|
Roger_Mudd posted:I just got an e-mail notifying me my diploma is in the mail. My level of giving fucks for finals couldn't be lower.  glad to hear I'm not the only oneLinguica posted:Couple years ago, the managing editor of MLR took transnat in his final semester, pass/failed it, and booked the class anyway
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
entris posted:Some thoughts about the legendary Jay-Z and some of his lyrics from "99 Problems". It seems to me that Jay-Z is wrong in his analysis but maybe you crimlawgoons can provide better insight. Me thinks you lost the point of the song?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
"55 in a 54" is a reference that, while the speed limit might be 50, without radar, most cops don't write tickets for anything below 55, since technologies like VASCAR (or simply tailing behind for a few miles) are not precise enough to hold up in court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
entris posted:Some thoughts about the legendary Jay-Z and some of his lyrics from "99 Problems". It seems to me that Jay-Z is wrong in his analysis but maybe you crimlawgoons can provide better insight. Jesus Christ, I thought I was a gunner. (Also the point is racial profiling.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
entris posted:Some thoughts about the legendary Jay-Z and some of his lyrics from "99 Problems". It seems to me that Jay-Z is wrong in his analysis but maybe you crimlawgoons can provide better insight. A dude in my law and literature class actually wrote his final paper about this song/his other works. Well, peace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
PatrickKilpatrick posted:Does anybody here go to Loyola Los Angeles? My Conlaw professor taught there before this semester. Wondering if anybody could get me some of his old exams. If anybody can help me out send me a PM. Thanks! lash, right? i had him for conlaw 1 and 2 but the library deleted his old exams. all i can tell you (which you probably already know) is he rolls with 1 or 2 issue spotters and a policy question. character limit on all 3 so it's not a racehorse. i have a couple outlines tailored to his conlaw 1 class, if you want those pm me
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
entris posted:Doing fifty-five in a fifty-four? Is there any jurisdiction in the US that has a speed limit ending in a number other than 0 or 5? I've never seen or even heard of a speed limit ending in a four. quote:"99 Problems" was released in 2004, and Terry v. Ohio was decided in 1968, and Maryland v. Wilson (1997) confirmed the principle that cops can order passengers out of the car during a traffic stop. So Jay-Z can't simply say "I'm not getting out of the car", right? quote:It seems to me that the cop can do a "protective search" of the passenger compartment. Since Jay-Z hasn't been cited yet, the rule in Knowles v. Iowa doesn't prevent the cop from trying to do a search of the passenger compartment. It seems to me that Michigan v. Long would support the position that the cop could do a warrantless search of Jay-Z's trunk, but I am unclear on a search of the locked glove compartment. Thoughts? He also needs reasonable articulable suspicion and the search area is very limited. They certainly don't get in the locked areas without PC, at minimum. Also, this could unlawfully prolong the detention. Really, these types of searches are extremely frowned upon in a post-Gant world and I doubt it would hold up if he's out of the car and in the back of the car, which he most certainly would be -- as a cop isn't going to leave a guy next to a car he is searching due to a safety issue. In addition, if he has the level of suspicion to search the vehicle for safety, he's certainly not going to keep the guy in the car (if he did we'd have a very strong argument that he has falsified his PC). Gant has basically eliminated the non-PC, non-consent, non-warrant, non-inventory vehicle search (which means it hasn't eliminated anything.) quote:At first I thought that calling in the K-9 squad would raise several issues of improper seizure and probable cause, but it looks like Jay-Z's fact pattern (a traffic stop where the K-9 is called) is covered almost exactly by Illinois v. Caballes (2005). So in a post-Caballes world, Jay-Z would be screwed because he'd have to wait for the K-9 unit to show up and then he'd be caught. (And dog sniffing isn't a Fourth Amendment search, so once the dog is there, he's screwed.) Please note that this involves no research. Note that the situation that Jay-Z describes is exactly why CHP was required to enter into a consent decree to stop doing consent searches. So there. nm fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Apr 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
entris posted:Some thoughts about the legendary Jay-Z and some of his lyrics from "99 Problems". It seems to me that Jay-Z is wrong in his analysis but maybe you crimlawgoons can provide better insight. My 1L LRW paper was on a VT state search and seizure case. If Jay-Z were in Vermont, he'd be totally right to refuse to get out of his car, and there would be no right for the cop to do a protective search. VT is big on "Our Constitution protects rights above and beyond what the 4th amendment does" The big case in this regard is State v Bauder. I don't feel like looking up the citation because gently caress that paper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
Can someone next do a criminal analysis of Boyz-n-the-Hood? I'd like to know specifically how each action of his day violates the laws of your state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
I'm still trying to figure out how the bad guy in Casino Royale thought he wasn't going to get busted by the SEC for shorting the airplane company thing on account of the blowing up the airplane thing. It's been a while since I've seen that movie
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I'm still trying to figure out how the bad guy in Casino Royale thought he wasn't going to get busted by the SEC for shorting the airplane company thing on account of the blowing up the airplane thing. The SEC only has teeth if you can't afford "free speech."
