-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Law School & Lawyer GAF
- Thread starter SD-Ness
- Start date
SerArthurDayne
Member
Hey, my best grade was in employment law! Along with Con Law. Unfortunately nothing else.
Also, 8000 words? How long do you have for your tests. Your Professor is probably going to murder you unless it was a small section.
zmoney said:
I don't think we got that complicated in our Property course. And I've forgotten much of Wills. I actually liked the Future interests and the Rule, it is like a logic based equation.
Also, failing half the class if fucked up. I assume that is pre-curve and they got a C or something?
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I came within one place of amjuring property and I have no idea what you're talking about.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
If we're posing questions:
Is there any reason not to file both a Title VII and Sec. 1981 or 1981A claims? Does a 1981 claim preclude the Title VII claim? If I win on both would my damages be capped under Title VII, or uncapped under 1981 (assuming it's race related)?
Is there any reason not to file both a Title VII and Sec. 1981 or 1981A claims? Does a 1981 claim preclude the Title VII claim? If I win on both would my damages be capped under Title VII, or uncapped under 1981 (assuming it's race related)?
SerArthurDayne
Member
I think the question. Or at least the fact that we never did anything like that in property biases me towards that interpretation.
SerArthurDayne
Member
I don't want to give you bad advice, because I don't really know. My intuition is that the will doesn't matter. However, I feel like the question is unclear as to whether it was gifted to Ellen or not. I would assume you need to focus on and analyze whether the gift was made to Ellen at the time, and she took possession but essentially loaned it back to Fred.
Kind of like all the art at UT. We had a bunch of (ridiculous) benches, and a bunch of (awesome) propaganda posters covering the walls. All gone, and all we got was fresh (yellow) paint to replace them with.
Kind of like all the art at UT. We had a bunch of (ridiculous) benches, and a bunch of (awesome) propaganda posters covering the walls. All gone, and all we got was fresh (yellow) paint to replace them with.
SerArthurDayne
Member
Yeah, but I don't read the question as a causa mortis gift, rather an inter vivos one.
I believe you see it as if she refused the gift with the expectation it would be made upon his death.
I don't see it that way, I think it was either a gift immediately, or was lumped in with all the other testamentary property.
Basically, my uninformed opinion is either that it was an inter vivos gift, or no gift at all, because it was refused. I don't think it was ever a gift conditioned on death (with the exception that it would pass, via will, upon the testation of his estate).
I lean towards inter vivos gift, or not gift at all, but simply property of the estate. I think you could (and should) analyze whether it was a causa mortis gift, but I don't see it that way.
Edited: Because I gave it a second thought.
Also, I don't have the legal doctrines in front of me, so again, uninformed thoughts disclaimer.
I believe you see it as if she refused the gift with the expectation it would be made upon his death.
I don't see it that way, I think it was either a gift immediately, or was lumped in with all the other testamentary property.
Basically, my uninformed opinion is either that it was an inter vivos gift, or no gift at all, because it was refused. I don't think it was ever a gift conditioned on death (with the exception that it would pass, via will, upon the testation of his estate).
I lean towards inter vivos gift, or not gift at all, but simply property of the estate. I think you could (and should) analyze whether it was a causa mortis gift, but I don't see it that way.
Edited: Because I gave it a second thought.
Also, I don't have the legal doctrines in front of me, so again, uninformed thoughts disclaimer.
We had three hours total. The big problem with the test was that it was more of a marathon than anything else; the first section had 10 "short answer" questions with a recommended 1:15 hour time limit. Unfortunately, "short answer" pretty much required a paragraph each. And ten paragraphs really do add up. The second session was some ultra-issue spotter that incorporated both private and public employee claims, so that was also pretty massive. Final section was another issue-spotter that was more sensible. Given the bulk of the test, this is one exam where I could see people writing similar amounts as well.
SerArthurDayne
Member
I'm actually quite fond of the all-nighter for a morning test. You need preptime though, so you won't be tired at 4 am. So I like to sleep in late the day before, and maybe take a later afternoon nap, ramp up the exam, and then sleep after.
I doubt you did that, so I do find that rest and calm are the next best thing to knowledge.
