tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4654839393067256362024-03-13T12:26:23.809-07:00Law CommentaryIdeas surrounding the life of a law student at University of San Diego School of LawMark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-48531022280984096572012-01-19T22:23:00.001-08:002012-01-19T22:53:28.908-08:00Fix It!Man, tonight was rough. I got called out on a bunch of stuff that wounds the pride. First of all, my buddy called me out on making an argument or comment that was like grabbing for air. Second, I got called out on how my words and actions don't coincide.<br /><br />About the first point. Well, I have always prided myself on being open-minded and understanding different perspectives. I like to think what I say usually sounds reasonable to the people I come into contact with. So, when Jimmy said, "you're up in the air, man," it struck home - and struck hard.<br /><br />I think it has to do woth being open-minded but it also has to do with making sure you understand what the other person is saying before you respond definitively. This is because I made a comment to Jimmy that seemed to be on point - I was wrong. This may have resulted from not understanding exactly what Jimmy was saying. Instead, I was making assumptions about what he was saying. That's dangerous, and typically a bad practice.<br /><br />Now. To the second point. My friend told me tonight that my words and actions don't coincide. Well, I found it interesting she said that. Mostly because I have been thinking about this very alleged flaw and inconsistency in behavior, and so I have something to say about it.<br /><br />Why is it so bad to have your words and actions contradict one another? Isn't the world full of contradictions, and we accept them. Religion is probably the primary environment in which people are most willing to accept contradiction without argument. And yet we get so worried about some behavior inconsistency?<br /><br />But at the end of the day, I concede the point. my words and actions didn't coincide and I need to fix that.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-25409292687761036302011-10-31T15:19:00.000-07:002011-10-31T16:15:44.448-07:00Gettin a Piggyback<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXapZ01dF7socYG-GrWwcyaJlkFislK-e0TTCc8uXXIKycnOfCo5_pL-xLDBgxkYACaEj39-f_5-v0p2ICxhDftYsk_zyRQgj8VeNfM2E4VwFITRus5Rx34Q9ClpeqtkYGeCK10ENdUQ/s1600/Huntsman"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 231px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXapZ01dF7socYG-GrWwcyaJlkFislK-e0TTCc8uXXIKycnOfCo5_pL-xLDBgxkYACaEj39-f_5-v0p2ICxhDftYsk_zyRQgj8VeNfM2E4VwFITRus5Rx34Q9ClpeqtkYGeCK10ENdUQ/s320/Huntsman" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5669784709996278978" border="0" /></a>Gary Herbert, Utah's governor (our left) is getting as close as he can to Jon M. Huntsman (pictured here) with the intent to capitalize on his friendship with the popular ex-governor.<br /><br />First of all this picture is just so funny. Huntsman is not even looking at Herbert, yet the two are holding hands. Perfect Photo-op. But Herbert doesn't have much of a choice<br /><br />Herbert needs all the help he can get because his chances of re-election appear slim as many Utahs wouldn't mind seeing Herbert go. And considering popular Utah state representative Jim Matheson has entertained running against Herbert in the upcoming gubernatorial election, Herbert may have some more things to worry about.<br /><br />Matheson, comes from a family of politicians: Son of Scott M. Matheson (ex Utah governor), brother to Jim Matheson (Utah state representative), and brother to Scott Matheson (Utah politician. Scott lost to Hunstman in the governor's race).<br /><br />Not only would it be a big win for his family, but also a big win for Utah Democrats. Considering the fact that Matheson is a Democrat, were Matheson to unseat Herbert, not only would he be just the sixth democrat to hold the governor's seat in Utah's history, but also he would be the first democrat governor in over twenty-six years -- the last of which was Matheson's father Scott. M. Matheson.<br /><br />Let's hope he runs.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-33254982363531047852011-10-16T11:52:00.001-07:002011-10-16T20:54:58.314-07:00Bread or Clean Air?<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"MS 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"MS 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> </style><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:";font-size:100%;" >Is making money more important than clean air or water?? It is according to one of the justices of a case I read today. He said the following.<br /></span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:";font-size:100%;" ><br />"One’s bread is more important that landscape or clear skies."</span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:";font-size:100%;" ><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;" >This argument is usually made by huge corporate entities who are trying to continue their unbridled polluting for the sake of profit and social efficiency. Their reasoning is that some pollution is necessary in order to ensure economic efficiency and growth. If the government were to prohibit all pollution emission, the economy would slow down. That scares market capitalists.