lest you be judged? Something like that anyway.

Last year in my Legal Writing class we had to write, then perform an appellate brief. The perform is said advisedly: who in their right mind would put themselves into a position where they are standing in front of a judge’ panel and attempt to give their opinion while being continually interrupted? Yes, I know some lawyers thrive in that type of environment, but for someone who is not particularly confrontational, the idea of standing up and arguing with an important issue on the line? Shivers – not me. Now take George – no, your really can’t take him, I am planning on keeping him for a long time – he is someone who can take passive/agressive to a fine art in avoiding confrontation. But give him a chance to argue an appellate brief? He is all over it in a moment. Thinks it is one of the great opportunities of all time; to make a point and think on one’s feet. He loves it. Strange? I certainly think so.

This year I received an email from one of the faculty members. One of the judges had an emergency, could I fill in? Me? Really? Ok, why not? When? The 13th; Friday the 13th appearing on Wednesday – ok, I can do that.

The performance is held in building 198 in the 4th Floor Moot Courtroom. If you are training lawyers, you want them to have the real experience – right? I decided to head into town early. Since Miriam was headed back to New York today, it seemed reasonable to make one BART run rather than two. Arriving hours ahead of time, I was able to find a quiet corner in one of the lounges and read through the briefs. The expectation (which George tells me doesn’t always happen, is that the Judges actually read the briefs ahead of time – makes for better disruption and questions). From 1200-1300 I listened to three of this year’s  presentations.

All the students today, with the exception of one are LLMs. Smart, capable and well prepared. There was a significant variation in the spoken and written language abilities. The advantage seemed to go to the French and Spanish speakers over the Asian language speakers. It was noticeable in the written briefs, and even more so in oral arguments.

Think about it – writing and speaking-  with answering questions on your feet – at a professional level in a language that may be your second, third, or fourth. I think it is an obvious challenge, especially thinking about those times between 1999-2001 when I was stationed in Munich and allegedly working in German.

It rapidly became clear that this was not a traumatize the student experience. Rather, the goal was to point out those things done well: logic of argument; use of cases; ability to respond to questions. I am fairly sure that these self-same faculty are nowhere near as kind to US students preparing for Moot Court.

It was an interesting experience, made even more so by my phone going out to lunch part way through the afternoon. Being as how I rarely travel without my laptop, I had an alternate method of communication. Yes, I know I could have found any number of land lines. But exactly how many phone numbers do you keep in your head anymore????

or 3×5 cards as they were known back in the day where most of the world was on the English/Imperial system of measurement. I was familiar with them as a child because every adult female seemed to have a collection upon which favorite recipes were written. And there were all sorts of fun and wonderful special boxes for these cards. After all, wouldn’t that just be the best present for any little girl in the 1950s? Channel her straight into her role as chief cook and bottle washer? (Sarcasm folks). But as I am sure those of us who date from that era can testify – most small presents, from household items, to books, were very definitely along societies gender expectations and stereotypes.

How did I get here? Oh, right – 3×5 cards. and WordPress is not capable of handling a post name which starts with a number. So I used the alternate name of recipe card which started me down the trail of…. oh, never mind.

I sincerely regret to inform you that 3 x 5 cards for the most part had little to do typewriters. Rather, as you did research for any particular subject, interesting facts, references, ideas of what to write each landed on its own card. When you figured you had collected enough information to put together enough pages that would meet the professor’s requirement, you sorted them into the best order possible, then wrote the paper from the parts. Most of us were not insane enough to either type out the cards – since that would have involved hauling a typewriter to the library for all those instances of using non-circulating reference materials. In fact, long hand was the preferred and most likely fastest method of producing a first draft. This draft was then edited into a reasonably acceptable form. Only then did fingers meet keys.

Meanwhile – It is really hard trying to concentrate on anything here in the hospital which is why I am ready to go back to 3×5 cards. They are much easier to use for a bit here and an idea there. No computer required. If one is being used, then I can avoid flipping between documents. All of which lessens the pressure and gives me the ability to organize the material in different ways.

My alternative to this point has been three documents open at the same time – an table of contents which is being filled in, a reference list, and finally – the note pad equivalent of my old standby – random paragraphs in note pad which I can cut and paste.

If I believed in superstition, I would arrive at UCSF tomorrow all ready to go with pens, cards, post it notes and my reference printed material organized and indexed to find that George’s white counts are continuing to climb, his platelets are holding steady and I can haul him home in the next 5-7 days. And then I get to start the commute to the clinic with him 2-5x a week all over again.

and 33 minutes had expired out of the 72 hours allotted for my take home exam when I uploaded it and hit the submit button.

Of course, ten minutes after that I started thinking about what else I should have said, or how I should have said it. But then, stick a fork in me, I was more than ready to be done with exams.

It is not to say that I am done with the semester, just with the exams and deadlines. I still have two papers to turn in. One is a combination project of a cover memo with draft legislation/ordinance – the other a position paper. I have drafts for both but have not been able to drum up the energy needed for a concerted effort on either.