And if you can bring in an outline, even better!
I doubt you did that, so I do find that rest and calm are the next best thing to knowledge.
And if you can bring in an outline, even better!
I think a causa mortis gift is applicable. He was dying in hospice and did, in fact die several (plus three) days after attempting to give Ellen the painting. Regardless, causa mortis/inter vivos, the key to determining Ellen's rights with regards to the painting is first whether or not the gift was completed. If the gift was completed then revocation is merely a secondary issue; if the gift was never completed then revocation will never enter into the equation.SerArthurDayne said:
In order for gift to be complete, you must have (1) intent to gift; (2) delivery of the property, either manual or--where manual is impossible--constructive; and (3) acceptance. Intent seems pretty clear here, so I wouldn't spend much time talking about that. You can put a few lines about acceptance, but since acceptance is generally presumed when gifts are made and there are no words of outright rejection, I wouldn't spend too much time talking about that either. Instead I would focus on whether the property was sufficiently delivered to Ellen to constitute a completed gift.
Clearly, pointing at the painting and directing his nurse to hand it to Ellen does not constitute the physical delivery of the painting to Ellen, however the facts do not explicitly state that the nurse did not hand it to Ellen before Ellen insisted on her uncle keeping it until his passing so you would want to make a note of that because it would then constitute a completed gift. Put a few words here about the possibility of it constituting a rejection, but, as I mentioned above, I don't think rejection occurred.
Next you would want to analyze whether or not pointing at the painting and directing the nurse to give it to Ellen constituted constructive delivery of the painting to Ellen. Note that constructive delivery is disfavored due to the desire to protect the donor from fraudulent claims, and will generally only be given effect where manual delivery was impossible or impractical. In my opinion there is no constructive delivery, and it certainly isn't analogous to most of the cases in my property book where the decedent usually handed the donee keys that opened a desk in his house and the courts held that the content of the desk were deemed to have been constructively delivered. If the painting were large or oversized and he had handed to Ellen something like a "certificate of authenticity" or maybe a sales receipt, something related to the painting you could argue constructive delivery. You may want to look at the case Wilcox v. Matteson, 9 N.W. 814 (Wis. 1881) which involves a similar situation where a servant was directed to give a causa mortis gift to the donee but the servant did not.
If the gift was completed, then you would really need to analyze whether it was a causa mortis gift or an inter vivos gift. Completed inter vivos gifts are not revocable, so if an argument can be made that it was a completed inter vivos gift, then Ellen has a valid claim against the estate for the value of the painting. Note, however, that future gifts are revocable, but there was no intent on the part of the uncle to give the painting to Ellen in the future, he wanted her to have it now. The only reason the painting stayed put was because Ellen voluntarily left it in his possession.
Then you have to look at revocation if the gift was a completed causa mortis gift. Now, I couldn't find anything in my notes or my property text about revocation of a causa mortis gift, so I went to the old standby of internet lawyers everywhere, Wikipedia, which cites to several English cases to state:
So, if you have notes on revocation that match this then go with that. Otherwise you can take a look at the English cases cited. I can't really comment any further on this because I have no clue, but you want to analyze whether or not revocation has occurred. If the gift was properly revoked, then Ellen is done. But if the gift was not properly revoked, then she can bring a suit against the estate for the value of the painting.
Edit: Just read the extended fact pattern. From within the context of the actual question, at least, I do not think that Ellen has a claim to painting. Either the gift was never completed and she had no right to the painting or her claims lie against the estate for the value of the painting. However, since she inherited all of her uncle's property anyway when he died three days later which included the amount received for the painting I do not think she has any rights remaining in the painting.
Got practice problems you're stuck on?
RandomDancing
Member
Three left.
Done on Thursday. Had our professor come in and tell us he wasn't grading a handful of a certain set of Corporations questions in the middle of the exam that I wasted a large amount of time trying to figure out. Definitely threw me for a loop and seemed to make everyone in the class feel like they have no idea how they did.Open note admin exam next. Professor asks sometimes for author Justice name, page # in book and meaning of quotes from cases, but didn't tell us he'd be doing this on our exam until late November. I know next to nothing and have an outline made up entirely of just my class notes copied into one document. Put stars in book next to quotes he discussed, but won't be able to locate those without sitting here and going through all my readings to find them and put them in my outline (my Sunday morning plans). Pretty sure this is going to end badly.