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;" >What is fundamentally flawed about the argument is that it fails to address two important points. First, the fact that pollution imposes an incredible health risk to people. To what extent is it okay to harm individuals in order to secure progress and capital? And the second is the earth's limited resources. If corporations are able to pollute in excess, the earth won't be able to produce any bread to buy.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;" >It is ridiculous for people to consider economic efficiency as more important than sustaining the earth's resources and people's overall health.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;" >I think the government should impose strict regulations on how much companies can pollute. If the regulations curb economic efficiency -- so what -- the regulation creates an incentive for the company to innovate and create new, sustainable solutions, which is exactly the type of thing of which America needs more. And if they can't innovate, they die.</span><br /></span>Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-38029612805388102492011-10-13T10:23:00.000-07:002011-10-14T13:47:09.615-07:00We gotta say NO!Utah's governor is leading a multi-state initiative to push back the deadline one year for implementing new federal pollution regulations.<br /><br />This attack on the environment just adds to the litany of setbacks in environmental regulations we've experienced this year. So I guess it shouldn't come as a big surprise, but I wonder when we're going to learn that protecting the earth's resources should be concomitant with protecting profits. That's sustainability.<br /><br />As of now, corporations are depleting resources to protect profits and things are getting ugly.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-66080862033454753852011-10-13T09:59:00.000-07:002011-10-13T10:16:47.558-07:00Two-faced PoliticsObama's fundraising juggernaut is dauntless. During the third quarter of 2011, Obama's team pulled in just over $70 million.<br /><br />The campaign touted their grassroots movement, which has grown to over 980,000 individual donors most of which are giving upwards of $50 each. This early in the campaign that is impressive.<br /><br />But what's not impressive is Obama's two-faced politics. He woos the American people claiming to be their savior from this economic mess while he simultaneously gets in bed with the corporate giants on Wall Street that ultimately got us in this mess to begin with.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-44905390058511939912011-10-12T10:17:00.000-07:002011-10-12T13:12:39.934-07:00Romney v. Obama: Does it even matter?After watching the debate last night it would appear Romney has the GOP nomination all sealed up. Not like the field has produced formidable opponents.<br /><br />Perry sounded like an idiot. Cain's 999 plan is ridiculous, not to mention he was the president of a pizza company. Sure, that's something of which to speak, but not in comparison to the president of the United States, you know? I actually like Huntsman only because he says whatever he wants. Did you hear about his comment about how he thought 999 was the price of a pizza??!! Awesome. But, of course, Huntsman has no chance. Pawlenty is a none factor as well as he goes around taunting his gay-hating ways. Bachmann (and Perry) is trying hard to be the next Palin, which just makes me shake my head in disbelief. She, like all the others, is a none factor. I like Paul and his views and plans to put the federal government on a serious financial diet, but all things considered, America under Paul would be a disaster. Therefore, he, too, is a non-factor.<br /><br />So, yeah, Romney. The question is: Can he beat Obama?<br /><br />He's a formidable debater. He knows his shit. He's an incredible leader. In some ways I think he's more equipped to solve major problems than Obama. But let's get real and remember it's all politics.<br /><br />Even if Romney beats Obama, what's the chance he'll be able get anything done? America's political system is so broken that however skillful the president may be, s/he still faces the morass we call the house and senate. These days, even if a certain plan or bill has doubtless merit, the political system strips away the merits, replaces them with earmarks, and calls it progressive legislation.<br /><br />My ass.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-50148741423489701762011-10-09T17:48:00.001-07:002011-10-09T17:52:11.697-07:00Shoes & Hot DogsRemember when someone threw a shoe at Bush during a press conference? Well, today someone threw a hot dog at Tiger Woods.<br /><br />That's gotta be some kind of biblical sign Armageddon is imminent.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-26734247542802613352011-10-09T11:12:00.000-07:002011-10-09T17:38:49.548-07:00Death of American InnovationWhat the hell is going on?<br /><br />A number of bills that will unbuckle years of environmental protections are currently waiting for Senate approval. The two main bills include the TRAIN act, which would require cost considerations to trump health and science concerns for new rules, and the <a target="_hplink">REINS Act</a>, which essentially allows congress to veto all new regulations the executive branch proposes.