Part II: My Life Was Better Before Law School Because I Never Knew These Words/Phrases Existed

Wow. You're back. 

I didn't expect to see you again.

No, not you . . . you, on the left. 

I knew you would be back. You have geek written all over you. I mean please, the hair. . . the clothes  . . . the fact that you read this blog. . . I mean, it's like your mom went to a sperm bank and she picked out a donor cocktail that was one part Milhouse Van Houten, one part Doc from Back to the Future, and one part that guy who invented Facebook, and out popped you 9 months later. 7 if you were a premie. I've never seen a nerd as big as you and I once bought a 15lb box of Nerds from Costco. This law school stuff is probably like candy to you. Nerds candy. Ok, this analogy has gotten out of control.

But I didn't think you would have the stomach to come back for another round of Law School Words that I blissfully didn't know existed until 3 years ago but are now forever seared in my brain just like a brand on a bull's ass. You remember the title of this series is "my life was better . . . BEFORE . . . I knew these words", right? Either you have short term memory loss, or you are a glutton for punishment, either way, I'm concerned, and you should probably seek some therapy. 

 Anyway, both of you shut up for a minute and listen to ME now. This is my blog, I have the floor. Or the wall. What I was trying to say earlier is that I wasn't kidding yesterday when I said that it was going to be a 4-5 part mini-series of blog posts about horrible Law School Words. This is happening, and I'm actually about to start in on today's words in just a minute. Any of you sons of bitches have a problem with that, you GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE! 

Sorry, I just came back from a Lamaze Birthing Class, and I guess I picked up a little too much on what the instructor was saying. No, I wasn't there because I'm going to have a baby. I go for the free ice chips.

By the way, did you notice that I just recently figured out how to insert links into the text of my blog? 

Anyway, I was glad to hear, from some, that yesterday's post was both informative and stimulating, but I got some critiques as well. I think specifically, one person said, "MikeeP, I love you, but If I wanted to read something online written by a moron who is clearly just an attention whore and has what is obviously only an elementary grasp, if any, of the legal terminology they are discussing/using, I would follow myself on Twitter, you'betcha." Yes, that's right. Sarah Palin reads my blog.

Ok, you got me. She didn't actually write that. I knew you weren't fooled as soon as you realized that it was a coherent sentence. Here's some stuff she actually did say, though. She really does read my blog though, or so I'm told by what I consider to be credible sources (my neighbor's cat).  Hey, Pales (I call her "Pales"), I kid! Thanks for taking a break from reading the palm of your hand during speeches to read my blog. 

So, now that I got the biting political humor out of the way, I think we're ready for some more words. Please feel free to refer to yesterday's post if you want even more context. 

• "Fee Simple"--this does not mean an uncomplicated method of paying your lawyer for telling you if the court has jx in your case. Actually, a "fee simple" is a "stick" in the "bundle of property rights." It's the best stick because it has the sturdiest build and the least amount of knots. If you're lucky, sometimes it comes stained in a rich mahogany. It means that you own something for a perpetually infinite amount of time! Too bad you're mortal and going to have to face the fact that you will die one day. Anyway, until you do kick it, if anyone comes near the property you own in "fee simple", you can use this "stick" to bash them in the head, and the police are forbidden from doing anything about it (look it up, it's in the Constitution). For an even greater effect, try tying a pointy rock to the end. 

• "Equitable Servitude"--This is another simple one. This is nothing more than an agreement that you make with a neighbor to not do something on your land, such as start a nudist colony (something I'd never agree to). It's basically the exact same thing as a "real covenant." (haha! gotcha, that link didn't go anywhere on purpose).The only difference is when you sue someone for breaking an"equitable servitude", you can only sue them for injunctive relief, not damages, so don't mix the two up, dumbass. Oh, the other catch is that for an "equitable servitude" to be valid, it must "touch and concern the land." This sounds easy enough, but land, being the promiscuous hussy that it is, is rarely "concerned" when it is "touched." So, don't hold your breath on winning your lawsuit to enforce an "equitable servitude." 

