K (knocking on my leg): Nop, nop
Me: Who's there?
K: Nobody.
Me: Nobody who?
K: Nobody is at the door.
He made up this joke himself.
Don't quit your day job, kid.
Another favorite K-ism of late: he'll start fake-crying and when I ask what's wrong, he'll say, "A monster ate my breakfast!"
Friday, July 10, 2009
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Prince Philip
Speaking of fraud as grounds for annulment, the Barbri family law lecturer (Schechter, my favorite) told a story about a woman who tried to get her marriage annulled because her husband was not, as he had claimed, European royalty. No dice.
A friend took the bus from New York once to visit me at college. When she arrived, she showed me a photo of her seatmate, "Prince Philip." He was an African prince who had moved to New York to experience life on his own before ascending to the throne and untold riches. (Does this story sound familiar to anyone?) He proposed that she move in with him and become his concubine. She could eventually move back to Africa with him and live in the palace and he would buy her a car. The photo showed Prince Philip with his wife in a mostly empty apartment with a TV on the floor, and had his phone number written on the back.
I guess she couldn't marry him, anyway, so it wouldn't do her any good if lying about being royalty were grounds for an annulment.
A friend took the bus from New York once to visit me at college. When she arrived, she showed me a photo of her seatmate, "Prince Philip." He was an African prince who had moved to New York to experience life on his own before ascending to the throne and untold riches. (Does this story sound familiar to anyone?) He proposed that she move in with him and become his concubine. She could eventually move back to Africa with him and live in the palace and he would buy her a car. The photo showed Prince Philip with his wife in a mostly empty apartment with a TV on the floor, and had his phone number written on the back.
I guess she couldn't marry him, anyway, so it wouldn't do her any good if lying about being royalty were grounds for an annulment.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
What I learned from half a lecture on family law
1. It's called a "shotgun wedding" because the pregnant girl's father would march the baby daddy there at gunpoint. I never knew that.
2. You can marry your cousin in Massachusetts. But you can't marry your step-grandparent, your in-laws, or your grandchild's spouse. (So K's future child's future wife is safe.)
3. You can get an annulment for fraud regarding an essential aspect of the marriage. Lying about your religion, about your sexual proclivities, about whether you're able to have kids: all fraud. Lying about your salary, job, or economic prospects: not fraud.
This immediately called to mind the NYT article I read a few months ago about the woes of Westchester wives who were bitter that their Wall Street husbands were now unemployed and asking them to spend less. The wives all protested that they were keeping up their part of the deal (presumably, checking the Nannycam, making sure the kids were suitably Prada-clad, and attending regular Pilates sessions) but the husbands were no longer keeping up theirs. One of them literally said, "This wasn't what I bargained for." I think she would disagree about whether economics are an essential aspect of the marriage.
Class-baiting aside, I think the idea that economics are never an essential aspect of a marriage is a pretty romantic view for the state to have. If someone claims to be a millionaire and it turns out they're in massive debt and you just hitched your finances to theirs, shouldn't you be able to get out of it if you want to?
2. You can marry your cousin in Massachusetts. But you can't marry your step-grandparent, your in-laws, or your grandchild's spouse. (So K's future child's future wife is safe.)
3. You can get an annulment for fraud regarding an essential aspect of the marriage. Lying about your religion, about your sexual proclivities, about whether you're able to have kids: all fraud. Lying about your salary, job, or economic prospects: not fraud.
This immediately called to mind the NYT article I read a few months ago about the woes of Westchester wives who were bitter that their Wall Street husbands were now unemployed and asking them to spend less. The wives all protested that they were keeping up their part of the deal (presumably, checking the Nannycam, making sure the kids were suitably Prada-clad, and attending regular Pilates sessions) but the husbands were no longer keeping up theirs. One of them literally said, "This wasn't what I bargained for." I think she would disagree about whether economics are an essential aspect of the marriage.
Class-baiting aside, I think the idea that economics are never an essential aspect of a marriage is a pretty romantic view for the state to have. If someone claims to be a millionaire and it turns out they're in massive debt and you just hitched your finances to theirs, shouldn't you be able to get out of it if you want to?