<br /><br />The underlying premise for the bills is that environmental regulation curbs job creation, and with the American economy in the toilet, America can't afford to keep a tight belt on regulation.<br /><br />But why can't America invest in sustainable innovation? Why must we continually rely on the easy, dirty way of doing things to create jobs? Is the only way to create jobs to tap more oil reserves and allow American industries to pollute unbridled?<br /><br />Congress is lazy and dangerously tethered to the industries that refuse to change their business model to a more sustainable and environmentally friendly model. Therefore, America is missing an incredible opportunity to lead the world in sustainability innovation.<br /><br />The opportunity is now. America needs to stop relying on an outdated economic model that relentlessly depletes the world's resources and that pollutes the air we breath and the water we drink. Instead of looking back America needs to look forward and develop a model that will sustain us not for decades but centuries to come.<br /><br />Perhaps the death of Steve Jobs, one of America's greatest innovators, symbolizes the death of American innovation.<br /><br />It's not a stretch considering the way things are going.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-67969366636888802722011-10-08T23:09:00.000-07:002011-10-09T02:02:21.521-07:00Mormons & ChristiansThis weekend, Baptist pastors insisted Mormons are not Christians at the Values Voter Summit, a high profile, right-wing political conference in Washington, D.C.<br /><br />This rhetoric, however, is nothing more than a spurious onslaught stemming from years of contempt and discrimination.<br /><br />Mormons are Christian, and I think it's about time other Christian denominations accept it. The official title of the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I mean the name of Jesus appears in the name for god's sake (no pun intended).<br /><br />The preachers argue that because Mormons don't believe in the traditional conception of the trinity they aren't Christian. The traditional conception of the trinity is that god, Jesus, and the spirit are three pieces of one unit. In other words god is god, Jesus, and the spirit all in one. Mormons, on the other hand, believe that God, Jesus, and the spirit are three separate entities working as one team.<br /><br />So, it's not like Mormons don't believe in God, Jesus, or the spirit. They do, but they have a different perspective regarding the composition. Is that difference in belief sufficient to say they aren't Christian? Not at all. Jesus is still the cornerstone.<br /><br />Preachers also argue that because Mormons have a supplemental book of scripture -- The Book of Mormon -- they aren't christian. What's ultimately ridiculous about that argument is that the Book of Mormon is just some more teachings of Jesus. The bible constitutes two books: the old testament and the new testament. Mormons believe the BOM is just another addition pushing the same ideas.<br /><br />The entire idea of Mormonism is founded on the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of god, and that he suffered on the cross so that every one can be saved. Doesn't that sound like prima facie christian to you?<br /><br />People are just scared of Mormons because they are different. People fear what they don't understand.<br /><br />And don't get me wrong, the Mormon religion is strange to a fault. But that shouldn't discredit the fact that they're still a Christian religion.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-46077569321382387692011-10-08T15:01:00.001-07:002011-10-08T15:01:21.572-07:00The Joy of ThinkingIn torts we have been discussing the problem with identifying causation. Technically causation goes back until the beginning of time, so where does the law draw the line? It's not always an easy question.<br /><br />But the subject of original causation got me thinking about original thoughts -- more specifically -- the first thought ever.<br /><br />What was the first thought ever? What was it about? Who had it? What was the nature of it? I don't know, but it's something to think about.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-74594281939548688012011-10-07T11:30:00.000-07:002011-10-07T12:35:48.369-07:00The Change of SeasonsIt's fun to see all the pictures people are posting on Facebook of the changing seasons. I have seen some pictures of leaves changing and even snow! It's crazy.<br /><br />The change reminds me of what I was doing when the season changed last year. It's amazing how much things can change -- or not change -- in one year, and how quickly time flies. Often we have goals in mind for the coming year such as, by next fall I'll be doing this or that. And we go about the year working toward those goals.<br /><br />And sometimes things happen that throw a big wrench in your plans rendering the coming year entirely different than what you expected. It can be hard to say the least, but change, like the change of season, is inevitable, and as humans we have to find a way to accept and move on. It's easy to write about, but a lot harder to actually put into practice.