Wait... the professor came in in the middle of the exam and said he wasn't going to grade some of the questions on THAT exam? That's fucking bullshit if those questions were anything more than multiple choice, and even then it's not fair. People who hadn't yet spent time on those questions were certainly provided an advantage over those, like yourself, who had. Man, I might go the dean on that one or at least your faculty adviser if you are in anyway concerned about the exam.Three left.
Your professors suck. That is overly anal for an in-class exam.
RandomDancing
Member
I know, I really got shafted with crappy professors this semester. Honestly, I have 5 classes - 4 professors: one who was cool, the one who invalidated the questions today who is also the professor for one of the exams I still have to take, the overly specific admin professor, and the professor of my last final which is giving us a multiple choice exam but knows the questions/answers may be ambiguous depending on how we interpret the facts we're given, so on top of taking the exam, we get the opportunity to waste valuable exam time writing out no more than 5 challenges to questions. He legitimately wants us to write out a paragraph detailing how we understood the question and why we answered it the way we did. If he thinks the challenge is valid, he'll give us the point. I'm a 3L...I thought this was supposed to be my easy year?
The Corporations exam was like 75% multiple choice (where the answers were invalidated) and 25% essay. I've kinda drowned myself in beer since this morning due to the exam, and to make preparing for admin a little less stressful, so I hadn't even really thought about saying anything to the Dean. It's not a bad idea though...I would not be surprised to get a C back on that thing, since the essay was very easy so the grade distribution will come down to those multiple choice.
The Corporations exam was like 75% multiple choice (where the answers were invalidated) and 25% essay. I've kinda drowned myself in beer since this morning due to the exam, and to make preparing for admin a little less stressful, so I hadn't even really thought about saying anything to the Dean. It's not a bad idea though...I would not be surprised to get a C back on that thing, since the essay was very easy so the grade distribution will come down to those multiple choice.
Talking to the dean or at least shooting him/her an email can't hurt, especially if you end up getting that C. That way when you challenge your grade later there's some built in understanding.
I don't think being able to write out a challenge to some of your multiple choice questions is necessarily bad, especially if they're ridiculously ambiguous as law school multiple choice questions are want to be.
Did you talk to anyone else about your professor selection during registration? If it's not a class you're particularly interested in, you've got to be smart about that shit.
RandomDancing
Member
I had heard he was a little unstructured and not really by the book. It didn't worry me during registration because I actually was only supposed to have for him the pretty straightforward 2c class that I have yet to take the final for, then in late summer they announced my original Corps professor would no longer be teaching the class, and this professor (who I think teaches it normally just in spring or something) would be taking it over. By that point, it had been months since I registered and I forgot all about the warnings I had gotten about taking him for Corps. It is really my fault though, and you can be sure I've already double checked my spring classes for any such problems.
RandomDancing
Member
Getting the worst out of the way: Admin tomorrow. At least after that I'll finally be more than halfway done finals!
READ ALL OF THIS
CRIMINAL OFFENSES
I. Inchoate Offenses
A. Attempt: (1) With the intent to commit a specific offense (2) the actor takes a substantial step towards the commission of that offense.
B. Aiding and abetting: (1) Knowledge of principal’s unlawful purpose; (2) intent to aid principal in committing the crime; and (3) actually assist principal commit the crime.
C. Conspiracy: (1) Intent that an offense be committed (2) agreement that a conspirator commit the offense; and (3) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
1. Overt act can be something as simple as verbally agreeing to commit the crime.
2. Pinkerton Liability: Any conspirator can be charged with any crimes relating to that conspiracy as long as (1) it was reasonably foreseeable for that crime to occur; (2) it was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) the person was a member of the conspiracy at the time of the crime.
II. Homicide
A. Murder
1. Intentional Murder: (1) Intend to cause the death of another person and (2) cause the death of another person.
2. Extreme Recklessness: (1) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life (2) recklessly engage in conduct that creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself and (3) cause the death of another person.
