Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista

Aschlafly: Jan 5, 2004; I identify as smart.
(But that doesn't make it so...)

Little update from the last thread:

3.75/180 with three science majors, and I am officially... waitlisted at Harvard! Yay! I didn't really want to go very badly, anyway. I guess it's back to having panic attacks and figuring out what to do with my life!

# ¿ May 7, 2010 19:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:11

Aschlafly: Jan 5, 2004; I identify as smart.
(But that doesn't make it so...)

Draile posted:

When did you apply?

A day after the deadline, so I'm not terribly surprised.

Like I said, I'm having math withdrawal. I was actually accepted to awesome grad school programs for theoretical bio (Stanford, Berkeley, Davis, UCLA) and agreed to go to Berkeley before freaking the gently caress out, going into panic mode, and not communicating with anyone. Maybe law school failure is a sign that I ought to rebuild those burned bridges and give grad school another shot.

# ¿ May 8, 2010 02:11

Aschlafly: Jan 5, 2004; I identify as smart.
(But that doesn't make it so...)

builds character posted:

Yes, yes it is. At the very least, don't go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer. it sounds like you don't

Original plan was to go JD -> clerk -> LLM -> SJD -> professor. So yeah, I guess I didn't particularly want to practice law.

Draile posted:

Well, maybe. You know best what you want to do. But I'm sure you realize that you got waitlisted at Harvard because the class was already full, not because you didn't have the numbers. Apply on the first day of next year's cycle and you'll get into any school you want, most of them with a lot of money.

Anyway, you didn't fail�you applied too late.

Definitely, if sating my math appetite doesn't work, I'll be submitting my HY apps in early September, not early February.

# ¿ May 8, 2010 04:12

Aschlafly: Jan 5, 2004; I identify as smart.
(But that doesn't make it so...)

Abu-Saleh posted:

As a college freshman, I am curious about your guys' opinion as to whether the job market would have gotten better by the time after I hypothetically enrolled in and graduated from a law school, which is at minimum 8 years from now. I'm taking pre-med courses right now, but lawyering sounds like an equally respectable, and potentially more lucrative field (it's not as of now, I understand).

Study physics, chemistry, math, computer science, engineering, or something else quantitative that requires computer work. You will instantly be qualified for a plethora of lucrative jobs, and you will have opportunities for paid PhD student positions. You will end up much better off financially, and probably more usefully educated, than you would if you want to law school.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2011 16:36

Aschlafly: Jan 5, 2004; I identify as smart.
(But that doesn't make it so...)

Soylent Pudding posted:

This is one of the reasons I made the jump to computer science. Also both careers rely on a very similar skill set of being able to break complicated problems down into simple logical parts and then writing a document in an arcane and highly precise language solving that problem.

Also computer science is full of so many of the socially stunted and awkward that even the gooniest lawyer has a huge advantage in people skills.

This sounds nuts! I'm actually about a year away from finish my Ph.D in computational biology and am actually considering law school (yet again). :doh:

I look forward to never again having to write a single line of Python or C++. Writing incomprehensible legalese sounds way more funnerer.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 13:05

Aschlafly: Jan 5, 2004; I identify as smart.
(But that doesn't make it so...)

Deceptive Thinker posted:

The good thing is, if you're used to reading other people's code, you should have no problem deciphering case opinions

I've basically been doing nothing but reading Supreme Court cases in my free time for the last few months. I imagine these are the cream of the crop, though, and the less lofty, theoretical aspects of law are likely to put me in a mental institution.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 14:07

Aschlafly: Jan 5, 2004; I identify as smart.
(But that doesn't make it so...)

patentmagus posted:

You, thus far, lack the maladjustment and self loathing for law practice. Luckily, you seem to realize this by inferring that the "less lofty" bits will institutionalize you. Too be clear, SC decisions are not cream of the crop. Maritime law is.

Regardless, reading the SC decisions is kinda like fast forwarding to the money shot. What you really want to do is delve into the case history and read those district court and appeals court filings. In other words, get a PACER account, use it, love it.

