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

And so it's come to this.

We have arrived at what might very well be the last installment of THE "My Life Was Better Before Law School Because I Never Knew These Words/Phrases Existed" LIST.

This is potentially an emotional moment. Will you shed a tear for the end of an era? I know I won't. I made it pretty clear yesterday how I feel about feelings: I don't. Except when it comes to seeing Rachel McAdams on the silver screen. (Damn you, Rachel McAdams, you are my kryptonite!)

Before we enter Endgame, let's take a moment to reflect. What did we learn the past few days?

We learned a lot about me: if I get Alzheimer's, I'm going to be shaving some monkeys, I go to Lamaze classes for the free ice chips, and my Reef sandals are haunted by the restless spirits of dead law school notes.

Let's see. . . . what else. . . .well, we learned that Trinity dies towards the end of the 3rd Matrix movie, but President Bartlet doesn't die in the West Wing. . . . or does he?? (he doesn't).

We also learned a lot about the law. What exactly, I don't know.

If we're to believe anything I've explained, then "the law" is a fantasyland clusterfuck where shit is upside down, wrong is right, people have selfish motives, the police aren't to be trusted, Latin has risen from the dead and wanders the Earth like a decaying, soulless zombie, corporate officers aren't accountable for their actions, people use giant sticks to defend their land and sue each other over contracts they've created entirely by mail, and maps are really boring. Basically, a bleak hellscape.

Thank God the world we live in is nothing like that. Can you imagine if we had to use Latin?

Well, that was some good reflecting time. If you will actually indulge me in two moments of earnestness (just two, I swear, and that's it), it sure has been fun writing about legal stuff the past few days. It's the first time I've done a "series" for blog posts, hell it's the first time I've been conscientious enough to post 4 days in a row since this imminent-trainwreck left the station. So thanks for sticking with me through the legalese. It's been some of the most fun stuff to write about, probably because something as dry and tedious as the law practically screams for humorous treatment lest it literally overtake your entire person and turn you into some kind of . . . law . .  . robot . . . guy. . . with no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . imagination.

So I think I might be revisiting this topic more frequently as time goes on. That may be good news for some of you, and bad news for others. I'll let the 4 of you who actually read this decide for yourselves if you like it or not, but please know that I don't want to alienate anyone. On the contrary, I need to be loved by everyone, or else I just won't be able to even function. So PLEASE KEEP READING! DON'T LEAVE ME!

Ok, I think the earnestness dissipated about half-way into the first paragraph - I told you it would be brief.

Anyway, I think that provides a nice segueway into today's discussion of horrible legal words/phrases. You know what they say, save the best for last. I wish I had remembered that expression when I first started posting this series because honestly what's coming today, I gotta tell ya, is a real steaming pile of shit. I'm almost embarrassed to even publish this post. In fact, I don't know if I am going to.

So you got me there - you're reading this, I obviously already posted it, let's stop this cruel charade.

Thus, without any further stalling tactics, let me introduce the FINAL PORTION OF THE LIST by way of an apology. I am truly, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, sorry for what you are about to read. It sucks. All right, let's get started!

• "Specific/General Intent" - In the world of criminal law, when you act, you might just intend to cause the "natural and probable result" of your actions. "That's general intent." But did you know that you might actually sometimes intend some further thing to occur? If this is the case, then you had "specific intent." If you're confused at this point, then congratulations, you are a human being! Nobody, nobody knows what the fuck the difference between "general intent" and "specific intent" is. If someone tells you that they know, then disregard anything they ever say or have said to you because they are full of shit. The entire legal world - attorneys, judges, professors, law students, clerks, stenographers, bailiffs, defendants, everyone - has been confused about them since they were coined as terms, even the jerk who coined them. And yet, they will always be around because everyone is too embarrassed to admit they have no idea what they mean and suggest we change them. Thus, we still use them today. 
• The good news - you can just ramble about them for a couple of minutes and whoever you are talking to will nod along knowingly, and won't dare contradict you because they will be thinking that you, unlike them, actually understand these terms. 
• More good news, if you commit a "specific intent" crime while you're drunk, you're not guilty!

• "Record Notice" - when you should have looked at every potential record in existence to see if someone has an easement on land you buy, or if someone else actually owns the land you buy. Basically, if there is a piece of paper out there that might say something about your land, then you are considered "on record notice" of whatever it is. The lesson here: carefully review every piece of paper in the world when you are purchasing new land. 

• "Narrowly Tailored to Meet a Compelling Govt Interest" - how you know if a government action or regulation meets the "strict scrutiny" test of constitutionality. Now let us never, ever speak of this phrase again. 

• "Eminent Domain" - when the government decides it wants to take your land, so they make you move, take your shit, and throw you "fair compensation" (i.e. 50% of the fair market value), without a care or in the world as to where you are going to live now. Geez, the government is a real dick. 