3. Felony Murder:
a) Commits or attempts to commit arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery, sodomy in the first degree OR any felony clearly dangerous to human life
b) In the course of and in furtherance of the crime he is committing or attempting to commit, or in the immediate flight there from
c) He or another co-felon causes the death of any person.
4. Heat of passion can mitigate a charge of murder as long as a reasonable time has not passed which would allow for the “passion to cool.”
B. Manslaughter
1. (1) Recklessly (2) cause the death of a person.
2. OR (1) cause the death of another person under conditions which would normally constitute murder (2) when that murder is mitigated by the heat of passion defense.
C. Criminally Negligent Homicide
1. (1) Cause the death of another person (2) by criminal negligence.
2. Jury may consider statutes and ordinances regulating the actor’s conduct in determining whether he was negligent.
D. Cases
1. Langford v. State
a) CT held that there was no evidence to support the requisite intent for first degree murder.
1) DF did not decide to drive until after he had been drinking
2) No proof that the DF intended to have a collision
3) No proof that the possible consequence of taking a human life crossed through the DF’s mind.
2. People v. Hall (Extreme reckless case)
a) CT held that the standard to judge the DF by was a hybrid standard  was his conduct a gross deviation from what a law-abiding, reasonably, expert-trained resort employee would do in the actor’s situation.
b) The CT stated that the trier of fact may infer a person’s subjective awareness of a risk from the particular facts of a case, including the person’s particular knowledge or expertise.
c) The CT stated that the risk of death to another can be general, and does not have to be a risk of death to a specific person.
3. Commonwealth ex rel. Smith v. Myers
a) CT held that the jury instruction (which informed the jury that they could find the DF guilty even if they found that the officer had been shot by another officer) was given erroneously.
4. People v. Salas
a) DF was convicted of the felony murder of a police officer based upon the fact that, at the time of the murder, he was fleeing from an earlier robbery.
b) CT used several factors to determine that his escape was still in progress
1) DF had not reached a place of temporary safety before pursuit began
2) DF still had full possession of the ‘loot’
5. Tison v. Arizona
a) CT held that if you are guilty of felony murder, you can still be put to death if you demonstrated both reckless indifference to human life and had significant involvement in the predicate felony.
1) These are two separate prongs of the same test.
2) Reckless indifference and significant involvement make up the intent element.
E. Attempted Felony Murder
1. Elements
a) Perpetrating, or attempting to perpetrate an enumerated felony
b) During the commission of this felony, committing an intentional overt act, or aiding and abetting the commission of an intentional overt act, which could, but does not, cause the death of another.
1) Because the attempt occurs during the commission of a felony, the law, as it does under the felony murder doctrine, presumes the existence of the specific intent required to prove intent.
2. State v. Gray
a) CT held that there was no such crime as attempted felony murder within FL, because you cannot intend to incidentally attempt to kill a person. You cannot specifically attempt to do something you did not intend to do.
III. Assault
A. Elements
1. Assault in the First Degree
a) (1) With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, (2) he causes serious physical injury to any person (3) by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
b) OR (1) With intent to seriously and permanently disfigure another person, or to destroy, amputate, or permanently disable a member or organ of a person’s body, (2) DF causes such an injury to that person.
c) OR (1) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life (2) DF recklessly engages in conduct that creates a grave risk of death to another person (3) causes serious physical injury to another person
d) Felony assault: causes serious physical injury while committing an enumerated felony.
1) See felony murder
e) DUI assault resulting in serious physical injury
2. Assault in the Second Degree
a) (1) With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, (2) DF causes serious physical injury.
b) OR (1) With intent to cause physical injury to a person, (2) DF causes physical injury to any person (3) by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
c) OR (1) DF recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person (2) by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
d) OR With intent to prevent a peace officer, EMT, or firefighter from performing a lawful duty, DF intends to cause physical injury and does so.
e) OR With intent to cause physical injury to a teacher during the performance of their duty, DF causes injury to any person.
f) OR For a purpose other than a lawful medical or therapeutic treatment, DF intentionally causes a physical or mental impairment or injury to another person by administering to them a drug capable of producing the intended harm.