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-4446218193869055622011-10-04T19:01:00.001-07:002011-10-06T10:17:19.918-07:00The Funny thing about AttemptPunishing criminals that commit crimes make sense to me. The process is pretty simple. The legislature enacts criminal statutes to punish certain behavior that it deems dangerous to the greater society. The idea is that if you impose criminal sanctions on certain behavior the sanction acts as a deterrent.<br /><br />Hopefully everyone feels safer because we live in a society where criminals are punished (well some of them). But what about criminalizing attempted crimes? That just seems wrong to me. I think it's bad not in the least because the crime of attempt encroaches upon a fundamental principle of criminal law, which is to punish defendants that actually committed a crime. It's bad policy to send innocent folks to the slammer. So, if the criminal has not committed a crime, it would be wrong to punish him.<br /><br />But mostly, I question the efficacy and overall necessity of attempt because it's goal, like all criminal sanctions, is to deter the criminal from engaging in criminal conduct that is potentially harmful to the greater society. However, punishment for attempt is far less severe than the punishment imposed for actually committing crimes. What makes the government think attempt will deter any more criminals?<br /><br />Look at it from the criminal's perspective. Mr. criminal is about to rob a bank. He goes to the store and buys all the necessary items one needs to rob a bank (e.g., a bandana). At this point the severe punishment for robbing banks isn't deterring him; obviously the punishment for attempt won't either.<br /><br />Therefore, the crime of attempt shakes the foundations of criminal law without offering value.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-15417301368900291632011-10-04T15:24:00.000-07:002011-10-06T01:15:17.564-07:00Psychology: Gestalt v. StucturalismIs the whole better than the sum of its parts? Is it better to perceive something by its parts or as a whole?<br /><br />This binary can be further analyzed through the comparison of two types of thinking: (1) the west (and law school), and (2) the east.<br /><br />Western history has chronicled the western man's affinity to compartmentalize and analyze facts. Consider how Darwin meticulously examined individual characteristics of certain species. As westerners, we are more interested in the specific facts than the whole picture. I think the pervasive individuality across society is in part attributable to this type of component, fact-based thinking. We are so focused on ourselves that we struggle to grasp the understanding of the whole.<br /><br />Easterners, on the other hand, naturally see the whole. They are less interested in the factual items or the components that comprise the whole. Easterners generally have a stronger group identity within the society than westerners.<br /><br />So what. Well, is one better than another? More effective? I think the only way to answer that question is on a case-by-case basis. Like everything in the world, it's relative.<br /><br />Although recent announcements in the physics world call that theory into question.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-79422560219487888412011-09-28T19:05:00.000-07:002011-09-28T19:35:16.951-07:00Bull Shit AdvertisingToday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered Reebok to pay $25 million in consumer refunds for claiming its "toning shoes" would give wearers a better looking ass.<br /><br />$25 Million? Wow, that's a lot.<br /><br />The FTC claimed that Reebok’s advertising was false and deceptive in violation of sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act, which states:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:courier new;">(a) Unlawfulness</span> <span style="font-family:courier new;"> </span><a style="font-family: courier new;" name="ID59EAC41243411E085059313582677B6"></a></span> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:courier new;">It shall be unlawful for a</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:courier new;">ny person, partnership, or corporation to disseminate, or cause to be disseminated, any false advertisement--</span></span><br /></div><br />They claimed erroneously that by wearing the shoes you can gain 28% more strength than if you wear regular shoes.<br /><br />I'm glad Reebok got busted for deceiving unwary consumers. That's not fair. In the end, Reebok will have to change the message, but hopefully not the picture :)<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpJCyS4e5tNVzSQKegqsqvzLL0mzY4qMPjCkTdHf85io8HjXsCnlmOpPO5eqxKCGqyzi42dezEMyOrZnnxthcaSGOnqukitBNgvxY3aja7J9UK-GWsImiVeaGtgK6jONc4e051b6wZWQ/s1600/reebok-easytone-shoes-ad-campaign.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 226px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpJCyS4e5tNVzSQKegqsqvzLL0mzY4qMPjCkTdHf85io8HjXsCnlmOpPO5eqxKCGqyzi42dezEMyOrZnnxthcaSGOnqukitBNgvxY3aja7J9UK-GWsImiVeaGtgK6jONc4e051b6wZWQ/s320/reebok-easytone-shoes-ad-campaign.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5657603115857901314" border="0" /></a>Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-89421515450639850492011-09-28T18:06:00.000-07:002011-10-06T01:10:32.065-07:00Life & Limb<span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;">What do you think about the following?</span></span><br /><br />Life and limb does not become less worthy of protection by the law nor a loss less worthy of compensation under the law because he has come upon the land of another without permission or with permission but without a business purpose.</span><br /><br />What if someone breaks into your home and is injured by some unforeseen trap? According this this, he can sue you for damages resulting from the injury.<br /><br />Is that fair?<br /><br />Is all life and limb worthy of protection?Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-85337599361528074252011-09-27T00:27:00.001-07:002011-09-28T18:33:45.494-07:00The uber-reasonable, Reasonable TestThe reasonable standard is the common law standard (judge-made) that determines liability or guilt based on whether the conduct of the defendant was reasonable or not. If it was, no liability. If it wasn't, liability.<br /><br />I think it's fair. People (and the law) expect you to act with reasonable due care with respect to the safety of others. You should expect the same. However, it's not the standard with which I take issue, it's how the standard is applied.<br /><br />Who applies the standard? Hopefully the jury, but very often, well, the judge.<br /><br />Therein lies my concern.<br /><br />The standard of due care inferred by a judge will be a more rigid, arbitrary, and ultimately higher standard than the standard of due care inferred by a jury. Compare the mentality of the average citizen v. the mentality of a judge. The lens through which the two groups view the world is different. After all, most people are idiots and most judges aren't.<br /><br />Therefore, at the end of the day, what we have is not a reasonable test, but an uber-reasonable, reasonable test.<br /><br />Doesn't seem fair.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-85695097737384861152011-09-26T21:59:00.000-07:002011-09-28T19:36:27.959-07:00The GameI could be off base here, but law school is such a game.<br /><br />People pay all this money, sacrifice their health, and even don suits (gasp) in order to play this game. It's kinda ridiculous really. But what's the game you ask?<br /><br />Well, the game is called "Pin the Fact on the Law."<br /><br />To play, all you have to do is take some facts like, Tom hit Ben, and then pin it somewhere on the law (battery, assault etc.). You get a point for each correct pin. Sometimes you even get an extra point if you can manipulate the facts so that it <span style="font-style: italic;">appears</span> to fit on the law tree.<br /><br />For example, let's take the fact Tom hit Ben. I could pin that fact on battery because tom swung his arm, and the arm landed on Ben's face. Battery is when a person (1) intends to cause a (2) harmful or offensive contact. When Tom swung his arm that satisfies intent because arms don't just swing on their own. When Tom's arm hit Ben's face that was a harmful or offensive contact because harmful or offensive is defined by what a reasonable person would consider harmful or offensive, and let's be honest, who thinks getting hit in the face is not harmful or offensive? So we have ourselves a battery. One point.<br /><br />Well what if Tom has epilepsy? Is that still a battery? No, because when Top swung his arm he was having an epileptic seizure and he didn't intent to swing his arm. No battery. So now you have to take Tom hits Ben off the law. Two Points.<br /><br />That's the game. It's kinda fun, really.<br /><br />What's sobering, however, is out in the real world it's not a game.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-9494315917307098342011-09-26T20:30:00.000-07:002011-09-27T10:44:10.199-07:00Duty to Rescue?Question.<br /><br />You're riding the escalator at the mall and the brat ahead of you gets his hand stuck in the escalator, are you required to help?<br /><br />It's a tough question.<br /><br />The law says that the nature of some relationships require that a person help another e.g., a mother must help her child; the driver of the vehicle must help the passengers. If your conduct, whether dangerous or innocent, injures a person, you're required to help.<br /><br />Also, one state (Vermont), passed a "duty-to-rescue" statute that require individuals to rescue as long as they don't jeopardize their safety by doing so. It's only Vermont, but other states are getting on board. Some states have even passed Good Samaritan laws that exonerate botched rescue attempts.<br /><br />So, what do you think now? Are you required to help?<br /><br />Reflect on this case from a Montana court. After a boyfriend severely beats his girlfriend, she stabs him out of self-defense and leaves him for dead. Is she required to call attention to his wounds, even after she stabbed him out of self defense?<br /><br />Indeed she is. And here's the kicker: Isn't it crazy that she is liable for failing to rescue this idiot after the self-defense doctrine allows her to kill him? She should have just finished the job. It would have saved her legal fees.<br /><br />Anyway, the conclusion is the law usually doesn't compel you to rescue, which begs the question: <span style="font-style: italic;">Well,</span><span> should</span> it?Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-33685948808117858012011-09-26T18:49:00.000-07:002011-09-27T00:46:12.584-07:00Common Sense & The LawA lot of people think that lawyers are soooo smart.<br /><br />It is true that lawyering requires some intelligence. After all, lawyers must juggle copious amounts of information, write some stuff, and read some stuff. Sure, that takes some brains.<br /><br />But at the end of the day, lawyering requires common sense, not genius. Who are the parties? What do they want? How can they get it?<br /><br />Law is low-down, dirty common sense.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-79354591812564445952011-09-26T15:40:00.001-07:002011-09-26T19:03:20.535-07:00What to Do?One of the things that makes law school so challenging is the amount of non-classwork required. "Non-classwork" is the work that has nothing to do with class preparation. It's the stuff you work on after you are prepared for class.<br /><br />The non-classwork includes mostly synthesis of class notes, reading notes, and supplemental text notes (for those who have time) into easily understandable and memorable outlines. In addition, some students create their own flashcards and/or study their professor's old exams.<br /><br />So the question is always (at least for me): What should I do?<br /><br />The answer is usually get some sleep.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-85938117582332910302011-09-25T17:33:00.001-07:002011-09-25T17:48:31.790-07:00Evidence and Standards ConflictIn criminal cases the prosecution is required to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. This means that a reasonable person would have little to no doubt whether the defendant was guilty after reviewing the evidence. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard under which the American criminal system works.<br /><br />The civil system is different in that the plaintiff must prove preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was guilty (except in strict liability cases where the defendant can introduce evidence that he was not negligent). This standard means that the plaintiff must show evidence that is more than clear and convincing that the defendant is liable. Or in other words, it must be more than 51%.<br /><br />Nothing too interesting about these concepts other than the surprising fact that criminal law has tried to avoid punishing innocent people by requiring a culpable state of mind to convict under most statutes (subjective standard), but the standard they use for evidence is an objective standard.<br /><br />There seems to be a conflict when the prosecution must prove a subjective mindset to convict, but the evidence he can provide is analyzed objectively.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-15531884231559998452011-09-24T11:17:00.001-07:002011-09-24T11:17:18.945-07:00Compelled Drug TraffickingIn case you're wondering whether you'll be guilty of drug trafficking when two armed men threaten to kill you and your family if you refuse to smuggle drugs across the border, you will.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-46869236913992026322011-09-24T10:52:00.000-07:002011-09-24T11:11:00.659-07:00Amanda Knox TrialIt appears an American citizen will be spending some serious time in an Italian prison for the murder of her British flatmate.<br /><br />Knox and two others were convicted for the murder, but from what I've read the evidence connecting Knox to the murder is tenuous at best. It also appears the Italian police engaged in unsatisfactory detective work. The most egregious and even comical misstep was alleging Knox acted out of rage from smoking marijuana.<br /><br />The police statement said that Knox fell victim to "a rage caused by smoking marijuan<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#cite_note-shayrs-79"><span></span></a>a." That was not the only evidence used to accuse Knox but is definitely the most retarded.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-85459680121401697932011-09-23T14:23:00.000-07:002011-09-24T00:09:07.877-07:00Just a Friendly ReminderNothing moves faster than the speed of light? Right?<br /><br />Well, maybe not. I read an article this morning about some European scientists that claim they clocked a subatomic particle moving at speeds faster than the speed of light.<br /><br />If this turns out to be true, it throws a wrench in Einstein's theory of relativity and the entire conception of modern physics. That's crazy.<br /><br />Whether the claim is factual or not is yet to be determined, but the idea itself is groundbreaking.<br /><br />It's just a startling reminder that everything isn't always as it seems.<br /><br />It's also a reminder of the importance of questioning standard practices or beliefs as opposed to just following what is commonly accepted as true.<br /><br />Because really at the end of the day, we don't know shit.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-465483939306725636.post-81289030954836968752011-09-20T12:47:00.000-07:002011-09-21T15:40:33.453-07:00Who wears the Pants?In case you're wondering whether service is binding when a dude gets served while hiding himself in his wife's coat (while she was wearing it) to avoid service, it is.<br /><br />What a good-for-nothin yellow belly.Mark Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03642808482106728925noreply@blogger.com0