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
Here's another fact pattern, discuss Time and time again I gotta turn back round and tell C-Bone Grab that cologne out my book bag, I smell 'dro all on you homes Suppose the po-pos get a whiff of the spliff That you just smoke, them folks gon trip Probable cause, call the canine unit to the side of the road lets take a sniff poo poo, the only thing on me ridin' dirty is GBK cd, Tackleberry So may we be on our merry way Cuz you just ain't gon find no yay Player, I got a tough team of attorneys Make a judge lean like he sippin syrupy They play dir-tay, you can't touch me Verdict be not guilty, search me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2wsx1onlOE#t=2m42s
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
Is the C in S corporation supposed to be capitalized for a law student paper?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
Vander posted:Is the C in S corporation supposed to be capitalized for a law student paper? What does the professor do on the board/outline/(papers he/she/it/bastard has written)? Do what the professor does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
IANAL posted:What does the professor do on the board/outline/(papers he/she/it/bastard has written)? I dunno, all the treatises on C and S corporations use "S corporation" and "C corporation". I would not capitalize the C in corporation following C or S. sample text from a BNA portfolio: quote:S corporations that do not have any accumulated earnings and profits (E&P) from prior C corporation existence are not subject to passive income limitations. 30 However, corporations with accumulated E&P that elect S status are subject to passive income limitations, unless they are able to eliminate their accumulated E&P. S corporations with accumulated E&P need to monitor their passive income for two reasons:
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
entris posted:jay-z this is literally all on rapgenius. which, iirc, was started by a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
I previously posted a long time ago about my good friend who was thinking about going to "Chapman School of Law" (http://www.chapman.edu/law/). I showed him the responses in this thread, but he decided to go anyway thinking that he would have no trouble finding a job. He just landed some internship at the LA County DA's office and pretty much rubbed it in my face (jokingly of course, he's my friend after all). Does this mean he's basically set for a job after law school ends? I personally hope so because that would mean he's all set. Does this also mean the doom and gloom isn't as intense as you guys make it out to be? Or is he just an absolute baller that's head and tails above his class and he's the exception to the rule?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Totally Negro posted:I previously posted a long time ago about my good friend who was thinking about going to "Chapman School of Law" (http://www.chapman.edu/law/). I showed him the responses in this thread, but he decided to go anyway thinking that he would have no trouble finding a job. Is he a 1L? If so, lol his job does not matter for poo poo. 1Ls are free labor to whom you don't make employment offers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
It's most likely an unpaid internship that won't result in an offer. DAs are as broke as ever, but free help is free help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
Totally Negro posted:He just landed some internship at the LA County DA's office and pretty much rubbed it in my face (jokingly of course, he's my friend after all). Does this mean he's basically set for a job after law school ends? ...hahaha...no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
Totally Negro posted:I previously posted a long time ago about my good friend who was thinking about going to "Chapman School of Law" (http://www.chapman.edu/law/). I showed him the responses in this thread, but he decided to go anyway thinking that he would have no trouble finding a job. There are no jobs in Cali. I got an interview-free offer to SF DA (highest-paying* in the country, but unpaid summer obviously) and another at Alameda county. Alameda ended up canceling their 1L program entirely because they've had to fire so many police that there isn't enough work for their volunteers to do. As far as I can tell, the only truly choosy DA in the union, at least as far as 1L summer goes, is Manhattan. And nobody gets a job there out of their 1L summer, either. Edit: *I think this is Marin, actually Sulecrist fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
