let's talk marley

if you've been following my tweets, my facebook rants, or read my blog over the past year then it's no secret to you that i have a special place in my heart for the trayvon martin/george zimmerman situation. and those who have been following are very aware of how upset i am that the verdict came out the way it did. i wasn't surprised -- legally the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof, and the system worked the way it's designed to work: every benefit of doubt goes to the accused, little if any consideration is given to the vicitm. and on a personal level, c'mon, when's the last time a black person got justice from the courts? -- but i was angry.

and apparently my side doesn;t have the monopoly on anger. zimmerman supporters are angry that martin supporters are outraged. and some of the neutrals are mad because in their minds as long as there is injustice anywhere else in the world no one has a right to be upset by the injustice in this case, right lupe? (to him the existence of previous black on black crime renders illegitimate any outrage over this injustice)

then there's this bit of ignorance:

#JurorB37 & her fellow jurors got it right, & media, celebrities, Obama, do you even know who Marley is? #tcot pic.twitter.com/sFGOpeueRW
— l8rg8r (@HEY_l8r_g8r) July 16, 2013

for the uninitiated, marley lion was a 17 year old white kid who was murdered by a group of black men in SC following a party. as you see this persons misguided, though understandable, anger is of the lack of coverage young marley received compared to trayvon. well since you want to compare injustices, ms. @hey_l8r_g8r, let's compare injustices.

young marley was murdered while sleeping in his SUV outside of a bar. he was tired after leaving a party, and it was 4 A.M. during the attempted robbery, he was shot and killed. after a six week investigation, 4 arrests were made. trayvon martin was murdered while walking home from a seven 11 on a rainy florida evening. he had on him a  sugary beverage and a bag of candy. after being followed and confronted by a strange man, a scuffle broke out that ended in young trayvon's untimely demise.

there are some similarities: both cases had arrests made after more than a month. both featured men in their mid to late twenties shooting teenagers. both contain racial undertones. and, most importantly, both ended in tragedy. here's the difference. in young marley's case the assailant wasn't readily known. the investigation took six weeks, because the police had to do police work to find the assailants, and once they had the assailants, they brought appropriate charges based on evidence.

trayvon was not afforded that courtesy.

from the very beginning, the system failed trayvon martin. first let's look at the way the shooters were treated. when police arrested the 4 men they followed SOP: their histories sand criminal backgrounds were checked. when the sanford police arrived at the scene of trayvon's death, it was the victimized teen , not the shooter (who's record would have hurt his claims in court), who's background was searched. apparently not unusual given sanford police's history dealing with black victims. next the reason there was a 44 day gap between trayvon's killing and arrest wasn't due to the need for police work to be done, but because the shooter, who stayed on the scene, was given the benefit of the doubt. finally it is apparent that the evidence in the zimmerman case was, put nicely, insufficient and mishandled. the evidence in the case involving young marley's killers has been handled in an ethical and competent way.

i'm not going to in any way denigrate @hey_l8r_g8r for her passion; young marley deserves justice. i won't even condemn lupe for his comments. he's absolutely right about black people's need to stop celebrating death and lack of outrage at the injustices facing our young men everyday. i only ask that they not let there passion cloud the truth. the truth is, for all the similaritieds between trayvon and marley,  they're merely coincidence. trayvon's tragedy is national news because of the injustice that took place after the tragedy. it was news for the way the police mishandled the investigation, for the lack of an arrest when the assailant was known, for the racial prejudice of his shooter, and the fact that certain media outlets were loathe to recognize it, @hey_l8r_g8r i assure you that trayvon's tragedy and marley's are not unequal. twi young lives are goone, their fire's not yet ablaze, their fruits not yet ripe. trayvon's tragedy goes beyond just his life. it is a symbol for how far we as a nation still have to go. because of the way self defense laws are written people like george zimmerman will always be able to murder young black males with impunity, their unwarranted fear and hate their shield. we mourn the loss of marley lion with the same fervor. we cannot let our passions for either of these tragedies skew our judgment of the others.

