A man can only write so many essays. When I complete my last essay on the 23rd of July, it will be essay 170. Each essay takes 30 minutes to write, much less review.
When you take the MEE, you will be completing, wait for it…6 essays.
Either way, I’m throwing in the towel early tonight. It’s 0100 and I have some kettlebells to throw around. Anyways, this is about how I’m feeling:
By the way, that was stolen from Animals Being Dicks.
Bar Tally: 341 Hours
Have the local Fedex guy drop off your 2 pood (~70lb) kettlebell. Thing looks like a mix between the Donnie Darko Bunny and those little fuel poop things from that pet they have on Futurama.
Bar Tally: 332 Hours
Here is an example of an easy question I missed:
A mechanic and his former employee were indicted for automobile theft. Unbeknownst to the mechanic, the former employee confessed to the crime and implicated his employer. In exchange for favorable treatment by the prosecutor, the former employee agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of the mechanic. The police were also investigating the mechanic for an alleged plan to kill another person who was to serve as a witness for the state at the mechanic’s trial. The mechanic sought a meeting with the former employee. Upon learning of the proposed meeting, the police wired the former employee in order to record the conversation between the mechanic and the former employee. The police directed the former employee to encourage the mechanic to talk about his criminal activity. At the meeting the mechanic made incriminating statements about stealing automobiles. The mechanic’s lawyer filed a pretrial motion to suppress these statements on the grounds that his client’s right to counsel was violated.
Should the court grant this motion?
A. No, because the statements were obtained by police during an investigation of a possible crime, a plan to murder a witness, for which the right to counsel had not attached.
B. No, because the mechanic initiated the meeting with his former employee.
C. Yes, because the police knowingly used the former employee to elicit incriminating statements from the mechanic about the charged crime.
D. Yes, because the police used a secret agent to obtain the incriminating statements.
Ready? Okay, let’s go through it together…
…A mechanic and his former employee were indicted for automobile theft… Okay, now, once a person is indicted for a crime, their 6th Amendment right to counsel automatically attaches. This is not to be confused with your 5th Amendment right to counsel, which must be affirmatively invoked after you are in police custody.
…Unbeknownst to the mechanic, the former employee confessed to the crime and implicated his employer. In exchange for favorable treatment by the prosecutor, the former employee agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of the mechanic…Now, you need to be thinking about what the police want to do with this guy.
…The police were also investigating the mechanic for an alleged plan to kill another person who was to serve as a witness for the state at the mechanic’s trial…Interesting. Now recall I said that when a person is indicted their 6A right to counsel attaches. However, that right is attached only for the crime in which he’s been indicted. He has not been indicted for conspiracy to commit murder. Are they trying to catch you here?
…The mechanic sought a meeting with the former employee…Hmm. Note here that even if you have a right to counsel, you can get in trouble if you ignore that right and volunteer statements.
…Upon learning of the proposed meeting, the police wired the former employee in order to record the conversation between the mechanic and the former employee… Okay, the cops can do this.
…The police directed the former employee to encourage the mechanic to talk about his criminal activity… Ah ha! Note that word in bold. The entire question pivots on this one word. The police cannot violate your ConX rights. A private citizen can. If your neighbor smells your reefer, busts into your house while you’re gone and turns that evidence over to the cops, it CAN be used against you. But, the police cannot use that person as an agent to violate your rights for them. That’s what happened here. However, if they directed him to ask about murder, that’d be okay. Remember, no 6A right for that. But they didn’t. They said to talk about criminal activity.
…At the meeting the mechanic made incriminating statements about stealing automobiles… Gah! Why’d you have to do that?!
…The mechanic’s lawyer filed a pretrial motion to suppress these statements on the grounds that his client’s right to counsel was violated.
Should the court grant this motion?… You have an answer yet?
A. No, because the statements were obtained by police during an investigation of a possible crime, a plan to murder a witness, for which the right to counsel had not attached…Wrong. But this is their first trick they use to get you. This is good law. It just doesn’t apply here the way we need it. This was just a distraction.
B. No, because the mechanic initiated the meeting with his former employee… Wrong. But congratulations, you’re only as stupid as me. I read this and as I said previously, even if you’ve got your 6A right, you can still have statements used against you that you volunteer. Apparently cops have been known to just go hang out in holding cells pretending to be in trouble too in order to get information. They just can’t actively interrogate.
C. Yes, because the police knowingly used the former employee to elicit incriminating statements from the mechanic about the charged crime… Ding Ding Ding! Remember when I said that the cops can’t use an agent to violate your ConX rights? I passed on this because I missed the word “directed“. I thought they were just wiring him knowing he was going to talk regardless.
