Some lamer hacked my bbs. Real 1337, man. If you want to hack something, you could at least try to hack a site where more than 3 people post a month. Oh, BTW, your little image was cute. Have a nice day at school tomorrow. ;)

Most Americans, it seems, probably do not understand how the common law works.

You grow up in this country and all you usually remember about politics is that there are 3 branches of government. You get the idea that Congress passes laws, and the Judiciary simply enforces those laws... Then, when you go to law school, you realize that this is only half the picture, if that.

The law is comprised of both statutes (laws passed by the legislature) and common law. To explain what the common law is, we have to go back to William the Conqueror and the invasion of England by the Normans...

At that time, England did not have a unified system of courts. They did have courts, but they were run very differently in different locales, and were usually somewhat susceptible to corruption. They were not particularly objective or "rule-based," so they were probably less than satisfactory in the minds of the citizenry.

Well, into this judicial hodgepodge comes William the Conqueror. He brutally conquered the country and ruthlessly consolidated his rule, yet still had trouble in certain areas. He realized that he needed to create incentives for people to go along with the new government, and one way he came upon to do this was to establish a new set of courts, the Royal Courts. (By the way, this is why much legal jargon comes from Old French.)

These courts had very limited jurisdiction, but to simplify a bit, they began to hear a limited number of cases of direct and indirect trespass, which could have been trespass upon land or upon another person (as in battery). This expanded slowly, and eventually there was a system of courts which adjudicated cases based not only upon statutes (although they were required to follow them), but also upon precedent and general principles of justice.

This continues to this day. Courts create the law when they decide cases, because lower courts are bound to follow appellate or supreme court rulings. This legal precedent can be overridden by statutes passed by the legislature, but courts are still free to interpret these statutes as narrowly or broadly as they deem fitting (although they usually follow certain standards of "statutory construction," meaning statutory interpretation).

Courts also may take into account abstract principles, ethics, morals, the concept of justice, and even precedent outside our judicial system. In fact, since the common law system began in England, countries colonized by England considered the English cases as valid precedent, and still do. I have read cases from the 1800's wherein the judge cites Roman law as the rationale for his holdings. This is rare, of course, but not unheard of.

There are large areas of law still only covered by common law, not by statutes. Sometimes statutes overriding common law are later repealed because they cause problems the common law avoided.

But the most important thing to realize about all this is that the law as stated by the legislature is not really something you can rely on without an understanding of how courts will view it. The real law is the collection of decisions by the courts interpreting a statute, or stating the common law rules, because these are what dictate future decisions.

So how do we know what the law really is then, if we have to look to multiple cases to formulate a complete picture? Some lawyers in the ALI (American Legal Institute) decided to ameliorate this problem by restating the law as created by precedent in "The Restatements." How reliable the restatements are as a matter of law is a much more detailed discussion, but suffice it to say that they are a pretty good guide as to the general rules of law. Not that they're easy to read... ;) We've just spent about a month talking about §71, §90, and §86 of The Restatement (Second) of Contracts, about 1 page of text in total. ;)

I scanned my reading for Contracts and Property this week, and took notes with word and the Office XP document management app side by side. It helped immensely.

You get used to writing code as a process wherein your mind is directly connected to the computer. Other things can get this way as well, such as surfing the web, doing things in a shell, etc. But when you have to look back and forth between a book and a screen, it totally screws the whole thing up. You can't maintain that direct link between you and the computer, and you become conscious of your actions again, rather than just being conscious of your thoughts. Plus, my back isn't being wrecked by a ton of heavy dead trees.

I've also found a coffee shop near school with $1 coffee and $0.50 refills, free wireless, and half-price sandwiches on Mondays. (Common Grounds in Virginia Square)... I'm there right now, and I'll be there more than a lot over the next 3 years. ;)

I have my first non-pass/fail writing assignment this week, which involves writing about false imprisonment. Our legal writing class is about how to analyze a factual scenario to determine, with regard to all of the required elements of a legal cause of action, what the probable outcome will be. We have to do this for 3 out of 4 elements of the false imprisonment claim this week, using about 5 or 6 other cases as background, and following a common structure.

I have 60 pages of reading for Property, about 40 for Contracts, and 60 for Torts this week. That includes mostly cases that I have to read, understand, and analyze for various points, then summarize for myself in preparation to be grilled in class. I haven't been directly called upon yet in class, but I'm sure I will at some point. I do ask questions frequently in class though.