3. Assault in the Third Degree
a) (1) With intent to cause physical injury to a person (2) DF causes physical injury to that person.
b) OR (1) Recklessly (2) causes physical injury to another person.
c) OR (1) With criminal negligence he (2) causes physical injury to another person (3) with a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
d) With intent to prevent a peace officer from performing a lawful duty, he causes physical injury to any person.
B. Cases
1. Westbrook v. State
a) Serious physical injury is defined as one which creates a substantial risk of death or causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any organ
b) Physical injury is defined as the impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.
c) In dicta, the court affirms that there is no charge of attempted manslaughter in the state of Alabama.
d) Dissent disagreed with the court’s dicta, and asserted that there should be a crime of attempted manslaughter under the theory that the “heat of passion” manslaughter charge is an intentional homicide that was mitigated by circumstances.
2. Ex parte Cobb
a) CT held that a fist was not a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
b) CT held that deadly weapons were commonly held to be inanimate objects created by man.
c) CT held that the phrase dangerous instrument was intended to refer to utensils or implements, and not part of the human body.
d) CT held that what constituted a deadly weapon would be determined by the circumstances of their use.
3. United States v. Moore
a) CT held that DF’s mouth and teeth were deadly and dangerous weapons because evidence supported a finding that Moore used his teeth in a manner likely to inflict serious bodily harm.
b) This case is in contrast with Cobb.
4. Glass v. State
a) CT held that the state had shown serious physical injury: a year after the attacks the DF still suffered from severe sinus headaches caused by the beating; VIC suffered a deviated septum which has created ongoing sinus problems; injuries cause her pain whenever she chews as her jaws would pop so badly that they would ache. Doctor testified that she would suffer from these injuries for the rest of her life.
IV. Robbery
A. Elements
1. Robbery in the First Degree
a) (1) Commit robbery in the third degree (2) while armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
b) OR (1) Commit robbery in the third degree and (2) cause serious physical injury to another.
c) If the DF presents an article as being a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, when that article is not, and from this presentation a reasonable person could believe it to be such, then this is prima facie evidence that he was so armed.
2. Robbery in the Second Degree
a) (1) Commit robbery in the third degree (2) while aided by another person actually present.
3. Robbery in the Third Degree
a) (1) While in the course of committing a theft (2) DF uses force against a person (or threatens the imminent use of force) (3) with intent to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance.
B. Cases
1. People v. Taylor
a) CT held that the slight amount of force which the DF exerted to take the chain off of the VIC’s neck was enough to satisfy the force requirement for robbery.
b) In reaching their decision, the CT cited other cases: “If the article was so attached to the person or clothes as to create resistance, however slight, *** the taking is robbery.” 449
c) When the DF attempts to take the article by means of “stealth and adroitness” he does not commit robbery. 449
V. Theft / Larceny
A. Elements
1. (1) Knowingly obtain or exert unauthorized control (2) over the property of another.
2. OR (1) Knowingly obtain by deception (2) control over the property of another, (3) with intent to deprive the owner of his property.
B. Cases
1. People v. Olivio et al.
a) CT held that a shoplifter need not leave the actual premises of a store in order to be guilty of larceny. Shoplifter may treat merchandise in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s continued rights – and in a manner not in accord with that of a prospective purchaser – without walking out of the store
b) CT identified several factors which could be used to determine of a larceny occurred.
1) Conceal the goods in clothing or a container
2) Furtive or unusual behavior
3) Proximity to or movements towards one of the store’s exits
4) Possession of a known shoplifting device
2. Lund v. Commonwealth
a) CT held that the statutory language does not suggest that ‘unauthorized use’ is an act which would constitute a larceny.
VI. Burglary
A. Elements
1. Burglary in the First Degree
a) (1) Knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains unlawfully in a (2) dwelling (3) with intent to commit a crime therein, and the DF or another participant in the crime: (4) is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon OR causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime OR uses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument.