I know that I personally felt the hole where my soul belongs on the day that I thought to myself "Amazing! They couldn't get jurisdiction over Apple in Deleware!" Well adjusted people obviously don't give a poo poo about such things and only the truly barren seek it out.

To be fair, reading the peer-reviewed literature in my field (population genetics) is pretty similar��a lot of fiddling and noodling and computing integrals that have nothing to do with biology, until finally someone figures out a way to tie it to data, blah blah.

Soothing Vapors posted:

lol

I know it's pretty stupid. This too shall pass. I will probably simply fantasize for a few weeks about getting into Yale and clerking for the Supreme Court, then get over it and forget law school forever

# ¿ Oct 10, 2014 13:21

Aschlafly: Jan 5, 2004; I identify as smart.
(But that doesn't make it so...)

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

I just want to point out this guy got waitlisted at Harvard with a 3.75/180 and is now getting a phd.

loving apply while your 180 is live man.
The worst case scenario is you don't get into hys and don't go.

Apply this year and ask them to defer admission for a year so you can complete your phd.

Oh poo poo, this hadn't even occurred to me at all. I thought my LSAT would've expired by now. fuuucccckkkk

# ¿ Oct 11, 2014 23:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:11

Aschlafly: Jan 5, 2004; I identify as smart.
(But that doesn't make it so...)

mastershakeman posted:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-sovereign-citizen-sentencing-met-20141014-story.html

I think the weirdest part is that she should've been a generic rich woman due to Nick Anderson but nope.

"Sovereign citizens" might be the only people funnier and more insane than creationists. Related judicial smackdown:

quote:

Defendant has filed yet another document entitled �Mandatory Judicial Notice.� (See Dkts. #99, 86, 66, 59, 58.) The �Mandatory Judicial Notice� notifies the Court that Defendant �relies in good faith on the public/commercial REGISTRY entries as published at https://www.peoplestrust1776.org inclusive of Universal Law Ordinance, UCC #2012096074 . . . .� For lack of a better term, this is gobbledygook. The Court is unsure of the document�s purpose, and given its undecipherable nature, no response is expected from the Government.

Defendant is apparently a member of a group loosely styled �sovereign citizens.� The Court has deduced this from a number of Defendant�s peculiar habits. First, like Mr. Leaming, sovereign citizens are fascinated by capitalization. They appear to believe that capitalizing names has some sort of legal effect. For example, Defendant writes that �the REGISTERED FACTS appearing in the above Paragraph evidence the uncontroverted and uncontrovertible FACTS that the SLAVERY SYSTEMS operated in the names UNITED STATES, United States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and United States of America . . . are terminated nunc pro tunc by public policy, U.C.C. 1-103 . . . .� (Def.�s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.) He appears to believe that by capitalizing �United States,� he is referring to a different entity than the federal government. For better or for worse, it�s the same country.

Second, sovereign citizens, like Mr. Leaming, love grandiose legalese. �COMES NOW, Kenneth Wayne, born free to the family Leaming, 20 December 1955, constituent to The People of the State of Washington constituted 1878 and admitted to the union 22 February 1889 by Act of Congress, a Man, �State of Body� competent to be a witness and having First Hand Knowledge of The FACTS . . . .� (Def.�s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 1.)

Third, Defendant evinces, like all sovereign citizens, a belief that the federal government is not real and that he does not have to follow the law. Thus, Defendant argues that as a result of the �REGISTERED FACTS,� the �states of body, persons, actors and other parties perpetuating the above captioned transaction(s) [i.e., the Court and prosecutors] are engaged . . . in acts of TREASON, and if unknowingly as victims of TREASON and FRAUD . . . .� (Def.�s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.)

The Court therefore feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding things he has read on the internet are make-believe. Defendant can call himself a �public minister� and �private attorney general,� he may file �mandatory judicial notices� citing all his favorite websites, he can even address mail to the �Washington Republic.� But at the end of the day, while sovereign citizens and Defendant cite things like �Universal Law Ordinances,� they are subject to both state and federal laws, just like everyone else.

For the reasons stated above, no response is required by the Government.

source, document 102

# ¿ Oct 15, 2014 15:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Lawyer & Law School Megathread #12: Started Out Barrister, Ended Up Barista