The world is filled with broken-hearted (and unemployed) law students who thought their government internships would lead to jobs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, so I guess he's still got a huge uphill battle to climb. What a bummer...zzyzx posted:It's most likely an unpaid internship that won't result in an offer. DAs are as broke as ever, but free help is free help. Also dude, did you get your name from that road that everybody sees on the way to vegas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:There are no jobs in Cali. drat I thought Alaska took the cake on paying DAs. How does my wealthy state pay less than your stupid bankrupt state? At least we have jobs 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 01:29
|
|
|
Totally Negro posted:I previously posted a long time ago about my good friend who was thinking about going to "Chapman School of Law" (http://www.chapman.edu/law/). I showed him the responses in this thread, but he decided to go anyway thinking that he would have no trouble finding a job. I applied here after my (atrocious) first LSAT and got rejected. I am dead serious when I say I cannot thank them enough for that. Sulecrist posted:I got an interview-free offer to SF DA (highest-paying* in the country, but unpaid summer obviously) and another at Alameda county. Alameda ended up canceling their 1L program entirely because they've had to fire so many police that there isn't enough work for their volunteers to do. Yes lets cut police in Oakland. East Bay is so chus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
BigHead posted:drat I thought Alaska took the cake on paying DAs. How does my wealthy state pay less than your stupid bankrupt state? At least we have jobs I'm actually from Pennsylvania, which lures young men of distinction to the prosecutorial flag with yearly salaries starting at $34k.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:I'm actually from Pennsylvania, which lures young men of distinction to the prosecutorial flag with yearly salaries starting at $34k. Thank you for reiterating my belief that Alaska is the best of anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
Draile posted:The world is filled with broken-hearted (and unemployed) law students who thought their government internships would lead to jobs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
I have a snug friend who goes to Chapman. Fitting. Didn't know it was that bad. How bad is Hastings in terms of dying alone?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:There are no jobs in Cali. Santa Clara is the highest paid too (and is civil service), with Alameda close behind (so is SF). Working for CA DA's office is dumb though. California criminal law is regressive and fairly evil. I have a CA PD job though  It is a loving terrible market and I won't have one after the new fiscal year. You really need 1 year of post bar experience to break into government employed criminal law and that means working for free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 04:57
|
|
|
Draile posted:The world is filled with broken-hearted (and unemployed) law students who thought their government internships would lead to jobs. I had 4 of them! Funny story - today a woman at my job announced she was leaving her job to take her law degree and go start her own business (real estate something or other). Like me, she liked to keep her degree a secret, and also like me, she graduated from Northeastern, though it was 3 years earlier. I hope this doesn't bring any scrutiny down on me - it does kind of reinforce the whole "lawyers will just up and leave to become lawyers if you hire them" stereotype. I think she worked there for a few years before she left. But on the plus side there's another job opening for a copywriter! Maybe it's fate. Maybe they'll hire another secret lawyer to fill it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 05:17
|
|
|
The thing you should understand about your friend's prospects is that government and public interest hiring is worlds away from private firm hiring. A 1L internship generally doesn't mean poo poo for long-term prospects at either, but a 2L internship (summer associateship) at a private firm generally means that's where you'll be working after law school (unless your class gets sucked into an economic black hole of no-offers or if you prove to be a dimwit on the job). That's just not so with public service employers--you generally have to apply for permanent positions along with everyone else. The connections and experience will help you, but it's nothing like firm hiring. Your friend should be glad he will get some respectable experience if he's interested in prosecuting, but there's really nothing to brag about as a 1L unpaid intern. intensive purposes fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