strange fruit

so, justice? we got the arrest, we got the charges. but did we really get justice? did the martin family really get justice? i think not. the state of florida, who failed to find the killer of caylee anthony, or bungled the case against her mother, casey. the same state that several times let aaron hernandez walk on felony charges. the same state that did not afford a self defense argument to a woman, victimized by her abusive husband, when she fired her gun into the air. the state of florida has proven time and again that they cannot or will not find justice for anybody. and, with the verdict in this case, it's clear that on even down to the local level will be no justice for certain people.

why won't i just say that black men can't have justice? well, because that's obvious. that's always been obvious. we've known that since dredd scott had his freedom stripped from him in the famous supreme court case. the truth is in this country no white or white looking person will ever be convicted of doing anything to a black man. if that was somehow obscured by the election of  president obama, now it''s clear again. the mask is off of america and it's face is as white as it's always been. what i will say is something that might be lost on some people: this trial was a joke. zimmerman's intent was never questioned. his reasons for profiling martin were never pushed to the forefront. his psychological history was never raised. his criminal background never researched. no toxicology screen was given to the assailant. evidence containing DNA was bagged in such a way that it degraded to the point of ruin. the states attorney used ethically questionable practices with their evidence. and the way the witnesses were handled was an absolute travesty.

so what now? do we take to the streets and burn it all down? no. we fight. the right way. by taking the power back from those who would see us remain second class citizens. by urging our lawmakers to change the ridiculous laws that led to this travesty of justice. by changing our gun laws so men like zimmerman can't kill a human whom they've unfairly profiled and keep the weapon. how about by automatically treating every incident of gun violence as a potential felony FROM THE START instead of waiting over a month to start the investigation in earnest. or pushing for laws that put the ownus on the profiler, rulling the incident to have been initiated from the point wher the profiler becomes the pursuer?

there were some poignant points made on the issue tonight. one of my twitter followers who's race is the same as mine and trayvons asked "what am i supposed to tell me son to do when a man with a gun comes up to him now?". because trayvon defended himself and was killed. and according to the jury he brought it on himself. because he defended his life he was at fault when his life was taken. and mark o'mara, the defense attorney, asked why the young man felt it was necessary to lash out violently at his pursuer. we'll never know trayvon's mindset. unlike his killer, hew wasn't available to defend himself at trial.

1L year according to drew... and wordle

i cannot put into words the trials and tribulations a first year law student goes through. it is without a doubt the most awesome horrible thing that any person of moderate intelligence can ever put them self through. as i said i can't put it into words, but i can use the words i put it in during the year to make awesome wordle's with! so without further ado: 1L year in wordle form!!!!

civ pro
 

contracts

criminal

intro to admin

legal writing


property


torts


transnational law

alert level juris

you ever get that feeling that through no real misstep, no real slip up, no real fault of your own, you made a really big mistake? that's how i feel right now. i feel like i did most everything right: i graduated high school in the top 10% of my class, graduated with honors from college, started working right away, then i got into post graduate education. whoopee, right? well there's a problem: i went to law school. and I'm starting to feel like it was a fool's decision more and more.

don't get me wrong, it's a great opportunity to do fulfilling work and make a a lot of money, (but volunteers can do fulfilling work, and the lotto is also a good opportunity to make a lot of money and they won't put you almost $200k in the hole). but that really is only true for those who don't have to pay their way through with loans (remember that $200k hole?). for people like me it's more like i gotta hope i do well enough to  put myself in position to rub elbows with the right people, because, let's face it, the only people who get jobs that payout enough to cover the cost of school are the ones who schmooze the best.