The last day of exams is tomorrow; half of my friends are slotted for that very last exam period.will not complete their last exam until late afternoon. I can’t really decide which I detest more – in class exams where your whole grade depends on the final, in class mid-terms and finals, take home exams, or whole grade hanging on a writing assignment. They are all ugly options.

Why am I doing this to myself anyway? Oh, yes. GI Bill with Uncle Sam paying for everything plus providing me a living subsidy…..

First of my three exams was this morning. Oh, thrill. Not.

It seemed like a huge pain, travel into SF for a single, one hour exam.  One credit course, one hour exam.

To top it off, the exam had been scheduled for Saturday. Out of general principles, I don’t take Saturday exams.

So there I am, first having dropped over to the library to return a number of CDs and books and finding that several books I had requested were now available. Since I had been trying to be good, I thought I had placed a “pause” on all my holds. Not so, as it turns out.

Then it was down to the lockers since phones and smart watches aren’t allowed in the exam room. Large clock on the wall plus the proctor does 10 and 5 minute warnings. Right before the exam starts, one of the records office people stops by to tell me that there is a change on the exam – not to worry about the first question, answer the second and do the best possible on the third (apparently somewhere along the line there was an issue with the exam). Ok – I can be more than happy with only two essays questions rather than three.

Then it starts and I look at the exam. Ok – Question #1? Easy Peasy, I will answer it anyway. Question #2? No major issues, in fact it looked an awful lot like one of the practice exams. Ok – I can answer that as well. Then I drifted down to the third question. Note, I still had 45 minutes of my hour to use. Question #3? Hey this is not all that complicated – and pull out the list of everything possible from one of the charts, going down the line, I can fake this.

(Sorry lawyers, but I have less than any interest in Torts, common law and other adversarial systems that aren’t decided by an adult (read judge).

From there it was off to Cal and my afternoon lectures. Perhaps it is the last two semesters, but there is precision in words. The bacteria, toxins and virus are BioAgents. The evil idiots who want to spread death and destruction? Those are terrorists when non-state agents and evil empires when state agents. Bioterrorism is one of many methods of seeding fear, panic, hate, and distrust–along with massively interfering with people, plans and infrastructure.

Never mind, you really don’t need the rest of this particular soap box.

Apron apparently appreciated, the other worker this morning replied that she would love to have one. So that will be on my list of things to do this evening.

Otherwise, I was in the firing line this morning in Admin Law. It should have been last Thursday and as I mentioned, I might have been overlooked completely. But no, I should have the “learning opportunity.” At least I was challenged with what was the easier side of a discussion of rule making under the APA, section (can’t find the symbol) 553.

For anyone who hasn’t yet fallen asleep, The Administrative Procedures Act was passed in 1946. It covers what administrative agencies (US Government Executive Branch organizations that are set up to “administer” a particular set of rules, law, or organizational requirement). If it is an alphabet soup agency – with rare exceptions, it falls under the APA. These agencies have two main ways of accomplishing their mission: they can make rules, they can adjudicate. We have been on the rule making for a couple of weeks in excruciating detail and may be there for a while. And, by alphabet soup – I mean those agencies which are usually known by their initials rather than names (FDA, EPA, IRS, CMS – you get the idea). The administrative arms which were created to handle implementation of a specific area of law. The easiest and clearest for every US citizen is the IRS – Internal Revenue Service. They take the tax code passed by the US Congress and turn it into “clear” rules and create forms. Those forms are processed, monies handled. Audits are effectively adjudications – the application of the tax law to the individual/firm/corporation to determine whether or not “they” have complied and paid in what was owed.

All of this is a long, round about way of saying that I was hit with describing why, with an implementing section that effectively said to (1) provide notice, (2) accept comments, and (3) publish rules, there were now a whole set of procedures that have been added over the years (mostly the 1970s) by the Courts.

The requirement of giving Notice can be tied directly to the wording in the law. By extension, one can make a case for what giving notice entails (subject, information, data, length of comment period). The same case can be made for what needs to be in the substance of the final rule. For example – is it reasonable to want something said about the comments being considered?

Ok, you are now bored out of your mind. So am I. Maybe. Since I spent decades working in a rule driven environment, all of this makes sense to me. Admin Law is common sense in a way that Constitutional Law never was. I have been the proponent for regulations. There are forms, procedures, and feedback to those who bothered to provide input. I can say that it is all driven by regulation. Or, in my case, since I wasn’t receiving thousands of opinions and useless bits of information, I just thought it was common courtesy to let someone who had made the time and effort to submit improvements/corrections know that their comment was appreciated even if not incorporated into the final document.

What all of that means is that I could rationalize the Court (even the Supreme Court) clarifying procedures. Heather already had her turn so the chore of answering the flip side (why shouldn’t the court be adding extensive procedural requirements to what Congress intended to be informal rule making?) passed up to the second row. This is the fourth week of class. Sitting in the back might have been smart since only ten have been through the wringer so far. I don’t know that everyone will “have the opportunity” to play.

If I could see from the back, I might have considered sitting out of harms way….