I met with a couple of people for the first real study-group session we've had on Sunday night. We played a card game with a set of flashcards about Torts. That actually worked out pretty well, and was the first time I had a chance to step back and start to see the forest rather than just the trees... This morning I went and bought myself a set of the cards for Contracts, Future Interests (Property), Real Property, and signed up to get the others that weren't in, namely Torts and Wills and Trusts...

I'm going to try to get my 60 pages of Property reading done tonight so I'll have time to review, begin my outlines, and work more on the writing assignment this week.

I also have a class in Economics, which I really need to study soon. I've been going to class, but haven't read the first 3 chapters we've covered yet. It's very straightforward, but I need to keep up or I will be inundated later, regardless of how easy it is to understand.

I am beginning to get a bit less stressed about preparing for class, and a bit more focused on the big picture. I am also getting more determined to be efficient and continue refining my study methods. I have to take advantage of my time. Can't waste any of it. I've taken to doing busy work when my brain is fried in order to give it a break and still get other things done. I can organize my materials and things like that during these times. I also have found that I get a lot more done by going to sleep when I'm dead and waking up earlier, than by just continuing to stay up. Usually... ;)

I've been drinking a lot of coffee and yellow soda. Have to try to get more water in me to prevent dehydration. I did manage to go to church Sunday, and a bunch of other things. I'm still working; worked 6hrs last week, and about 4 on Sunday. May have to cut that back more, but we'll have to see.

It seems that a lot of people are worried about the job market. I have to be in the top of my class to feel confident about the job situation, but they say it's far far better for IP (Intellectual Property) people than others. I've met maybe 4 or 5 other people with a computer science or electrical engineering background. I'll have to pass the patent bar next year. Crazy.

AIPLA is having a meeting next month I'm going to try to attend in order to start meeting people, etc.

I watch StrongBad emails for 1 minute breaks now and then. ;)

I'm in the process of thinking about how the heck to blog about Law school when I'm so inundated with work.

I think my posts will have to be a lot shorter and less in depth, but I'll try to post a bit more often.

When you're learning so much, I think there's a tendency to want to organize it all in your head and explain everything. That's what I'm supposed to do for the exam though, so I'm not there yet. Maybe I'll just try to give some snippets of what we're learning and talking about.

So my first snippet: I'm finally starting to get on top of things, in my 4th week of classes. We're moved into the new apartment, and stuff is all over the place, but at least we have a bed there. :) We'll have to continue to try to put things together slowly until it's done.

Everything is still hard, and still a lot of work, but a picture is starting to emerge. I know I won't fail now, but I'm still not sure whether I'll be able to be in the top. We'll see. :)

This whole thing about the ten commandments at the Alabama Supreme Court really bothers me.

It bothers me because everyone is talking about "separation of church and state", which were the words of Thomas Jefferson, and are nowhere to be found in our law or Constitution.

We do have, in the First Amendment, a statement preventing Congress from enacting laws respecting religion. No one seems to realize that this has nothing to do with courts whatsoever, except as a possible statement of public policy for them to consider. Let me repeat: the First Amendment says nothing about Courts; therefore, a court may put up any monument it wants to, and the First Amendment does not apply. It only applies to Congress and the statutes they pass.

Judge Moore is correct in his interpretation of law. This means that the federal court order demanding removal of the monument has no basis in law, and therefore is unlawful. Is this so hard to understand?

So now, we get to the real question that everyone is thinking about: is it right or wrong? Maybe it's wrong. If so, Congress needs to get up and pass a law or a constitutional amendment stating such. Federal Courts' jurisdiction over States is limited to those powers set out in the Constitution, and there is nothing here that supports their intervention.

Seen in the light of our actual law, Judge Moore's following statement is as clear as common sense:

The First Amendment says that 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed." —Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore

Finally, I got out for lunch today with some friends and had some yummy Korean food. I ate a ton and still feel good. It was great. :)

Went to study at Starbucks for a change of scenery. That was good. I've been using my awesome new Sony TR1AP for the last few days and it rocks my world. Wide screen, DVD, etc, etc. I love it. The battery lasts forever too. The screen is incredibly bright and clear. (drool) Don't get it if you don't like reading small type though. It does have a zoom button on the screen, seemingly made especially for reading Japanese on the web. ;)

I want to video conference with someone through messenger to try out the built-in webcam, but I haven't been able to yet.

In other news, my Property reading is killing me. The man is a machine. He never falls behind, while all my other classes are way behind where they thought they'd be by now. My head is swimming with terms like trover, replevin, remainder, life estate, ratione soli, consideration, promissory estoppel, in pari delicto, ... I feel like the dude in that Gibson story who crammed his brain with too much data and started to go insane.

I am, somehow, managing though. :)