Totally Negro posted:Holy poo poo, so I guess he's still got a huge uphill battle to climb. What a bummer... Here is how it worked in Sacramento: Lots of people did internships at DA's office throughout their 1L and 2L years. About 10 of them were lucky enough to land 1 year temp jobs paying ~$20/hour after graduation. At the end of the year, one of them got hired full time. She will be in fear for her job yearly for the next three years as the budget axe looms. The other 9 or so were offered the option to stay on unpaid. Los Angeles is the same just on a larger scale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
So talks of no overtime for US examiners made me go look it upquote:Based on the budget cuts, Director Kappos has announced the following changes for the patent examination corps: What the gently caress is this poo poo? You poor bastards. Especially since US examiners have such a high burden of proof for all their poo poo, no overtime and hiring freeze is going to slow the prosecution process down to a loving crawl. Like japanese examiners can basically hand wave "claims 1-187 are obvious in view of CR1 and CR2" and that's that, while US goes through every single dependent claim and justify it. This is going to be a shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
mrtoodles posted:Here is how it worked in Sacramento: This is the majority of DA/city attorney attorney/PubDef offices across the country. From New Orleans and Chicago in my personal experience, to NY, Boston and a few cities via ex-lawschool friends that are now "contacts." And it's only going to get worse. IANAL fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 14:42
|
|
|
Zo posted:So talks of no overtime for US examiners made me go look it up The way production works for me is that I have to do an office action every 15 hours that I work. So on my regular 80 hour biweek, I have to average 5.33 actions a biweek over the course of each fiscal quarter. When I worked an additional 40 hours of overtime, I had to do a total of 8 actions a biweek. So overtime isn't like I spend more time on the applications I have. The lack of overtime isn't going to make the job any worse (other than my paycheck getting cut by a third), but it's going to probably keep snowballing our backlog, as we don't have overtime to work on more cases, nor do we have more examiners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:The way production works for me is that I have to do an office action every 15 hours that I work. So on my regular 80 hour biweek, I have to average 5.33 actions a biweek over the course of each fiscal quarter. When I worked an additional 40 hours of overtime, I had to do a total of 8 actions a biweek. So overtime isn't like I spend more time on the applications I have. The lack of overtime isn't going to make the job any worse (other than my paycheck getting cut by a third), but it's going to probably keep snowballing our backlog, as we don't have overtime to work on more cases, nor do we have more examiners. Thanks for the insight, I knew it was going to snowball the backlog but I had no idea examiners had to do an OA per x hour. I wonder how many hours other jurisdictions spend on OAs. Going into patent examining is still a possibility for me - in canada though, lower pay but canadian OAs are always so toothless so seems like it'd be relaxing work, so it's interesting to hear about things from the examining side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 15:00
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:The way production works for me is that I have to do an office action every 15 hours that I work. So on my regular 80 hour biweek, I have to average 5.33 actions a biweek over the course of each fiscal quarter. When I worked an additional 40 hours of overtime, I had to do a total of 8 actions a biweek. So overtime isn't like I spend more time on the applications I have. The lack of overtime isn't going to make the job any worse (other than my paycheck getting cut by a third), but it's going to probably keep snowballing our backlog, as we don't have overtime to work on more cases, nor do we have more examiners. wow, this is megadumb
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 15:00
|
|
|
But now Congress is saving moneys! Who cares if our patent process continues to slow to a loving crawl? All I care about is whether government spends less, regardless of the consequences!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
mrtoodles posted:Here is how it worked in Sacramento: This whole hosed up system is why I'm looking at civil. I don't think we'll have public defenders (as county employees) 20 years from now outside of many SF county and a few holdouts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 16:06
|
|