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Lessons from the simulated MBE
Or, what not to do for the actual bar exam:
1. Go to bed at midnight the night before. Wake up every hour and a half until being forced out of bed for good at 5:30 a.m.
2. Lose your watch.
3. Arrive at the exam five minutes after it starts...
4. ... without any #2 pencils.
5. Leave half an hour early during both sessions to enjoy the beautiful weather.
I still haven't found my watch. Anyway, I've been meaning to buy a cheap digital one for the bar. I will remember to pack some pencils, and JW agreed to drop off K at daycare on the exam days. So that should take care of #2-4. I have to check my hedonistic impulses for #5, which will probably be the hardest. As for #1, at least now I know that even if I'm sleep-deprived during the real thing, I won't just pass out like I do sometimes during my practice sessions.
I haven't actually graded the thing yet. I'm confident that I kicked ass, and I can keep thinking that until I grade it, so I have little incentive to find out the truth.
On the way out, a friend said she was relieved to be done with the grueling day. "It wasn't so bad," I replied. "We had a long break at lunchtime, and now it's 4:30 and we're done!" "That's because you're working," she pointed out. "You're used to doing stuff all day." So I guess there is an advantage to working full-time while studying. You get in the habit of sitting in a room concentrating for hours on end.
I took a long walk through the city to the T station, got home at 5:15, and hung out on the deck with my boys. JW grilled and I helped K do "gardening" (sweeping pine needles off the deck with a paintbrush, which is much less messy and more suitable as a pre-dinner activity than actual gardening). We were completely done with the bedtime routine by 7:30, half an hour earlier than usual, and curled up in bed with "Cars and Trucks and Things That Go" for a nice long read. Now I'm sort of looking forward to the bar.
1. Go to bed at midnight the night before. Wake up every hour and a half until being forced out of bed for good at 5:30 a.m.
2. Lose your watch.
3. Arrive at the exam five minutes after it starts...
4. ... without any #2 pencils.
5. Leave half an hour early during both sessions to enjoy the beautiful weather.
I still haven't found my watch. Anyway, I've been meaning to buy a cheap digital one for the bar. I will remember to pack some pencils, and JW agreed to drop off K at daycare on the exam days. So that should take care of #2-4. I have to check my hedonistic impulses for #5, which will probably be the hardest. As for #1, at least now I know that even if I'm sleep-deprived during the real thing, I won't just pass out like I do sometimes during my practice sessions.
I haven't actually graded the thing yet. I'm confident that I kicked ass, and I can keep thinking that until I grade it, so I have little incentive to find out the truth.
On the way out, a friend said she was relieved to be done with the grueling day. "It wasn't so bad," I replied. "We had a long break at lunchtime, and now it's 4:30 and we're done!" "That's because you're working," she pointed out. "You're used to doing stuff all day." So I guess there is an advantage to working full-time while studying. You get in the habit of sitting in a room concentrating for hours on end.
I took a long walk through the city to the T station, got home at 5:15, and hung out on the deck with my boys. JW grilled and I helped K do "gardening" (sweeping pine needles off the deck with a paintbrush, which is much less messy and more suitable as a pre-dinner activity than actual gardening). We were completely done with the bedtime routine by 7:30, half an hour earlier than usual, and curled up in bed with "Cars and Trucks and Things That Go" for a nice long read. Now I'm sort of looking forward to the bar.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
A rant about the law
Studying con law. Just like in law school, it pisses me off.
Take state action, for instance. The only way to know what constitutes state action is to memorize all the relevant decisions and guess about the rest. For instance, we all (assuming the only people who read this blog are lawyers) read Shelley v. Kraemer, the case where the Supreme Court decided that it couldn't enforce a restrictive covenant on private land.
Supreme Court, I don't like racial discrimination either. But this is an entirely private transaction. How can it constitute state action?
We are the government, and if we enforce a racially discriminatory covenant, we'll be acting. See, it makes perfect sense.