2. Burglary in the Second Degree
a) (1) Commit burglary in the first degree (2) in a building (as opposed to a dwelling).
b) OR (1) DF unlawfully enters a (2) lawfully occupied dwelling-house with (3) intent to commit a theft or a felony therein.
3. Burglary in the Third Degree
a) (1) DF knowingly enters or remains unlawfully (2) in a building (3) with intent to commit a crime therein.
B. Cases
1. State v. Howe, et al.
a) CT held that parents have a duty to care for their children, and as a result children have access to the homes of their parents unless the parent has unequivocally revoked the child’s right to their house and they have provided for alternative care for their child.
VII. Rape and Other Sex Crimes 452
A. Elements
1. Rape in the First Degree
a) (1) Engages in sexual intercourse (2) with a member of the opposite sex (3) by forcible compulsion
b) OR (1) DF engages in sexual intercourse (2) with a member of the opposite sex (3) who is incapable of consent by reason of being (4) physically helpless or mentally incapacitated.
c) OR DF, (1) being 16 years or older, (2) engages in sexual intercourse (3) with a member of the opposite sex (4) who is less than 12 years old.
2. Rape in the Second Degree
a) DF, (1) being 16 years or older, (2) engages in sexual intercourse (3) with a member of the opposite sex (4) less than 16 years old and more than 12 years; (5) provided that the DF is at least two years older than the member of the opposite sex.
b) (1) He or she engages in sexual intercourse (2) with a member of the opposite sex (3) who is incapable of consent (4) by reason of being mentally defective.
3. Sodomy in the First Degree
a) Rape in the First Degree w/ “deviate sexual intercourse.”
4. Sodomy in the Second Degree
a) Rape in the Second Degree w/ “deviate sexual intercourse.”
5. Aggravated Child Molestation
a) (1) Any immoral or indecent act (2) in the presence of or to a child under 16 (3) with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person and (4) the act physically injures the child or involves sodomy.
6. Definitions
a) Sexual intercourse: normal meaning; penetration; emission not required
b) Deviate sexual intercourse: any act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.
c) Mentally incapacitated: person who is temporarily rendered incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him without his consent.
d) Forcible Compulsion: physical force that overcomes earnest resistance or a threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of immediate death or serious physical injury to himself or another person.
7. Rape Shield Law: Evidence of prior sexual acts by the victim will not be admissible into evidence, unless (1) it is prior sexual conduct with the actor OR (2) physical evidence that shows that it is not the actor.
B. Cases
1. Glass v. State
a) CT held that a victim’s fear that she could be beaten if she refused to have sexual intercourse satisfies the forcible compulsion element of first degree rape.
2. Commonwealth v. Berkowitz
a) CT held that rape has to be more than non-consensual sex; it must be by forcible compulsion. Evidence of a VIC’s verbal protestations is not sufficient evidence of forcible compulsion, but this does not mean that the VIC had to physically resist.
b) CT held that absence of actual injury or physical resistance is not fatal to the case.
VIII. Drug Offenses
A. Possession: (1) Unlawfully (2) possess a controlled substance.
B. Possession with intent to distribute: (1) Unlawfully (2) possess a controlled substance (3) with the intent to distribute it to others.
1. Intent to distribute can be inferred from the quantity of the controlled substance recovered.
IX. Mail Fraud: (1) Scheme/artifice to defraud (2) and in the execution of that scheme (3) use or cause use of mail or interstate carrier.
A. Mail does not have to travel interstate, but if you use an interstate carrier (UPS; FedEx) then it might have to.
B. Pereira v. United States
1. Use of the mail system does not have to be intentional.
2. “Where one does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary source of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even thought not actually intended, then he ‘causes’ the mails to be used.”
X. Wire Fraud: (1) Scheme/artifice to defraud (2) and in the execution of that scheme transmits or causes to be transmitted by wire, radio, or television communications (3) in interstate or foreign commerce (4) any writings, signs, signals, sounds, or pictures for the purpose of executing such scheme.
A. This includes e-mail
XI. RICO
A. Elements
1. RICO 1962(a): (1) Invest (2) proceeds from a pattern of racketeering activities (3) in an enterprise which affects interstate or foreign commerce.
