While chasing down interesting details in WestLaw has proven both educational and entertaining, I don’t feel like I am getting much of anywhere on drafting a memo after more hours than I would care to acknowledge. The format is clear; and the detail provided on citations was more than adequate.

My frustration can be take down to two major issues – either of which or both might be related to the fact that I am not a lawyer. In both cases, I am still the one with “challenges.” The first is that I just don’t think like a lawyer. I understand in essence the concept of citing reasons and cases – but I think part of my resistance stems from the fact that I just don’t get/agree with the whole issue of settling disputes by law suit. To me it is the act of less than rational human beings, somewhat a kin to solving disputes with handguns. Substitute words as weapons and we are close. Having lived in non-English speaking areas for years, I became accustomed to code based legal systems. Then, of course, UCMJ is completely code based. The application of code/regulation involves choice on the part of the BCD authority, but common law has absolutely nothing to do with the military.

All of this means that I have little clue on the content of what I should be placing in a memo that is due 1530 today. I might be able to do references, but the rest of it….

on Tuesdays I have three classes – one in the morning and two in the afternoon. While it might be lovely to sleep in, there is the small problem of getting to school for an 0940 class. Getting there involves the bus to Downtown Berkeley; adding a good 25 minutes to my travels and costs me $1.00. The 65 Bus goes down the hill on a regular basis as long as I pay attention to the timing. My alternative is drive to North Berkeley which will cost me $3.00 in parking but takes 10 minutes. Since I have the money, right now NB seems to me the better alternative. As it turns out, there seems to be parking till shortly after 0800 and the BART that goes through the station around that time actually has more room than the earlier ones. Plus, getting on a stop earlier increases my chances of finding a place to sit rather than having to stand for the entire journey.

The same with waiting for a downtown train as apposed to taking anything that comes through with a chance at MacArthur onto what is guaranteed to be a sardine can packed full with irritated students, commuters and the occasional highly fragrant homeless person sleeping in one of the car’s end seats.

My morning class is Constitutional Law II. Mostly about Due Process, I am not having all that much problem following the materials which should probably scare me but isn’t at the present. There are three of us outliers – two LLMs and me – who haven’t taken Con Law I. Since, as I mentioned before, the last time I looked at any of this was either in War College or somewhere around Eight Grade Civics it may be a bit of a challenge.

Probably not as much as my afternoon “Legal Research and Writing” class which I am going to just look at and treat as “copy editing by legal standards 101” and just attempt to motor on through. It is becoming increasingly obvious that I don’t think like a lawyer – they actually are not at all logical. At least I am not alone in the class in intensely disliking placing citations in the text rather than in footnotes. It might make it easier from a formatting perspective, but it really sucks as far as readability goes. As might be obvious, most countries’ lawyers use footnotes, not included citations.

The final class, which is actually sandwiched between the above two is Health Law I which apparently has to do with Providers and the regulations pertaining to same. The material is not all that difficult to follow, but the logic of case choices and sequence is escaping me at the present.

Ah, well. I will survive this. Probably, surely? I think most definitely.

Ok. I can do this and remain sane. I have to remember that I am tossed in with the non-US crew. The group of people who have a much better sense of world history than I, a command of significantly more languages, and knowledge of other legal systems. I can accomplish writing assignments, research, class discussions.

I even remember studying the US Constitution in Mr Kaufman’s Class in fall of 1963. I was in that class when we learned President Kennedy had been assassinated. Where the theoretical discussions of succession of power rapidly became something other than dry words in a textbook.

There is a different feel when the Dean of the Law School comes in to teach an hour on separation of powers. But some of the slides look remarkably similar to what I saw on overheads all those decades ago. The Constitution still stands, but the issues have changed over the years and for those of us [US Citizens] who don’t want to acknowledge change, there really isn’t much choice. If we want to live in 1787, then those proposing such a “return to our Roots/Constitution” need to think long and hard about what that means:

1. 1. 1) No electronics – no Twitter, no PCs, Macs, cell phones. The writing implements then were quill pens, paper. Deal with it
      2) Give up your transportation. Horse, buggy, wagon are it.
      3) Everyone but white males gives up all rights to include citizenship, property etc. OTOH no one really cares about how you (white male) got to the New Nation
      4) Government is minimal – part time. Everyone (men) have a job. A real job – like farming or running a store,
      1. 5) Right to bear arms means responsibility to do so. All men get to serve their country in the military. Flat feet are no excuse. Plenty just finished serving who might no longer have feet.

 
Or we can accept that the constitution grows with the country. A country built by immigrants and for immigrants. Some whose ancestors came over the land bridge thousands of years ago, some invited to leave their home countries because of their actions and beliefs (think Pilgrims) and some arriving now, seeking a better life for themselves and their children.

All of us who took eighth grade Civics/US Government or US History need to do a bit of a refresher. And then think long and hard and why we have let the Executive Branch of the Government take over. Madison in the Federalist Papers #51 makes some excellent points.

And yes, that is a C, not a Q. And it is not a APPLE joke that starts with iRack and iRan…

Remember I started discussion formatted analysis while I was pulling out my hair at the though of the less than “brief” Briefs in law? Along with my comparison to the standard medical SOAP note.

[taking a deep break – I can probably do this]

So there we are in class today – morning and afternoon sessions devoted to the analysis of a variety of cases (and now I am thinking this should be Cases – just to make sure that it isn’t any old case of something that wandered in off the street wanting to play but soothing something (autocorrect- ARGH!) which has been specifically and carefully selected after decades (?or at least a couple of hours) of teaching experience with recalcitrant students. Plus the lovely challenge of a rota of three – one a senior type of my era who received her degree from Berkeley more than a few years ago, one who seems to think pulling references to Star Wars™ will avoid lack of clarity or cultural references and the third who has been on faculty for the last year having spent a significant number of previous years working for the UN mostly in Africa.

Plus the student body (17/4) and me.

The classroom is one of those with tiers of seats at desks (note, the desks are fixed, the seats are physically part of the desks but do rotate out enough that if you are skinny you shouldn’t have too much trouble inserting yourself into the structure). The positive about the rising tiers from a student point is that there are power points at every seat that actually work. From a faculty point -there is simply no place to hide.

Where am I going with all of this? Why to analyze something for Monday – relating to “assault and robbery!” In preparation of this – we played with “burglary” in class. To whit: the format
I = Issue
R = Rule (legal that applies)
A = Analysis (I keep wanting to put in Assessment for obvious reasons)
C = Conclusion (no plan required)

So in the case of Larry Lightfingers who was caught apparently trying to hook a fur coat with a ten foot pole through a house’s open window around 1900 –
I = is this burglary?
R = Burglary as defined in MadeUpCity Code – breaking and entering a residential dwelling of another person after dark with the intention to commit a felony therein.
A = (here one gets to play with breaking/not breaking due to the open window, Entering/not – entering due to use of the pole rather than his physical body. Residence/non-residence – houses can also be commercial properties, after dark – ? Hello? depends on time of year….
felony – well, since the fur coat likely exceeds $400/value this one is not as difficult.
C = guy should be charged with being a dumb ass.

And now you see why I was not cut out to be a lawyer……and why I am avoiding the assault and battery analysis due Monday…