Sting'm Jackets

I don't usually comment on the goings-on of my alma mater, but this I had to share: HPU's women's basketball team is currently ranked #1 in the nation in the USA Today/ESPN/WBCA D-3 poll. According to the HPU press release (linked to your right), this is the first time since joining the NCAA that any HPU team has ranked #1 in the nation.

So I'm thinking to myself: you sure know how to pick schools that do well in women's sports. Growing up, girls in my classes always started school late because they were playing in the softball world series. A few years ago, Baylor's women's basketball team won the national championship. And now the Lady Jackets are #1 in the nation.

Now you know the rest of the story.

Say It Ain't So

Haiku for an Old Friend
Oh the Brazos Belle
Sinking in the (financial) mud
We had great times on you

Three-and-a-half years ago, my wife and I had our reception aboard the Brazos Belle. It was one of the funnest times of my life. We had dancing, cakes, friends, family, music. But the rains came down this past summer, flooding the Brazos River and the lower deck of the Brazos Belle. The Brazos Belle cancelled all its pending engagements, preventing hundreds of people from having the beautiful reception that we had. Nobody knows who owns it these days. The operator claims to have turned it over to his alleged lessor, who in turn is characterizing the transaction as a purchase rather than a lease. All I know is that it's sad.

I know a little about customer service and the food industry, and I love boats. If I had money, I'd buy the boat from whoever owns it, put it out on the River (the new dam is supposed to make that a workable proposition), and try to make that thing work. It really is a shame that it may end up floating down the River Styx instead of the Rio Brazos de los Dios. But the business of business is business (i.e., profit), and with the costs of repairing all that flood damage, making the Brazos Belle seaworthy probably is not very cost-effective.

As the French say: hélas.

Smart Cookie

One of life's great satisfactions is vindication in your belief that you (or someone you love) rock.

Today, Ms. Avacado got her score on one part of the CPA exam. It was a 98. Yeah, that's right--I married up.

Me to a T

What kind of lawyer are you? Your Result: Slick Defense Attorney You have a perfectly coiffed hairdo, $1000 shoes, and a smile that reminds people of a cat toying with a mouse. Juries hang on your every word, and the media loves you. Pro: Highly paid, famous, nice office. Con: You really don't know how that blood got there? Come on.
Transactions Nerd
Tax Junkie
Ambulance Chaser
What kind of lawyer are you? Make Your Own Quiz

Cry me a (Charles) River

When I was nine, my older brother was a big Wade Boggs fan. My brother's influence combined with Roger Clemens's as-yet-untainted dominance plus the Curse of the Bambino made me a bit of a Boston Red Sox fan. When they won the World Series in 2004, I was thrilled. I still like the Red Sox, but now I'm tired of Boston still pretending it's hard to love sports in Boston. Just like Boston dominated the American Revolution, the abolitionist movement, and legal scholarship, it is now dominating sports.

Does anybody remember the last time that a major professional Boston sports team lost a game? The Red Sox finished the 2007 postseason with seven wins in a row. They haven't lost since October 16. The Patriots haven't lost a real game since January 21, although they did lose a preseason game on August 17. The Boston Celtics haven't lost a real game since April 18, and they haven't lost a game at all since October 23 (preseason). Granted, the Boston Bruins' last loss was November 8, but they're the exception that proves the rule. Even in soccer, the New England Revolution haven't lost a game since October 13.

What's happening? By my count, Boston's last meaningful loss (excluding the Bruins) was October 16, exactly 30 days ago today. I'm not sure if that's a record, but it's pretty crazy. I think maybe Bostonians will forget how to lose.

So don't tell me it's hard to be a sports fan in Boston right now.

Go Spurs go!

Stultifying English

My mother-in-law asked me recently about how a job offer lined up with what I want to do. I told her, "I want to try cases, and this will give me that opportunity." Typically, I would have said "I want to litigate," but I coincidentally used the $5 word instead of the $250 word. Most of the time, I use the $250 word, stultifying [Q.E.D.] my writing. Then, today, I got this:

Ouch.

The goal of all communication is to convey a message. Using the $250 word rarely conveys exactly the message you are trying to convey. If I had told her I wanted to litigate, it would have conveyed the message that I'm a law student reminding her that I'm a law student--and she's not--and that we speak different languages. Instead, plain English conveys the message I really wanted to convey: yes, this job lines up with what I want to do. Most of the time, $250 English probably conveys the message, but with a lot of elitist overtones. The elitism drowns out your intended message, and your attempt at communication fails. Maybe that's what Plain English is about: ensuring that your message gets heard.

This is what I love about blogging: I can practice my writing skills, and you, my faithful readers, can tell your children that you read our generation's Scott Turow when he was just a law student writing a blog.

End of an Era II

Back in June, my car of seven years blew a head gasket. Today, I finally sold it.

It kinda makes me wistful. I put 70,000 miles on that car. In high school, I tested the governor and learned what it was like to drive 107 mph. In college, I drove it back and forth to Brownwood about 96 times. When I first got it, I didn't like it much. During its tenure as my car, I was constantly trying to get rid of it. But now that it's gone, I'm kinda sad. I guess that's how it goes.