• "Mailbox Rule"--this rule stands for the notion that, when 2 people are making a contract entirely by sending letters back and forth through the mail and never once meeting in person or speaking over the phone, or even by telegraph, one person has "accepted" an "offer" the MOMENT they dispatch the written acceptance, not when the person making the offer actually receives the acceptance. This rule only comes into play when one person is a total asshole and decides to legally hold you to the terms of a contract because they put a letter into the mailbox 2 minutes before you called them to tell them the deal was off. 

• "Minimum Contacts"--I always have trouble with this one. It's either the lowest possible prescription for your corrective lenses that you are allowed to wear when driving at night, or has something to do when you are trying to determine if a court has jx. Remember what I said yesterday about trying to understand when there is jx? Go get me that jaw-ripper thing from Saw and then kill yourself.

• "In Rem"--this comes from a famous case called Pennoyer v. Neff. Fuck that case.

• "Tort"--Recipe for Strawberry Tort: 

1 (16-ounce) package frozen strawberries, thawed

1 tablespoon cornstarch

2 (8-ounce) packages cream cheese

1 cup granulated sugar

2 teaspoons vanilla extract

2 cups (1 pint) whipping cream

2 (12-ounce) packages ladyfinger cookies

1. Strain strawberries and set aside, reserving juices. In a saucepan bring cornstarch and strawberry juice to a gentle boil. Remove from heat and let cool.
2. Beat cream cheese, sugar, and vanilla together until smooth. In a separate bowl beat whipping cream until stiff peaks form. Fold whipped cream into cream cheese mixture.
3. Arrange ladyfingers around sides and bottom of the 8 or 9-inchspringform pan, standing ladyfingers lengthwise around sides of pan.Pour half the filling into pan, then place a layer of ladyfingers on top of filling. Pour remaining filling over ladyfingers. Spread strawberry sauce over top of cake and place the strawberries on top. Refrigerate for several hours before removing from pan.

Makes 8 servings.

• "Tortfeasor"--this is someone who commits a "tort," so also kind of like a pastry chef. Also known by some as a "tartfeasor." 

• "Remittur/Additur"--this is a process by which a judge tells the jury, "hey, I know you agreed to not go to work for four months so you could sit here and listen to scientists, (who have a personality like Ben Stein in Ferris Beuller, but real), drone for hours upon hours about the seepage rates of tetracycline for only $1 a day, and I know you then deliberated for 32 hours in order to decide on the amount of money this defendant should pay for poisoning these kids based on some complicated law, but I'm gonna just erase your verdict and tell them to pay what I think is fair. Thanks for stoppin' by, though. You were great!"

• "Proximate Cause"--See, in the law of "tarts", excuse me, "torts," someone who gets hurt sues the person with the most money who is at least tangentially connected to the accident (cause everyone knows, no pain reliever in the world compares with gettin' paid, yo!). Anyway, to determine if the person with the most money is "responsible" for the injury caused, you, as the attorney, first have to decide whether the rich person was negligent. You do this by determining if they owed the person who got hurt a "duty of care." If they did owe a duty (hehe, doodie), then you have to decide whether they breached that duty (hehe, doodie). If they did breach the duty, then they were negligent. Then, you have to decide if the person-with-money's breach of duty (hehe, doodie) was the "cause-in-fact" of the hurt person's injury. THEN you have to decide if the breach of duty was the "proximate cause" of the injury. It's basically like saying, "are you sure they caused the injury? Are you really sure? No, are you like totally, seriously, 100% sure? Like positive? Positive positive? For realsies?"  

• "Wanton Disregard"--a terrible, yet all-too-common tragedy that occurs when you order 3 entrees of Chinese take-out, and forget all about the fried crab wantons until you are too stuffed to eat another bite. It's rumored that if you wait 1 hour, you'll be hungry again and stop disregarding your wanton. MMMMMM, waaanntooonnn. Unfortunately, by that time it will be cold. 

That about wraps it up for Part II of the LIST. Boy, I don't know about you, but I could really use some pastries and Chinese food right about now. That always happens to me after thinking about the law. All I know is if any of you moochers get near my law-food, I'll be bashing you with my fee simple stick. 

In any case, I'll see you tomorrow. If I see you, then I'll know that you're the kind of person who, when they get kicked in the nuts, they lean into it. Until then, I'm off to Lamaze to get me some more ice chips. 

PLAY ME OUT, PALES!!

MikeeP