So, just two weeks in and the schedule is going strong. I signed up for Open Appealate with a friend of mine, Chris. So I have a brief due next Friday and oral argument competitions start a little over 2 weeks after that.
I am on the committee for FYAC, which is first year appeallate competition. All first year students are required to right a persuasive appeallate brief during their second semester legal research and writing class. Then, they are required to do a "mock argument" to complete the assignment. Moot Court also uses this as a way to find new members from the 1L class (I was runner-up last year and made Moot Court).
Reading is heavy! And I do mean Heavy. One class I have requires extensive out of class time with mentors and in court.
And I have work.
Which begs the question: what about me? After 5 1/2 straight years, I have to admit to a burn out on school. I want my life back! But I keep marching on because I know that the law is my calling and the purpose for my life. AND, well, now I am so sunk in debt I have to keep marching on! I need a vacation---I keep promising myself one, so soon.........And really, after this semester, I only have one more year left!
Friday, January 23, 2009
Just when you think you have seen it all
In Employment law for today we read a case for negligent hiring. A trucking company hired a man who it turned out had criminal convictions for rape. He used his semi-trucks to pick up hitch hikers, who he then victimized. Once he was out of prison, he applied to work for a new company. The company did the required drug testing and driving record. The employee lied on his application marking he had no criminal record. The company hired him after his driving record came back clean. The driver ends up picking up a 17 year old hitchhiker and rapes and sodomizes her.
The victim sues the trucking company saying that they negligently hired the driver. The thrust of the claim is that the company had a duty to do a criminal background check because a) it was well known that contrary to company policy, truck drivers pick up hitchhikers and b) because the over the road long haul truck had a sleeper berth, there was a heightened duty to because basically there was a rolling bedroom and of course companies should be aware that drivers could commit crimes in it................
Can you say ridiculous? Where do I start with this one? Would it not be more foreseeable that the 17 year old should not have hitch hiked? I mean, didn't your parents warn you about the axe murderer? Mine did. Or what about the expense and impossibility of running a nationwide criminal background check on truckers? Trucking companies already have to pay out a load of money when trying to hire a new driver. They run driver license checks, pay for drug tests, and numerous other things to make them compliant with federal laws and regulations. It's ridiculous to think that they need to become crime prevention specialists based upon the fact that they have "rolling bedrooms" in the back of the truck.
Just goes to show that instead of taking responsibility for our own unwise choices these days, people are willing to shift the blame and sue someone else who did not even perpertrate the crime!!!!! The only thing the company did was hire the criminal.
The victim sues the trucking company saying that they negligently hired the driver. The thrust of the claim is that the company had a duty to do a criminal background check because a) it was well known that contrary to company policy, truck drivers pick up hitchhikers and b) because the over the road long haul truck had a sleeper berth, there was a heightened duty to because basically there was a rolling bedroom and of course companies should be aware that drivers could commit crimes in it................
Can you say ridiculous? Where do I start with this one? Would it not be more foreseeable that the 17 year old should not have hitch hiked? I mean, didn't your parents warn you about the axe murderer? Mine did. Or what about the expense and impossibility of running a nationwide criminal background check on truckers? Trucking companies already have to pay out a load of money when trying to hire a new driver. They run driver license checks, pay for drug tests, and numerous other things to make them compliant with federal laws and regulations. It's ridiculous to think that they need to become crime prevention specialists based upon the fact that they have "rolling bedrooms" in the back of the truck.
Just goes to show that instead of taking responsibility for our own unwise choices these days, people are willing to shift the blame and sue someone else who did not even perpertrate the crime!!!!! The only thing the company did was hire the criminal.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Children's Bill of Rights
I have been thinking about this for awhile now and getting my thoughts together. Society says that it does all these things to "protect" children, yet we fail them over and over. My job has taught me that while we think of the "best interests of the child" really they are a passing thought.
The US Constitution speaks of all "men" being created equal. The Constitution has been construed to give limited rights to children. The way to improve on the limited rights provided by the Constitution, is to expand the rights through the states. I want to draw up a children's bill of rights.
When the state goes through the process of terminating parental rights, the state is careful not to infringe on the fundamental rights enjoyed by adults through the 14th Amendment: the right to procreate, the right to choose who associates with your child, the right to marry [or not], the right to chose medical treatment for your child. We focus so much on parents, that the children, the vulnerable with no voice, are neglected.