My new car . . . . . . already has 120,000 miles on it. I hope it lasts another 70,000.

Quarterly Narcissism

I'm always interested in what other people are studying. I think it says a lot about a person (even beyond their interests). So I wonder what this tells you about me--

• Business Organizations II -- The sequel to the thrilling Bizzorg I. Actually, I really enjoyed Bizzorg I, which culminated fittingly enough with perhaps the funnest exam since Torts I. I left feeling like a boxer who leaves the ring after the 12th round not entirely sure how the judges will score but glad he wasn't knocked out. Unfortunately, that also means you didn't knock out your opponent.
• Federal Courts -- Taught by an eminent blogger, I thought this would be a helpful class, especially the more I get to know myself and what I want to do. Unlike most of my blogging comrades, I am growing more and more interested in business-type litigation: tax, bankruptcy, corporate issues. The fed courts do tax and bankruptcy (though I don't think we cover them specifically in this class), so it should help in the long run.
• Corporate Tax -- I don't think I even have to explain myself on this one. Why wouldn't you take Corporate Tax? What? You think corporate law is the most boring possible use of time and tax somehow exceeds that? Well, I think you're wrong.*
• Constitutional Law -- Because it's required. And because the prof has been teaching it since before the major leagues got divisions, before the Super Bowl, almost before major professional sports came to Texas. If that's not amazing, nothing is.
• Immigration Law -- ¡Somos todos Americanos!

Who's with me?

*Maybe after finals I'll blog about why business law is the best out there.

Who names these things

Ever since I read about the Uniform Testamentary Additions to Trusts Act, I've been singing "Hakuna UTATA."

Oh well. I won't worry about it--I'll just eat some grubs. Or maybe some TUUNAA.

I need a young priest and an old priest

I never understand how these work. If somebody can figure it out, let me know.

Freaky number guessing website

where the rubber meets the road

One of my favorite things about law school is that you learn a lot about how the world actually works. For example, I used to wonder how exactly corporations do business. Now, after nearly completing Bizzorg, I understand. I have a lot of respect now for transactional lawyers and that special kind of practical creativity they possess. Another example: just last year, I helped my wife resolve a dispute with a seller on eBay who did not want to give a refund after she offered to return a purse that he had described as navy and cream but was actually plain old black and white. We pulled out the UCC, and I explained to him that § 2-711(2)(a) is pretty clear that she gets her money back or we go to court (for the $50 she paid for the purse). He was pretty scared, so we settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Well, it has happened again. Recently, my wife's PayPal account got hacked into, and the villain charged up $200 worth of stuff. No biggie . . . except that the bank account tied to the PayPal account did not have $200 in it. So we got charged the $200 plus an NSF fee.* We easily got the money back from PayPal (they actually told us about the hacking in the first place), but the bank was a little tougher to deal with. At first, they said, "You don't get your NSF fee back because it wasn't our fault." My wife's a tough cookie, so she played hardball and we got our money back. Tonight, we were talking about it, and suddenly the mysteries of Article 4 came clear to me. Under § 4-401, we're not liable for the PayPal charges because they weren't authorized. If we're not liable for the PayPal charges, how can we be liable for the resulting NSF fees? It was beautiful.

Did I really just say that?






*Can you imagine that a bank she worked at in college tried to cover the entirety of its overhead from NSF fees? And they were pretty close, too.

See these bags under my eyes?

This is downright amazing. Baylor is ranked number 3 in the nation for most hours spent preparing for class on average. We are highest in Texas, and the only one in the top 25. More interesting, though, perhaps, is a look at the bottom 25, which includes Virginia (147), Harvard (151), UCLA (157), NYU (158), Yale (162), and U of Texas (169!*). But let's look at the real numbers:

• Baylor = 5.68 hours per day spent studying.
• Virginia = 3.77
• Harvard = 3.74
• UCLA = 3.58
• NYU = 3.56
• Yale = 3.50
• U of Texas = 3.23

Wow. I'm really not sure what to think about this.

*Only North Carolina Central is lower, with a paltry 2.52 hours per day.

Fratority of Wet Squishy Shoes

Since when does Waco have monsoons? I left the house this morning dry. By chance, as I walked out the door, I grabbed my umbrella ("it's rather cloudy--rain? Nah--but just in case."). Near the 8th Street exit, it started sprinkling. By the time I was turning right on 5th Street, my windshield wipers were at an ironically ineffective high speed. After pulling into my parking spot, I decided to try to wait out the rain. To my growing dread, the rain started coming down harder and in greater volume and the wind started blowing more violently. If campus had palm trees, it would have felt like Isla Nublar minus the dinosaurs. But resistance is futile; so after a few minutes, I opened my umbrella, slipped on my backpack, and stuck my foot out into Tropical Storm Bizzorg.

As I walked through the parking lot, I held my umbrella perpendicular to my body. Yes. Perpendicular. By the time I reached the building, my head and torso were dry, but my legs below the knees were soppin wet. I've never been in a monsoon before, but apparently the effect on your clothing (if you have an umbrella) is more like wading through knee-deep water than standing in the rain. Putting on dry socks tonight at home was like . . . I don't know. Maybe flying back home in a helicopter after narrowly escaping ingestion by supposed-to-be-extinct reptiles.

Since I don't like to complain without offering a solution, I suggest that BLS convert a room into a giant oven so that the victims of Tropical Storm Bizzorg can dry off, relax, and avoid pneumonia.

Sting'm Jackets

I have been informed that the University of Texas does not claim to have invented football. Rather, the Universities of Oklahoma and Southern California lay this claim. Oklahoma (where the wind comes sweepin' o'er the plain) is one of those unfortunate public schools that got its mascot from some obscure aspect of the state's history. The Sooners? That's right up there with the Hoosiers. Does anybody know if there are more?* As for USC, I've already made my comment. (Incidentally, if HPU could learn the Pythagorean defense and maybe base our offense more on something like Einstein's theory of relativity, we wouldn't have games like this.)

I hope you're still with me. I've been thinking a lot lately about how Texas elects our judges. I used to think it wasn't such a bad idea, but I'm starting to wonder--especially after the episode last week with the Presiding Judge Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refusing to accept a ten-minute-late petition, with death on the line. I hesitate to align myself with either side of the capital punishment issue, but come on--we're talking about death. There is no appeal from that. Let's at least make sure that we've covered all our bases.




*Note--I do know where the Sooners got their mascot. But what is a "hoosier"?

What a beautiful world

There's a song they're playing on my radio station called "Underdog." The chorus says, "You have no fear of the underdog--that's why you will not survive." This is the weekend of the underdog.

The Yankees are getting smashed by the Indians. UT lost to Oklahoma. USC lost to Stanford (you just can't beat the Pythagorean defense). Call me whatever you like, but I love it when the giants are shaken.

I guess it is a big deal

Listen to this:

Both these [checks] were forged by one Lee, who has been since hanged for forgery.

- Lord Mansfield, Price v. Neal, 3 Burr. 1354, 97 Eng. Rep. 871 (K.B. 1762).

Wow. Sometimes I'm reminded why I'm glad I live in America in 2007 and not in England in 1762. Dang.

Cultural sensitivity

Dadgummit. It's Myanmar and has been since 1989.

Disappointed but not destroyed

Following Poseur's lead, I picked an NL backup team . . . and now I'm lumped with the fans of the Mets, the Tigers, the Brewers, the Dodgers, and the Cardinals--teams that should be in the playoffs but aren't. My backup team was the Padres, and they lost tonight to the Rockies, 9-8 after 13 grueling innings. That means that the once-great Padres, who have everything the Rangers don't*, have stumbled into third place in the NL West and yet another season of what-almost-was. So, please, pity me.

My picks for playoffs (or at least how they should turn out based on relative evilness):

Angels v. Red Sox --> Angels in 6
Yankees v. Indians --> Indians in 6

Phillies v. Rockies --> Phillies in 7
Cubs v. Diamondbacks --> Cubs in 5

Angels v. Indians --> Indians in 6
Phillies v. Cubs --> Phillies in 7

Angels v. Phillies --> Phillies in 4





*Namely, offense and defense, but I prefer pitching so I'll focus on that. Triple-crown winner Jake Peavy, plus two of the (arguably) greatest pitchers alive--Greg Maddux and Trevor Hoffman.

I can see clearly now

A long time ago, I lost that youthful enthusiasm for law school. I think maybe it was September of 1L. But hard work is doing something you don't want to do . . . and keeping on doing it even after it becomes an anti-thrill. In a sense, law school is just that: learning what it means to keep on keeping on.

But I regained a shadow of that former enthusiasm yesterday after Negotiable Instruments. All through 1L, you study cases and learn doctrines that are so abstract and basic that you think either (a) they don't really happen in real life and so are utterly useless or (b) you will never have any grasp on the law as it really is--vast and complex. After a few weeks, 2L has changed those thoughts for me. I'm reading the UCC* and it starts talking about consequential damages, and that means something to me. Or I'm reading the BOC** for Bizzorg*** and LAPP starts bubbling to the surface and I realize that corporate directors are liable only for actual damages and not punitive damages because (1) the rule of implied exclusion and (2) the director relationship is kinda contract-y, and contracts only lead to actual damages, not punitive. Then, the cherry on top of this pedagogical sundae, I have an intelligent discussion by the coffee machine about whether a Marylander can use promissory estoppel to recover damages when we beat him up after promising not to beat him up.****

So I guess the point of this post is twofold. First, if there are any 1Ls who read this, rest assured that it does get better and things will cohere--just not for a long time. Second, to my fellow 2Ls: we're making progress and I can actually start seeing lawyers in each of us. Shame on us.




*If we call the TUPA "toopa," the TRPA "trippa," and the TUUNAA "tuna," then why don't we call the UCC "uck"?

**Most people pronounce this "beeyoSEE," but I propose we change it to "bach."

***Resistance is futile, yo.

****The answer is "Why not just sue for assault and battery and get the punitives p/e blocks?"

From law school dropout . . .

. . . to justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. If you get a chance, read about Stanley Forman Reed, law school transfer who then dropped out but somehow clawed his way to the Supreme Court.