the top students in the class don't necessarily get the best jobs, the self promoters do. that's logical fallacy of law school number 1. logical fallacy number 2 is that law school = future success and financial windfall. that's what attracted me to it in the first place. the idea that i could do something where i could help people and make bread doing it was all i needed to know. law school was for me. the third logical fallacy of law school is what i just mentioned: the fulfilling work. yes, there are Gloria Allred types out there who advocate for causes they believe in and earn a nice living doing it (not to mention a reputation), but to be fair, it's usually only the full-ride kids who can justify "doing it for the love, not the money" type jobs. the rest of us federal and bank loan students have to get gigs that can cover those loans. we are the soulless bloodsuckers who give lawyers a bad name, but we only do so out of necessity. it's the way the system is set up. these law schools have to provide us with an immense pool of resources just to learn us the law and how to use it. in order to fund all that, especially for private schools (like mine), they charge us ridiculously high tuition. in my case when you add on fees, I'll be paying around $60k/year. 6-0. if my applications hadn't been sabotaged, (but that's another blog) I'd be in state at a state school and I'd be paying $13-$24k/year.

but I'm getting away from the real issue with law school: the real job market. when i graduate there will be hundreds of jobs available. hundreds of jobs with thousands of applicants. and each applicant without a scarlet "H" or navy "Y" on their diploma is already at a disadvantage. among the jobs that don't hire exclusively from the ivy, you have to deal with the other of the several top 40 schools in the greater NY area. once those jobs get filled, it's time to push for job as a PD or ADA which will earn you between $40k and $100k/year, which sounds good until you consider cost of living in NY. what $400/mth would get me in Durham I'd be paying $1000+ for up here. now scale that up to a home suitable for a person with a law degree. now add on price of gas, food, doctor bills, repairs -- oh yeah, and the $2,000+ you'll be paying in loans each month... get it? unsustainable. then there are the clerk positions that you could get as a 1L-2L in law school. that's what the next bit of us have to look forward to. now let's consider my unique situation: I'm not only going to have to glad-hand my way into a decent gig, but I'm going to have to do so while convincing a firm in NC that my NY education will translate to NC law. and that's if I'm lucky enough to find a job at all... did i mention that there's a very real possibility that i could go through law school and do everything right and intern over the summers and STILL wind up jobless and in debt? because that's true, too.

so I'm starting to not feel very good about my life choices. but, hey, there's always the JD-MBA route...

so tell me, what do you think about your path in life?

a brief example of a bad legal brief

law school is like Rowdy Roddy Piper. wrestling fans know his famous catch phrase, but for those of you who had terrible, WWF-less childhoods, his famous catch phrase is, "just when they think they know the answers, i change the questions". law school takes that attitude and runs with it, stops, hydrates, and stretches, then does a marathon with it. when you come to law school, it's a given that you're really, like really, really smart. you're generally a good writer, your study habits and work ethic are all top notch. then classes start and you realize that law school changed the definition of all those things, and buddy, what you knew before ain't it.

for example, drew everyday has always been a good writer. i was published for the FIRST time in SECOND F'N GRADE! i never got less than a 4 outta 4 on any standardized writing test i ever took. hell, in my college level creative writing course, i did so well that my work was used as an example of how to do it right for other classes, AND my professor wanted me to write for MORE PUBLICATION!

the following memo would have seen me deified by any undergrad professor i turned it in to. in law school, however, it was barely passable:


To: Senior Associate
From:
Re: Sean North Inquiry on Statute of Limitations
Date: 9/1/2011
MEMORANDUM
A court is likely to find that Sean has a right to file a claim on behalf of his sister, Stacy. A court will probably find 1) Sean is filing within the statute of limitations pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.24, § 2902 (West 2000 and Supp. 2001); 2) Stacy’s injury is sufficient to toll Maine’s statute of limitations pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.24, § 853 (West 1980 and Supp. 2001); 3) the statute of limitations for Stacy to file a claim have not accrued; 4) Sean’s guardianship over Stacy does not affect her protection under the statute; and a court may possibly find 5) the fact that Stacy’s injury caused her disability is of no consequence.
Maine’s statute of limitations rule as found in common law reads this way: 1) statute of limitations may be tolled until incompetence, by reason of mental illness or minority, is relieved; Mental illness is an overall inability to function in society as to prevent a plaintiff from protecting their legal right; Discovery is assumed to accrue on the date the injury occurred. 2) The statute of limitations for filing a claim for relief of injury is 6 years from the date on which the injury was reasonably discoverable; if a plaintiff is incompetent, the statute of limitations is tolled until their incompetence is removed.