Okay. But then, isn't everything converted into state action, because the minute you ask the court to strike down or uphold it, the government is acting?
Hey, ever heard of the "case or controversy" requirement? Get in line.
More than any other subject, con law is all about the whim of nine people. All right, not whim. The carefully considered and researched but frequently inconsistent and undeniably biased, because nobody can be totally objective and ignore their time and place and life experience and ideology, view of nine people.
Even if you leave the Supreme Court out of it, the law is frustratingly hard to pin down. Laypeople get into trouble because they say, "I read the law, and here's what it said." But did you read the annotations, the cases, the regulations? You didn't realize, did you, that "exclusively" actually meant mostly and "company" only included domestic for-profit businesses incorporated under a specific chapter?
Recently I read part of a statute that said something like, "Provisions of this chapter X only apply to other chapters as expressly provided in those chapters." In the other chapter, it said, "The sections of chapter X that apply to this chapter are 1, 5, 12, 15, 18, 23, and 45." Pretty straightforward, right? I didn't find any law interpreting this and so I replied to the partner who asked me that no other sections apply. He asked me to double-check, so I emailed the entire group. Nobody had a definitive answer, but I got three responses back saying, "I've never been sure, would you tell me what you find out?"
I understand that this is why I'm employed, but normal people without special degrees and research tools SHOULD be able to read the law and understand what it means.
Take state action, for instance. The only way to know what constitutes state action is to memorize all the relevant decisions and guess about the rest. For instance, we all (assuming the only people who read this blog are lawyers) read Shelley v. Kraemer, the case where the Supreme Court decided that it couldn't enforce a restrictive covenant on private land.
Supreme Court, I don't like racial discrimination either. But this is an entirely private transaction. How can it constitute state action?
We are the government, and if we enforce a racially discriminatory covenant, we'll be acting. See, it makes perfect sense.
Okay. But then, isn't everything converted into state action, because the minute you ask the court to strike down or uphold it, the government is acting?
Hey, ever heard of the "case or controversy" requirement? Get in line.
More than any other subject, con law is all about the whim of nine people. All right, not whim. The carefully considered and researched but frequently inconsistent and undeniably biased, because nobody can be totally objective and ignore their time and place and life experience and ideology, view of nine people.
Even if you leave the Supreme Court out of it, the law is frustratingly hard to pin down. Laypeople get into trouble because they say, "I read the law, and here's what it said." But did you read the annotations, the cases, the regulations? You didn't realize, did you, that "exclusively" actually meant mostly and "company" only included domestic for-profit businesses incorporated under a specific chapter?
Recently I read part of a statute that said something like, "Provisions of this chapter X only apply to other chapters as expressly provided in those chapters." In the other chapter, it said, "The sections of chapter X that apply to this chapter are 1, 5, 12, 15, 18, 23, and 45." Pretty straightforward, right? I didn't find any law interpreting this and so I replied to the partner who asked me that no other sections apply. He asked me to double-check, so I emailed the entire group. Nobody had a definitive answer, but I got three responses back saying, "I've never been sure, would you tell me what you find out?"
I understand that this is why I'm employed, but normal people without special degrees and research tools SHOULD be able to read the law and understand what it means.
Friday, July 03, 2009
More Statute of Frauds
Bar studying continues apace. Next week I start my leave from work!
K has been helping me. "Hey, K," I'll say, "do you want to hear about the Statute of Frauds?" He always says yes, and when I'm done listing all the types of agreements and defenses, he says, "More Statute of Frauds!" That kid has always had a massive attention span for his age.
By the way, did you know that fetuses are considered people for purposes of Massachusetts homicide statutes? How is abortion legal, then?
Speaking of controversial political issues, I can't wait to hear the real reason that Sarah Palin resigned. It's bound to be something juicy.
K has been helping me. "Hey, K," I'll say, "do you want to hear about the Statute of Frauds?" He always says yes, and when I'm done listing all the types of agreements and defenses, he says, "More Statute of Frauds!" That kid has always had a massive attention span for his age.
By the way, did you know that fetuses are considered people for purposes of Massachusetts homicide statutes? How is abortion legal, then?