D. Yes, because the police used a secret agent to obtain the incriminating statements. Do not be fooled just because it uses the word secret agent. But yeah, in this case for the reasons I’ve said above, this isn’t the answer.
How’d you do? Alright! Only 199 more to go!
Damn you 90’s Country! I bite my thumb at you!
Bar Tally: 326 Hours
How many sets of 20 kettlebell snatches does it take to get you to throw up after eating Pizza Hut? Let’s ask Mr. Owl…
Bar Tally: 303 Hours
Bar Tally: 288 Hours. Seriously, this is getting to the amount of time I played World of Warcraft. That’s saying something. I’m not exactly sure what it says, but there are several choices and I’m not sure what the right one is.
I’ve spoken before about how I disapprove of the use of Latin in the law as well as other terms of art. But let us add to that and go to other uses of language in the law that are no good.
In the law, a person can be estopped from doing something. You know what this means? It pretty much means STOPPED. In law, something can be quashed. This? It means SQUASHED. But I use these words because I’m in the law, and <insert sarcasm> I’m apparently better than you.
Now, let us consider the concept of malice. You know what malice means right? Well, you’re right…if you’re talking about an intentional tort. But not so if you’re talking about, oh, I don’t know, MURDER. In that case it’s pretty much just being cavalier and extremely reckless.
Finally, we close with the term, “narrowly tailored”. Let us consider our friend the 1st Amendment. In the event you’re talking about personal speech that the government wants to infringe upon, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s goal. You know what that means because you have a brain. Well, now imagine the government wants to infringe upon commercial speech. Well, fear not my corporate friends, that law also must be “narrowly tailored”. But wait, there’s more! When it comes to commercial speech “narrowly tailored” actually doesn’t mean the same thing. It actually means that the law must be, “a reasonable fit”. I mean, the terms are truly synonymous right? I’m gonna go with double plus fucking retarded.
I mean seriously, we come up two words that have one meaning, then go around and make one word have two meanings.
Bar Tally: 270 Hours
I can’t imagine mixing Marine and law student does wonders for a man’s mental health.
Today was kind of confusing. I only did 9 hours. I had a few extra hours today and ended up lost as to what to do. I only know how to study.
Bar Tally: 262 Hours
As an aside, if you haven’t heard this Lionel Ritchie Tuskegee album, you’re missing out. This is cool!
So I ordered a life insurance policy. I want to make sure Little Bear is covered in the event I finally meet my match.
When I check my mail I always bring her with me. Her head is the perfect height to see into the box and for some reason it’s something she just loves to do. Regardless, we go to check the mail today and she pulls out my life insurance policy. She then proceeds to spend the next 15 minutes asking me weird details and expressing much more interest in said life insurance policy than a 3 year old child should have. Then I started to think about the last picture her mother sent me about a week ago:
Bar Tally: 253 Hours
It just isn’t my friend.
The question asks me, ” What X’s best argument to recover?” The problem is that X cannot recover. They know this. I know this. But I’m supposed to pick the best wrong argument. Homey don’t play that game.
Going back to a post a few days ago, I missed an easy question today. “Which of the following is NOT an example of non-probate property?” So of course I stare at 4 choices, and pick the one that is more blatantly obviously non-probate property. Why? Because I don’t do negatives people!
Okay, school circle:
Pick your heads up. The individual mandate has been ruled constitutional. Big deal. It sucks. It’s a wrong decision. But it’s perfectly in line with 70+ years of precedent and wrong decisions. You shouldn’t have been surprised.
But stop it with the OHMYGODTHECOUNTRYISDOOMED! Were we doomed when we were overcome by redcoats in ships outside of Manhattan? No. Were we doomed when we were legally buying and selling people? No. Were we doomed when we were told how much wheat we can grow on our land, or when they said the city can take our property and give it to someone else, or that the president can order our assasination? No!
So grow the fuck up, recognize it’s going to take one hell of a lot more than this to topple us and drive on to kicking ass and making the world a better place.
And by the way, I’m laughing my ass off at all of you dumbasses that are so desperate to get a Republican in office “for the judicial appointments.” Yeah, because Reagan and the Bushes have just selected such a smashing group of conservatives. I’m sure Romney, who’s much more the liberal than the last 3 Republicans will do sooooo much better.
Babies, the lot of you. I’ll get around to a respectable analysis, but It’s 200 pages and it’s 0310. I’ve gotta get up in less than 5 hours to take the little one to school and get back to studying. Here, watching this video sent to me by a buddy. It hits this dating thing on the head pretty well. Or you can just watch it to see this wildly hot chick. That’s worth your time.
Bar Tally: 218 Hours
© 2024 Idaho's Citizen Defense Lawyer
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