2. RICO 1962(b): (1) Acquire / maintain control of an (2) enterprise involved in interstate or foreign commerce (3) through a pattern of racketeering activity.
3. RICO 1962(c): (1) Employee of an enterprise who (2) conducts affairs of the enterprise (3) through a pattern of racketeering activity.
4. RICO 1962 (d): Conspire to a, b, or c.
B. Definitions
1. Enterprise: Any legal entity or any group of individuals associated in fact.
2. Racketeering Activity: Any major state offense and most federal offenses.
a) ONLY USE: murder, mail fraud, wire fraud, and distribution of a controlled substance.
3. Pattern: 2 or more activities within 10 years.
C. Civil Results
1. Property forfeiture
2. Treble damages
3. Attorney’s fees
D. Cases
1. United States v. Cauble
a) DF may argue that there was no connection between their enterprise and the pattern of racketeering.
b) Custom evidence: The way the DF used his plane changed due to his participation in the pattern of racketeering activities.
XII. False Claims Act (p. 552)
A. Elements:
1. Filing a false claim
2. OR submitting a false statement
3. OR conspiracy to get a false claim paid
4. OR reverse false claim (hiding money you are obligated to pay the government)
B. Civil Actions
1. Quit tam provision
a) Citizen can bring a civil action in the name of the US Government against a person who filed a false claim. The Department of Justice will have the option of intervening and taking over the claim.
b) If the Government proceeds with this action then the person shall receive at least 15% but not more than 25% of the proceeds of the action plus reasonable attorneys’ fees.
c) If the court finds that the person was deeply involved in the commission of the false claim, his award may be capped at 10%.
d) If the government decides not to proceed with the action then the person will receive at least 25% but not more than 30% of the proceeds plus reasonable attorneys’ fees.
XIII. Obstruction of Justice
A. Elements: (1) Knowingly or intentionally (2) corruptly persuade (3) with the intent to cause (4) a person to withhold or alter records (5) for use in an official proceeding.
B. Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States
1. Once a defendant is aware that an official proceeding (investigation) is possible, then they have a duty to refrain from destroying, hiding, or altering documents which may be pertinent to the investigation in anyway.
XIV. Corporate Criminal Liability: (1) Agent of corporation commits a crime (2) when acting in the scope of his authority or apparent authority (3) when acting for the benefit of the corporation.
XV. Forfeiture of Land: After the government begins forfeiture proceedings, the DF has the burden to promptly respond to the forfeiture notice and to prove either (1) the property is not subject to forfeiture (i.e. was not used in a criminal act) or (2) the owner of the property was unaware of the criminal acts taking place on the land.
A. Proceedings are usually brought against the land, rather than the owner.
Felt like that for my Ks final today. Seriously fucked that up. Career options plummeting.
Byakuya769
Member
I could see that. Seems like most bad performances have more to do with anxiety than lack of knowledge.
kkaabboomm
Member
ex-law student here: i love having a license to practice law, and a job that lets me use it. i do not miss "finals" and stress every couple of months. going to work, then coming home and putting my feet up is 1000000x better.
moral of the story: you'll make it through, and it's nicer on the other side. congrats to the 1L's finishing their first semester, congrats to the 2L's for suffering, 3L's should be drinking and finishing their bar apps around now.
moral of the story: you'll make it through, and it's nicer on the other side. congrats to the 1L's finishing their first semester, congrats to the 2L's for suffering, 3L's should be drinking and finishing their bar apps around now.
Do you have access to BYU's job board?
Bboy AJ
My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
Martindale Hubbard is one, no? Never used it but I hear about it often.
On the other hand, one of my professor's roommates in law school prepped for the bar while on speed. It didn't wear off the day of the test, and he ended up writing all of his answers on top of each other on the same sheet of paper. He didn't pass lol
Actual jobs, generally. Best place would be through on campus interviews and simplicity, or to make a list of law firms in either the city where you attend school, cities where you would like to live, or cities where you have a place to stay (especially if you're considering unpaid internships) and send out letters or emails to those firms. You can use martindale-hubbell to get a list of firms in your area, but a couple of places that I found to be of great usefulness when just compiling a list of law firms to cold contact was (1) the bar membership directory for your state (especially if it lets you filter by city) and (2) the chamber of commerce for the relevant counties. Edit: when emailing firms, keep in mind that some attorneys have their emails set up to automatically kick back/reject emails with key words such as "employment inquiry" in them, and I even received emails back from a few attorneys saying that they don't respond to employment inquiries via email. Why the hell they would bother responding via email like that, I have no idea.