Think about this: Mother is on meth. She is pregnant and delivers. Baby is taken by the state at birth and placed in foster care. For the first 15 months of his/her life, she is raised by a medically certified foster home. The state offers numerous services to the parent, but the parent remains on drugs......After 15 months, the state decides to terminate the rights of mom, and moves for a trial. The state starts looking for an adoptive placement. It takes 6 months to get to trial. Mother appeals. Takes 6-9 months for appeal to happen. Mother is denied. Somewhere in the six months for trial, adoptive home is found. Child is now 2, and presumably bonded to foster family. And now the state expects the child to be happy about being ripped for the only home she has known and placed with strangers. But all in all, in order to preserve the mother's constitutional rights, this child's life is placed in uncertainty for 2 whole years.
What about a child's rights? The right to be protected, to live in a loving home, to be in a household that is drug, crime, and sex offender free. How about the right to a speedy determination and trial if they are to be taken from their parents by the state and adopted out? What about the right to stability [financial and emotional]. What about the right to have their own voice?
I don't know how this bill of rights will shape up, but it will eventually. Parents who are addicts, sex offenders, abusers, and so on-------they should not have children who will become victims to the cycle that they perpertrate. Kids do not ask to be born. And they should not have to be asked to be protected.
The US Constitution speaks of all "men" being created equal. The Constitution has been construed to give limited rights to children. The way to improve on the limited rights provided by the Constitution, is to expand the rights through the states. I want to draw up a children's bill of rights.
When the state goes through the process of terminating parental rights, the state is careful not to infringe on the fundamental rights enjoyed by adults through the 14th Amendment: the right to procreate, the right to choose who associates with your child, the right to marry [or not], the right to chose medical treatment for your child. We focus so much on parents, that the children, the vulnerable with no voice, are neglected.
Think about this: Mother is on meth. She is pregnant and delivers. Baby is taken by the state at birth and placed in foster care. For the first 15 months of his/her life, she is raised by a medically certified foster home. The state offers numerous services to the parent, but the parent remains on drugs......After 15 months, the state decides to terminate the rights of mom, and moves for a trial. The state starts looking for an adoptive placement. It takes 6 months to get to trial. Mother appeals. Takes 6-9 months for appeal to happen. Mother is denied. Somewhere in the six months for trial, adoptive home is found. Child is now 2, and presumably bonded to foster family. And now the state expects the child to be happy about being ripped for the only home she has known and placed with strangers. But all in all, in order to preserve the mother's constitutional rights, this child's life is placed in uncertainty for 2 whole years.
What about a child's rights? The right to be protected, to live in a loving home, to be in a household that is drug, crime, and sex offender free. How about the right to a speedy determination and trial if they are to be taken from their parents by the state and adopted out? What about the right to stability [financial and emotional]. What about the right to have their own voice?
I don't know how this bill of rights will shape up, but it will eventually. Parents who are addicts, sex offenders, abusers, and so on-------they should not have children who will become victims to the cycle that they perpertrate. Kids do not ask to be born. And they should not have to be asked to be protected.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Happy Birthday
I am the Aunt to a brand new baby girl named Brooklyn Grace. I skipped my classes today, but ironically enough, the birth room looks out over my campus....so there really was no getting away from school today. She is a beautiful tiny one, weighing in at 5 lbs, 8 oz. The miracle of life never ceases to astound me. And how she comes out of her mother's womb, knowing her mother's voice and knowing her mother's scent is mindboggling.
So, a toast to Brooklyn...May you grow to be a strong woman full of grace and integrity.
So, a toast to Brooklyn...May you grow to be a strong woman full of grace and integrity.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Blogs by some of the professors I have had......
So blogging is a thing for professors as well. You want to know what is near and dear to their hearts, and maybe get into their minds for exams? Who doesn't....so read their blogs or find their law review articles. Either are useful for figuring out what the exam will be like.
Professor Standen's passion? Sports Law. Who knew?
Professor Appleman.....I could not find a specific blog for her, but type her name and see that she is active on SEVERAL blogs........here is a link to one: Legal Ethics.
Professor Williams...also a contributor to a legal theory blog.
Professor Runkel....Law Memo.
KCP....no blog found, but some published law review article info......Abstract.
Okay, enough for now. Maybe I will add to later. But seriously, part of writing that winning exam is to get in the heads of your professors. Every little bit counts!
Professor Standen's passion? Sports Law. Who knew?
Professor Appleman.....I could not find a specific blog for her, but type her name and see that she is active on SEVERAL blogs........here is a link to one: Legal Ethics.
Professor Williams...also a contributor to a legal theory blog.