Stacy’s injury is sufficient to toll the statue of limitations in Maine. MRSA §2902, sets the time limit in which to file a complaint for an injury at three years ex post the date the injury accrues. For incompetent persons, the statute of limitations is tolled until the disability is removed, see MRSA §853. In Maine, mental illness is defined as “an overall inability to function in society” such that the plaintiff is unable to protect their legal rights, McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 466 (Me. 1994), and as such, is sufficient to toll the statute of limitations, Bowden v. Grindle 675 A.2d 968, 971 (Me. 1996). The ability to function in familiar settings and relationships is not sufficient to assert competence to protect ones legal rights Chasse v. Mazerolle, 580 A.2d 155, 157 (Me. 1990) (marriage and divorce insufficient to prove competence). The statute can be tolled for professional negligence, Chasse, 580 A.2d at 156. Stacy’s injury was due to professional negligence, as it occurred in a hospital as she was recovering from surgery. Though Stacy can still function in familiar environments, because of her injury, she is no longer able to fully care for herself, see Bowden, 675 A.2d at 672 (difficulty cooking, etc.). Therefore, her injury is sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.
A court will likely find the statute of limitations for Sean to bring a claim has not yet accrued. MRSA §2902 now sets the statute of limitations at six years for all persons, Bowden, 675 A.2d at 972; McAfee, 637 A.2d at 465. MRSA §853 asserts that the statute of limitations for those with a mental illness shall be tolled until the disability is removed. Maine’s Supreme Court affirms, McAfee, 637 A.2d at 466. The injury in question occurred in April 2007, but Stacy’s incompetence has yet to be removed, therefore the statute of limitations has not yet accrued.
Sean should be able to file the claim as Stacy’s guardian. Though neither Maine’s statute nor their courts address this issue, there are sources we can draw from. In North Carolina, the rule is that an “insane” person who has a guardian when they sustain an injury has the statute of limitations accrue on that date, or otherwise on the date in which they acquire a guardian, First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Wllis,125 S.E.2d 359, 361 (N.C. 1962). Accordingly, the statute of limitations for Stacy to file a claim accrued on the day when Sean became her guardian. The ruling in First Citizens Bank fails here for two reasons. First, Sean became Stacy’s guardian in 2007. The present year, 2011, falls well within the six year limit. Secondly, in a 1979 Massachusetts case, the court held that the appointment of a guardian has no affect on the tolling statute because the statute did not address guardians. O'Brien v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 541 N.E.2d 334, 337 (Mass. 1979). The Massachusetts statute is similar to Maine’s. Thus it is conceivable to add as section 2(b) of the rule for Maine: the appointment of a guardian does not affect the tolling of statutes of limitation to those rendered incompetent. By that interpretation, Sean’s status as Stacy’s guardian has no effect on her protection under MRSA §853.
There was no relevant law to determine the standard for injuries which render the victim incompetent. The closest suggestion in the common law is that incompetence brought on by an incident allows for protection under the tolling provision until it is removed, Bowden, 675 A.2d at 972. Stacy’s disability began in April 2007 when her injury occurred and her protection should persist until her injury is removed.
I must note that not all of the present rulings support extending protection under the tolling provision. The rulings in Bowden, 675 A.2d at 972 (incompetence due to mental illness sufficient to toll statute), Chasse, 580 A.2d at 157 (prior competence not indicative of competence to exercise rights; ability to function in familiar settings not sufficient to establish competence), and O’Brien, 541 N.E.2d at 337 (protection under tolling statute not affected by appointment of a guardian) are clearly favorable to Sean’s cause. However, the findings in McAfee, A.2d at 465 (statute accrues when incompetence is removed and reasonably discoverable), and First Citizens Bank, 125 S.E.2d at 361 (Appointment of guardian ends protection under tolling statute) seem to be harmful. Both cases, though, have completely different facts from Sean’s. As I mentioned earlier, First Citizens Bank is outdated by O’Brien, 541 N.E.2d at 337. Moreover, the reasoning, to protect the certainty of real estate titles by strictly enforcing the time limit in which a dissent maybe filed, First Citizens Bank, 125 S.E.2d at 362, has no bearing on the present facts. Our facts concern a person’s health, not their property. Additionally, Sean is bringing his claim within the established limit. In McAfee there were significant time differences, McAfee, 637 A.2d at 466 (12 years after tolling of the limit ended).
In sum, a court will most likely find that Sean has a right to bring a cause of action against Bangor Memorial Hospital on behalf of his sister, Stacy, despite having passed the statute of limitations. A court should find that: 1) Stacy’s injury is sufficient to toll the statute of limitations in Maine; 2) the statute of limitations for Stacy’s right to file a claim has not accrued; 3) having a guardian has no effect on Stacy’s protection under the statute; and possibly find 4) the fact that Stacy’s injury caused her disability is inconsequential.