• "Riparian Owner" - under the system of "riparian water rights," everyone who borders water is a "riparian owner" of the water, and can make reasonable use of the water. This stands in stark contrast to the rule of "prior appropriation" for water rights, whereby whoever can grab the most water first, regardless of whether they will actually need or use it, owns that water and sucks to be anyone else who might be thirsty or need a shower. If you're for "riparian water rights," then go back to Soviet Russia, you commie pinko bastard.  

• "Search Incident to Arrest" - when the police arrest you, they are entitled to search your person and the area immediately surrounding you in case you are hiding a gun, knife, shiv, shank, mace, taser, brass knuckles, baseball bat, screwdriver, whip, chain, cattle prod, battle ax, boomerang, throwing stars, grenade, spear, sword, rapier, dagger, katana, machete, bow staff, barbed-wire-wrapped-around-a-board, nunchucks, chainsaw, nail gun, hammer, car battery-hooked-up-to-jumper-cables, malatov cocktail, garden sheers, bazooka, rusty nail, mid-range-nuclear-warhead, tank, stealth-bomber, or "fee simple", which you might run and grab after you wrestle free and get out of your handcuffs before the trained police officers are able to stop you. It's for the officer's safety. Oh, also, the cops use this as an excuse to find miniscule amounts of weed in your pocket so they can add another charge so the DA has more leverage in the plea negotiations, and contribute to the already unsustainable state of overcrowded prisons. But it's mostly about the weapons and officer safety.

• "Eggshell Plaintiff" - this concept was introduced into the legal world after a harrowing incident when a certain individual, which for privacy reasons shall remain anonymous, had the grave misfortune of having a great fall from a wall on which he was sitting. This poor bastard didn't have a chance, not even the top horses in the kingdom could save him. R.I.P. 

• "CP/SP" - these abbreves here stand for "community property" and "separate property" respectively. They have to do with how a court will deal with the stuff you will acquire when you get married. You should probably save yourself the headache of learning these terms and just never get married. 

• "Diminished Capacity" - a state in which I spent most of my college years, UP TOP! Anyone? No?

• "Excited Utterance" - Another exception to the "hearsay" rule. This one is a little complicated, so I'm gonna take it slow. This is a statement that  you . . . how should I put this . . . ."utter" . . . . . when you are in a state of hmm, what's a good word . . . . "excitement." No, there's no catch, it's really that straightforward. Pinky swear. 

• "Diversity Jx" - Remember a couple days ago when I told you that killing yourself via that rusty, greasy machine from the movie Saw that is basically a reverse bear-trap that rips your jaw apart was less painful than trying to understand when a court has jx over a case? Well, welcome to Saw II baby! See, what I haven't told you yet, is that there are actually 2 different kinds of jx that you have to show before the court can actually take action. There's "personal jx", which has to do with those "minimum contacts" I mentioned a while ago (which comes from famous case called International Shoe--hrrmmph. . . . oh, excuse me, I just threw up a little in my mouth). But there's also "subject matter jx." And under "subject matter jx," there's 2 different kinds of ways to show jx, "federal question", or "diversity jx." So, the requirements for "diversity jx" are: 1) the suit must arise from a controversy between "citizens" of different states, and 2) must be for a matter of $75K or more. Now, there are a couple of ways to show which state someone is a "citizen" of. First, you . . . . . . HEY! WAIT! WHERE ARE YOU GOING??? WHY ARE YOU RUNNING SO FAST??? I HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE RULES OF COMPULSORY JOINDER THAT CAN DESTROY DIVERSITY JX!!!! THERE'S ONLY FOUR SUB-RULES THAT APPLY THERE, AND THEY'RE REALLY QUITE FASCINATING ONCE YOU GET INTO THEM. WHY ARE YOU FLIPPING ME OFF??

Well, that about wraps things up. 

What did I tell you, just real shoddy, bad stuff today. 

But that doesn't mean that there's not still a take-away message about the law embedded in all of these posts. I guess if I wanted you to take away one thing about "the law" from these blog posts, I think it would be . . .  wait. Did you just hear that? Sush up for a second. That. Right there. You don't hear that? Hmm must be my imagination. 

So, back to the take-away, if I wanted you to take away one thing about "the law" from this blog, it would be--hey look a quarter! Cool, I'm only 2 quarters away from being able to dry a load of laundry!

Anyway, what was I saying? Oh ya, if I wanted you to take away one thing about "the law" from this blog, it would be. . . dammit, I lost my train of thought. Sorry. Ok, we got Endgame. . . . Trinity dies . . . .ice chips . . . Latin-zombie . . . malatov cocktail . . . diversity jx. . . nope, sorry I'm drawing a blank here. 

So it seems the take-away from these past few days is: nothing. There was no point to all of this. Just killin some time before the Bar results come out. This is a time-wasting blog, after all.

At any rate, I hope it was mildly entertaining. I know I had a good time. Too bad it just kinda abruptly ended like this, though. Kinda anticlimactic, no real closure at all. Huh. Oh well. Goodbye. 

MikeeP

PS Best of luck to everyone reading this who is awaiting Bar results, especially anyone from USF School of Law. I have my fingers crossed for all of you, and hope to be drinking a toast to good news for everyone at 6pm tonight!