Professor Runkel....Law Memo.
KCP....no blog found, but some published law review article info......Abstract.
Okay, enough for now. Maybe I will add to later. But seriously, part of writing that winning exam is to get in the heads of your professors. Every little bit counts!
Ethics?
I had an extremely distressing experience in class this week. We had an attorney in one of my classes this week who was a guest lecturer. While he was describing a real trial he did that day he made statements that pointed out that he had failed to report child abuse [as an officer of the court you are a mandated reporter] and he used threat of punishment of a crime as a means to settle a custody dispute. What bothers me the most is that he thinks he did nothing wrong. At first I thought it was just me, but I talked to other students and they were bothered as well.
Next, I talked to my boss who is a mandatory reporter as well and practices in the family law section. As I explained she said that he had breached his duty and by using an inferred threat to settle, he committed a crime.
Now I am left with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. This attorney is well respected in this community. I am going to do what I know is right, but the hard part of being "ethical" and doing right, is knowing that there could be retaliation or consequences...............As a student you always hear about those slimy attorney's who give all attorney's a bad name----you just never think you are going to have one guest lecturing in your class!
Next, I talked to my boss who is a mandatory reporter as well and practices in the family law section. As I explained she said that he had breached his duty and by using an inferred threat to settle, he committed a crime.
Now I am left with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. This attorney is well respected in this community. I am going to do what I know is right, but the hard part of being "ethical" and doing right, is knowing that there could be retaliation or consequences...............As a student you always hear about those slimy attorney's who give all attorney's a bad name----you just never think you are going to have one guest lecturing in your class!
This Semester
This semester promises to be a time of actual usefulness! So much of law school is abstract theory with no practice. What this means for the law student is that when you get out of school, and pass the bar, you have to LEARN how to actually practice law! You have to learn to draft motions, petitions, affadavits and so on.....It's very frusterating. Here is the recaps of the classes:
Family Law: Theory course, but very practical because we learn about dividing property and divorce. Something that I did not realize is how much federal law mandates family law in different states. Should prove to be interesting.
Employment Law: This class is about the employee-employer relationship. Basically we will study the "at will presumption" and then discrimination in the workplace. I was surprised to hear what a growing field of law this is.
Criminal Procedure: This is about the restrictions on police action. So far this class is fascinating and makes you think about what powers a police officer actually has to make stops, to complete seizures, to question you. Also, since it is taught by my FAVORITE professor and she is once again keeping me entertained with her dry wit and humor, I am in my element.
Legislation: The professor is a sitting appellate court judge in my state. He is a genuinely nice man. And he brings a passion about the subject matter. This course is useful. We are learning how to actually interpret a statute [something that some courses take a passing blow at trying to teach you] and we will learn to construct statutes. This is something that every law student should know how to do.
Oregon Family Law: This could possibly be the most useful outside of trial practice, that I will take in my law school journey. We have been assigned a spouse, and we are analyze and file petitions, motions, affadavits, trial memos, and general judgments of dissolution. This is a course in how to practice law, something that is rare in law school. The course is being taught by a practicing divorce attorney, so that makes it even more useful!
I finally feel as if I am learning about things that interest me in the fields that I want to practice. Which for once feels darn good!
Family Law: Theory course, but very practical because we learn about dividing property and divorce. Something that I did not realize is how much federal law mandates family law in different states. Should prove to be interesting.
Employment Law: This class is about the employee-employer relationship. Basically we will study the "at will presumption" and then discrimination in the workplace. I was surprised to hear what a growing field of law this is.
Criminal Procedure: This is about the restrictions on police action. So far this class is fascinating and makes you think about what powers a police officer actually has to make stops, to complete seizures, to question you. Also, since it is taught by my FAVORITE professor and she is once again keeping me entertained with her dry wit and humor, I am in my element.
Legislation: The professor is a sitting appellate court judge in my state. He is a genuinely nice man. And he brings a passion about the subject matter. This course is useful. We are learning how to actually interpret a statute [something that some courses take a passing blow at trying to teach you] and we will learn to construct statutes. This is something that every law student should know how to do.
Oregon Family Law: This could possibly be the most useful outside of trial practice, that I will take in my law school journey. We have been assigned a spouse, and we are analyze and file petitions, motions, affadavits, trial memos, and general judgments of dissolution. This is a course in how to practice law, something that is rare in law school. The course is being taught by a practicing divorce attorney, so that makes it even more useful!
I finally feel as if I am learning about things that interest me in the fields that I want to practice. Which for once feels darn good!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)