they changed the definition, bitches....

i cannot remain silent

a bit of an oldie, but good

"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

those words are from our favorite slave-owning, slave-screwing founding father thomas jefferson. they are in reference to the necessity of waging war against the british if the colonies wanted their independence ("colonies" is a minor misnomer, but that's for another blog

"... a lawsuit filed last week in Washington, D.C. seeks to establish a broad Second Amendment right to carry firearms in public -- which, if successful, could mean that William Kostric's exercise in public handgun ownership will become much more commonplace. "

let's dissect mr. mccullagh's statement. for one thousands of lawsuits are filed daily. using a filed lawsuit to expand a law as evidence to support the actions of this man is tantamount to defending charles manson because he never actually committed those murders. legal or not, these actions SHOULD raise red flags in the eyes of any reasonable person. you don't bring a firearm to a political rally, ESPECIALLY if that politician is the first black president, period, notwithstanding if you're holding a sign that calls for blood. given our nations history with race relations, in which the two biggest black civil rights leaders and the president that heard their call to action were assasinated, you gotta wonder how this guy thought his display would be taken.
next, its a little presumptuous to assume that a successful case WILL prompt people to carry firearms to all manner of public forums again (i can't wait to see guns in school and .22 totin' preachers). lets face it: court decisions, even highly publicized ones, take time to catch on. hell, after the Brown v. board of education decision was publicized, 9 of the millions of black students in the country integrated a school. it took years (and the national guard, and a few additional court rulings)for integration to complete itself. and this is one of the biggest court decisions ever. so fie on your logic mccullagh!

i cannot remain silent

"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

those words are from our favorite slave-owning, slave-screwing founding father thomas jefferson. they are in reference to the necessity of waging war against the british if the colonies wanted their independence ("colonies" is a minor misnomer, but that's for another blog). what they were not in reference to was the citizenry protesting necessary reform. of course that means someone out there is going to interpret them that way. i think we can forget the fuck-up of the week awards for the rest of 2009 and just give it to this guy William Kostric. for those who dont know, kostric is the chump who carried a sidearm to an obama health care "town hall" along with a sign reading "it's time to water the liberty tree" hmm... sound familiar? it's a reference to the jeffersonian "the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots" bit. now lets put two and two together. a man wearing a pistol with a sign that calls for the blood of tyrants (three guesses who that is) at an obama rally. raise any eyebrows 'round yer way? if it dosen't perhaps this interview will:



now if a man with a gun at a presidential event carrying a sign that calls for blood that sounds as blah about it as this dickwad doesn't raise your tim mcvey/david rudolph meter to at least 8 (mines at 11, but im a nervous nellie) you're effn whacked. by the way, Cenk Uygur, Host of The Young Turks, compared this guy to mcvey in his huffington post blog. he also raised an interesting quandary: what if two, ten of these assholes show up at the next obama function? will people think its so harmless then?

