out-coach the Zen Then Master Phil Jackson. The usually annoyingly smug LA coach just looked... lost & confused. Phil is so "LA," and Doc (by contrast) is so real.

There's Paul Pierce, who was once an inch away from being our generation's Len Bias, who has been so underrated for so long, finally gets the much-deserved and long overdue love. I love that Celtics fan's sign with a photo of Jack Nicholson captioned, "LA can't handle The Truth." (Shaq nicknamed Pierce "The Truth.")

And of course there's all heart, all soul, emotional center, Kevin "Go Go Gadget Arms" Garnett -- I'm not quite sure if he was speaking English in the moments after the game, but I was able to understand his joyously shouting "Anything's possible!"

Oh, and... Hey, LA, You got Rondo'd! How fierce (and yet cute) is that little point guard? He's like the Dustin Pedroia of basketball. He's a very close runner up for my favorite Celtic, but that's no surprise because Rondo also adores Ray Allen, has been following Ray's program, & even has a little OCD himself, though not as bad as Ray.

And there's Ray, my new hero. Soft spoken, gentlemanly, professional, family man, team player, mentor & stabilizing influence on the young players, and perhaps the hardest working guy on that team. But beyond all of that, he's demonstrated some serious heroics in his personal & professional drama of these last few days, which has largely gone unsung. Actually, OCD Ray deserves his own entry... coming shortly.

Current Mood: chipper

There's an incredible amount of stuff to memorize for the bar legal malpractice exam. It's like a phonebook full of legal rules, none of it redundant.

It's the "legal malpractice exam" because we are required to
1) acquire a glib superficial understanding of general legal rules
2) attempt to commit that glib superficial understanding to memory
3) apply that glib understanding to specific factual situations, as fast as possible, relying on memory, without looking anything up
4) commit to an answer even if we're unsure
5) hope that we got it right

I do believe this is the formula for legal malpractice.

Current Mood: amused

Dad: Be quiet. I don't want to hear another word about baseball cards while we're here in the store.
9 Year Old Kid: You can't tell me to be quiet. I have freedom of speech!
Dad: Freedom of speech means that the government can't tell you to be quiet. I'm not the government, so I can.
Kid: Well, you're like the government to me, so you shouldn't be able to tell me to be quiet.

(courtesy of my bar exam con law lecture)

Current Mood: amused