Law Friday

Friday, December 28, 2007

Sometime about two-thirds of the way through last semester, the law school diaries petered off. I struggled to find interesting (i.e. not whiny) things to write about and decided to let it go as finals approached.

I haven’t let the impulse to share lawyerly stuff on this blog go, though. I’m just working on an entertaining way to include it so you’ll actually want to read it. I mean, how embarrassing would it be to ask my parents if they’d read the latest and hear my mother say: “Oh we would have read your blog honey but you father was busy dying his hair red, and I was weaving belly button lint.”

So here goes - a trial run of Legal Friday.

First up is a quick educational piece called Talking the Talk. Nick accuses me of using 50-cent words now, when 2-cent words would do. Here I’ll attempt to share a bit of legalese to help you make an impression at the next cocktail party. Skip the spinach dip and lay down some Latin. Word.

Executrix. Remember the last time you were playing Scrabble and got stuck with both Xs at the end of the game and didn’t know what to do? (Wait, that probably never happened. There’s only one X.) But if you happen to stumble on a blank, you might be able to lay this one on the board. No, it’s not what you think. Get your mind out of the gutter already. An executrix is simply a female executor of a will.

Next is a quick round up of interesting and/or funny legal news called Hearsay. I never realized it before, but an amazing amount of news has legal implications. And before you ask, I’m not getting all my news these days from Nina Totenberg on NPR.

  • Officials probe killing by tiger: “The San Francisco Police Department opened a criminal investigation Wednesday into how a Siberian tiger escaped from the city zoo, and then mauled a teenager to death and seriously injured two other people. The Christmas Day attack occurred at closing time, when the tiger somehow got out of its enclosure—one that included a surrounding moat and a 20-foot-high wall. Zoo officials said they had no idea how the tiger could have overcome the barriers, which meet all national standards for a safe tiger display.”
    This is very sad, but am I the only one who owns cats that isn’t surprised by this?
  • NYC clubs argue ladies’ nights are not unfair to men: I’m interested in how class action suits get started, so this one caught my eye. Plaintiff, Roy Den Hollander, sued several NYC nightclubs, saying he was discriminated against by ladies’ nights, which offer women free or discounted admission and drinks. He said he wanted to represent all men over age 21 who had entered one of the nightclubs since June 21, 2004, and been subjected to policies that provide discounts to women of the same age.
    Hmmm...This guy is either gay or stupid, or he REALLY struck out breaking through the barrier put up by office gals out for a night on the town.
  • Utah inmate sues for Norse god worship: It doesn’t get much better than this in the heart of Morman-country. Michael Polk, who is serving time for aggravated assault and robbery, filed a lawsuit against corrections officials in federal court, accusing them of denying him several religious items that he claims are necessary to practice the Asatru religion including: a Thor’s Hammer, a prayer cloth, a Mead Horn used for drinking Wassail, a drum made of wood and boar skin, a rune staff and a sword.

Finally, I offer a game called You Be the Judge. Real cases from my case books, abbreviated by yours truly, and offered for you to render a verdict on. Leave a comment and tell us what you think. The following case comes from my Criminal Law class. Fittingly, it was the first case assigned.

Is That a Boy or a Drumstick?

Two men and a boy are lost at sea on a small boat. After 11 days, they run out of food. After 13 days, they run out of water. The other two men kill the boy and eat him in order to save themselves. Four days later, a passing boat rescues the two men. Are the men guilty of murder?


Comments:

I know this one! Pick me! Pick me!

The two men are not guilty until they are convicted. At this point they aledgedly murdered the boy.

And my dye job is nearly finished, a lovely shade of red if i do say so.

Posted by Digital Quixote on December 29, 2007 at 07:56 PM | #

I’m sorry, this is just leaking out -

Guilty - of bad taste ?

Posted by mdk on December 30, 2007 at 01:33 PM | #

Dad - Um...couldn’t the first half of your answer be the default answer for every You Be the Judge? You’re right though. In the end, they were guilty of murder, but their sentences were commuted.

Martin - One word ... ugh!

Posted by Carry on January 04, 2008 at 11:13 AM | #

Post a Comment:

Name (required):

Email (required but never displayed):

Location (optional):

URL (optional):

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: