That wasn't so bad...

[palsgraf_polka]

Ok...I made it through 6 cases and 3 articles tonight. Tonight was concentrated on divorce and the divorce cases were much easier than the marriage cases I was doing yesterday.

So, that leaves me with one short divorce case I can do tomorrow at lunch and then 8 pages of articles to summarize and I'm good for class for tomorrow night.

Then I get a few days break, as we don't have class for 2 weeks due to spring break. So, I have 2 weeks to brief 8 cases. If I have time, I might brief ahead so I don't feel rushed later. I need to seriously try to break myself of this procrastination, as I won't be able to do this come Fall and I'm taking 3 classes and have to brief 20 a week.

I do find it interesting though that just in a couple of weeks of reading case after case my brain is whipping through legalese much better than it was before. Before I agonized with the writing and had to read something 2 or 3 times before I got the meaning, but now it reads like a novel, which is good. I'm hoping by the time Fall comes around this will be so easy it'll be a snap.

Anyway, I know I'm probably boring you with this stuff. But some of these cases are really interesting. I read one tonight, Aflalo v. Aflalo where an Orthodox Jewish woman wants a divorce from her Orthodox Jewish husband, but he won't give her a get which is a traditional Jewish decree, in writing and in Aramaic, that releases her from being his wife/property/slave and allows her to remarry. If he does not give her the get, if she has sex with or remarries another man, she is considered an adulteress, any subsequent children are considered illegitimate and cannot marry Jews, and she will be shunned by her peers and social groups. Usually this is used as a ransom so that the husbands can get more money or custody of children, but in this case, the husband genuinely did not want a divorce, but to reconcile. He did say though, that if the Beth Din, the Rabbinical court ordered him to give his wife the get he would, but that case wasn't being heard yet before the Beth Din. The wife wanted the court to order her husband to give her the get before the Beth Din ordered him to do so (among a few other items which I won't go into because it's boring and legal), but the court refused on 1st Amendment grounds saying that they cannot interfere with one's practice of religion (unless it is a dire possibly life threatening situation). The justice quoted Thomas Jefferson and it was a very interesting and well written opinion.

I tell you, I love this shit.

Comments

[hylerj.livejournal.com]

I've missed chatting with you. I knew you were studying and didn't want to distract you. But, I will IM next time I see ya. :)

[palsgraf-polka.livejournal.com]

After tonight I'll have a few nights off, so come find me. I miss chatting with you too. :)

[iron-chef-gein.livejournal.com]

"it was a very interesting and well written opinion"

Heh heh-- unlike a vast majority of the dreck you'll find in a casebook!

I know what you mean about cases reading like a novel, although I deplore the number of new textbooks that approach cases as "storytelling" (kill me no, ghod). Almost every time I sat down to study I had to come up with an alternate reading to keep myself involved. Getting really pissed off about something in the opinion was usually the answer, but in retrospect, I now see it wasn't the healthiest thing to do for either me or the people around me. The most successful strategy was the one I developed for the bar-- every subject was a synthesizer and the rules became mechanics of the synth's voice architecture. Manic PLUS OCD rocks.

[palsgraf-polka.livejournal.com]

This casebook is pretty straightforward - there are cases and there are occasional notes, but that's it. I'll let you know if I come across future casebooks that are like storytelling.

As soon as I master a language, reading it becomes easy. I remember one day Elizabethan English finally clicked into place about 3 weeks into my Shakespeare in Performance class while I was living in London, and after that, the language which kept killing me was almost as easy to read as modern English. It seems that legalese has become the same way. Weird too, because I'm really starting to write that way in my work e-mails, etc and I have to be careful not to sound too legal. :)

[bebo-65.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you're loving "this shit". You keep right on telling us all about it, because I enjoy reading your posts, you goober.

Two weeks without classes? Schedule yourself to brief two cases per day. You'll be ahead, and practiced enough to whip out two briefs (things that sound dirty but aren't...) in record time.

SMOOCH.

[palsgraf-polka.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I will try to spread out my studies a little a day and see if that makes things better. SMOOCH.

[waystar.livejournal.com]

Good for you!

It warms the cockles of my heart to hear you enjoying yourself.

Hugs and kisses.

*runs off to look up the word, "cockles."*

[palsgraf-polka.livejournal.com]

Hahahaha...maybe the mollusks look like hearts. Either that or they're talking about the wrinkles, or the deepest places of your heart. :)

[the-carrot.livejournal.com]

Good call on Aflalo v. Aflalo.

[palsgraf-polka.livejournal.com]

I agree. No court should order someone to perform a religious act or go against their religion unless someone's life is at stake (like that crazy woman in that cult who pled guilty this week to starving and dehydrating their 16 month old to death because he forgot to say amen at dinner). I would support interference in that matter if they knew about it in time to save the child.

[the-carrot.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that religious freedom only goes so far; it stops when an act engaged under the auspices of religious freedom violates a civil or criminal law. Right?

[palsgraf-polka.livejournal.com]

You are correct. That limit before government intervention is subject to interpretation though. There is evidence that some of the men that were held in Gitmo were innocent of being terrorists, but were radical Islamists. Should they have been jailed and tortured strictly because they were religious fanatics?

It's food for thought.

[the-carrot.livejournal.com]

Not exactly a one-word answer to that one. Should they be jailed merely for the fact that they were religious fanatics? Nope.

But...if they're religious fanatics AND other religious fanatics of the same faith were engaging in terrorist activity that was driven by said fanaticism AND the men in question had been in contact with proven terrorists...

...then yeah, lock'em up and schedule a probable cause hearing. It was the lack of those hearings that made detentions in Gitmo illegal.

[nurzrachet.livejournal.com]

Aem I'm glad you're going after this. I know it's a pretty intense profession, but it will be worth it.

Ever see the movie True Believer with James Woods? One of the best movies ever. At first I thought I'd hate it, but loved it and watch it every time it comes on. Check it out. Nurzy gives it two nips up.

[palsgraf-polka.livejournal.com]

I feel good about it too, exhausting as it will be (and already is). I'll have to check out True Believer. I always like James Woods.

[cyberbertha.livejournal.com]

Not boring to me. I think law is interesting; one of the courses required for my accounting degree was a bare-bones business law class. I thought it was fascinating.

[palsgraf-polka.livejournal.com]

Law is fascinating. You read over and over again these people making decisions over other people's lives and the fact that the law is never black and white and can be interpreted in so many ways, and it's all so cool. I really love it.