speaking of harmless, one media outlet had the audacity to defend kostric's actions because they were legal. cbs.com blogger Declan McCullagh wrote a blog that had the gall to chastise the news media for condemning the action. his blog
"Gun-Toting Man Draws Scrutiny Outside Obama Town Hall" defends kostric's actions saying:

"New Hampshire state law is pretty clear about protecting its citizens' rights to carry firearms in public. Carrying a pistol or revolver openly is permitted without a license; carrying a concealed weapon requires a license from the state or local police.

William Kostric took advantage of that law on Tuesday to show up outside President Obama's Portsmouth, N.H. town hall meeting and hold a sign saying "It Is Time To Water The Tree Of Liberty." That invokes a phrase from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

note a few things about that opening: he mentions a new hampshire state law allowing people to carry guns openly, which kostric was. only he NEVER MENTIONS THAT KOSTRIC HAD A GUN! in fact i looked up new hampshire's gun laws.

Carry
It is unlawful to carry a loaded handgun in any vehicle or concealed about one's person without a license.

Exceptions to the above prohibition are:

* Carrying in one's dwelling, house or place of business.

* Law enforcement and military personnel when on duty.

* Organizations authorized by law to purchase or receive firearms.

A person may carry a handgun openly upon his person or unloaded and exposed or locked up in a vehicle without a license to carry.

looking at the law, it allows for a person to carry a hand gun openly, no arguments the bastard didn't break any laws. i never am one to advocate against our constitutional rights.

but this isn't about rights. this is about the meaning of the message and the possible affects of it. when you brandish symbols that advocate the murder of people, in this case the tyrant, grand-lord emir obama, and brandish a weapon you go beyond the realm of public discourse and into other territory. true, it's not as flashy as a burning cross or as auspicious as a hanging effigy, or even as blunt as a swastika painted on david scott's office door but the message is clear. you want to kill this tyrant.

and that, my dear mccullagh, is what these pundits that you take such joy in chastising are bitching about. which brings me to this quote:

"you'd hope that television commentators would take the time to learn at least a little before calling for measures such as court injunctions and disarming by police"

well, i'm sure chris matthews does his homework, but he ain't debunking the law. he's talking about the message that this incident sends. speaking of the law, here's mccullagh's final argument:

"... a lawsuit filed last week in Washington, D.C. seeks to establish a broad Second Amendment right to carry firearms in public -- which, if successful, could mean that William Kostric's exercise in public handgun ownership will become much more commonplace. "

let's dissect mr. mccullagh's statement. for one thousands of lawsuits are filed daily. using a filed lawsuit to expand a law as evidence to support the actions of this man is tantamount to defending charles manson because he never actually committed those murders. legal or not, these actions SHOULD raise red flags in the eyes of any reasonable person. you don't bring a firearm to a political rally, ESPECIALLY if that politician is the first balck president, period, notwithstanding if you're holding a sign that calls for blood. given our nations history with race relations, in which the two biggest black civil rights leaders and the president that heard their call to action were assassinated, you gotta wonder how this guy thought his display would be taken.

next, its a little presumptuous to assume that a successful case WILL prompt people to carry firearms to all manner of public forums again (i can't wait to see guns in school and .22 totin' preachers). lets face it: court decisions, even highly publicized ones, take time to catch on. hell, after the Brown v. board of education decision was publicized, 9 of the millions of black students in the country integrated a school. it took years (and the national guard, and a few additional court rulings)for integration to complete itself. and this is one of the biggest court decisions ever. so fie on your logic mccullagh!