Speaking of controversial political issues, I can't wait to hear the real reason that Sarah Palin resigned. It's bound to be something juicy.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Bar study update
Toddler.
Full-time law firm job.
Studying for the bar exam.
Any two out of the three would be plenty, but all three at the same time is... challenging.
Work has been heating up, which would otherwise be good except that I'm getting way behind on my studying. Two different partners have talked about pulling me in on big projects -- I had to tell one of them that I wouldn't be around in the time frame that she needs me, and I need to talk to the other one to make sure he knows I'll be out for half of July. Where was all this work a month or two ago when I was sitting around wishing for something to do?
I'm two days behind on the Barbri lectures and about a week and a half behind on the assignments. Every spare moment I have -- at least, when I have the mental capacity to process -- I'm studying. I pop in the headphones to listen to the lectures as soon as I step out the door in the morning and while I'm waiting for the elevator on my way out of work. Last night after K woke me up at 3 a.m., I stayed up and studied until 4:30. I've done the 3 a.m. studying multiple times, in fact -- I can't get back to sleep like I used to. Too much going on.
On the bright side, it's good to be billing some hours and I'm still enjoying the bar studying. I think I'd be miserable trapped in a room for 4 hours every day, but walking along listening to somebody talk about wills on the iPod is fine with me -- it's like listening to an audiobook. And in a way I think it's good to have work to distract me from studying. (But if you have a choice, part-time is definitely the way to go.)
Once July 31st rolls around, I'll have so much time I won't know what to do with myself. I can renew my efforts to learn to play piano. I can read BOOKS again. We can finally watch the entire season of Lost that we have stored up on our TiVo!
Meanwhile, I'll cram in as much as I can. I'm taking a few weeks off before the bar exam and I'll try to catch up then. But for now I am much busier than I would like.
(P.S. - Please don't tell me, "Don't worry, you'll do fine." Did I say I was worried? No. I just said I was taking the bar exam. And if you want to tell me your personal bar story, I'm happy to hear it, but leave out the "All I did was X, Y, and Z, and I passed, so you'll pass too!" This is not helpful.)
Full-time law firm job.
Studying for the bar exam.
Any two out of the three would be plenty, but all three at the same time is... challenging.
Work has been heating up, which would otherwise be good except that I'm getting way behind on my studying. Two different partners have talked about pulling me in on big projects -- I had to tell one of them that I wouldn't be around in the time frame that she needs me, and I need to talk to the other one to make sure he knows I'll be out for half of July. Where was all this work a month or two ago when I was sitting around wishing for something to do?
I'm two days behind on the Barbri lectures and about a week and a half behind on the assignments. Every spare moment I have -- at least, when I have the mental capacity to process -- I'm studying. I pop in the headphones to listen to the lectures as soon as I step out the door in the morning and while I'm waiting for the elevator on my way out of work. Last night after K woke me up at 3 a.m., I stayed up and studied until 4:30. I've done the 3 a.m. studying multiple times, in fact -- I can't get back to sleep like I used to. Too much going on.
On the bright side, it's good to be billing some hours and I'm still enjoying the bar studying. I think I'd be miserable trapped in a room for 4 hours every day, but walking along listening to somebody talk about wills on the iPod is fine with me -- it's like listening to an audiobook. And in a way I think it's good to have work to distract me from studying. (But if you have a choice, part-time is definitely the way to go.)
Once July 31st rolls around, I'll have so much time I won't know what to do with myself. I can renew my efforts to learn to play piano. I can read BOOKS again. We can finally watch the entire season of Lost that we have stored up on our TiVo!
Meanwhile, I'll cram in as much as I can. I'm taking a few weeks off before the bar exam and I'll try to catch up then. But for now I am much busier than I would like.
(P.S. - Please don't tell me, "Don't worry, you'll do fine." Did I say I was worried? No. I just said I was taking the bar exam. And if you want to tell me your personal bar story, I'm happy to hear it, but leave out the "All I did was X, Y, and Z, and I passed, so you'll pass too!" This is not helpful.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