You can also directly inquire with government agencies to see if they take interns.
Edit #2:Younghav, here's the info on BYU's job bank: https://www.law2.byu.edu/career_services/jobbank/ Don't use chrome to access it. You may need to contact your CSO to get the login info for it. The login/pw I have for it isn't good anymore as they change it every year. It used to be some sort of cookie combination (e.g., fig & newton or oreo & cookie), but I have no idea what it is now.
Bboy AJ
My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
Make sure your resume is prepped. If you have local connections, work those. That's the best way to do it. Just keep asking around. Show genuine interest in a certain area and you'll be picked up quick.
Remember, it really doesn't matter what you did your 1L summer, so as long as it's law related. Of course, if you do an internship with a place you want to be at, it will matter. But it won't be a ding if you interned at the DA's when you want to work in biglaw.
Great advice, though the most important information to a legal employer will be unavailable: first semester grades and class ranking.
If you want me to take a look at your resume I will. You can scrub the personal info if you want and pm a link to a google doc or something.
so jealous, congrats bro...
RandomDancing
Member
Admin over, thank god. When they called 5 minutes left, it was like a flurry of 100 outlines trying to scramble to put down answers for our short answer/ID the quote/case/author section.
Two hour final tomorrow, three hour final Thursday morning, then sweet, sweet freedom! Registrar woman definitely told me everyone in the school is pissed how late our finals are this year, and how they will never schedule this close to the holidays again. Doesn't help me much as a 3L but at least they recognize this is idiotic.
Agreed. And some advice for those that won't be going into biglaw, that I wish I knew my 1 and 2L year: if you know you're going to want to clerk out of school, and you are pretty sure of the area you want to end up, it's a good idea to get a clerkship with some court in that area either during your summers or as an internship in the fall/spring. I wasn't planning on clerking after law school and chose non-profit and gov't internships over clerking as a student. I cannot stress how much having a judge-buddy on your side when you apply for post-grad clerkships can help. A lot of judges I know didn't even interview or accept apps because either another judge recommended their summer/intern clerk, or the judge decided to hire full-time their part-time clerks. Pretty much all of them said that the best indication that someone really wants to clerk post-grad (and isn't just doing it b/c they can't get a firm job) is that they clerked for free/credit/work-study while in school. Granted, this advice is probably best geared more towards smaller markets for something other than the high-level federal clerkships.
Two hour final tomorrow, three hour final Thursday morning, then sweet, sweet freedom! Registrar woman definitely told me everyone in the school is pissed how late our finals are this year, and how they will never schedule this close to the holidays again. Doesn't help me much as a 3L but at least they recognize this is idiotic.
Agreed. And some advice for those that won't be going into biglaw, that I wish I knew my 1 and 2L year: if you know you're going to want to clerk out of school, and you are pretty sure of the area you want to end up, it's a good idea to get a clerkship with some court in that area either during your summers or as an internship in the fall/spring. I wasn't planning on clerking after law school and chose non-profit and gov't internships over clerking as a student. I cannot stress how much having a judge-buddy on your side when you apply for post-grad clerkships can help. A lot of judges I know didn't even interview or accept apps because either another judge recommended their summer/intern clerk, or the judge decided to hire full-time their part-time clerks. Pretty much all of them said that the best indication that someone really wants to clerk post-grad (and isn't just doing it b/c they can't get a firm job) is that they clerked for free/credit/work-study while in school. Granted, this advice is probably best geared more towards smaller markets for something other than the high-level federal clerkships.
I hated policy questions, but I think torts would be about the best class to have to answer them on. Good luck, regardless.
Isn't that all that they're really useful for?
Similar threads
- Locked