While studying for the bar exam in July, I lost 19 pounds in four weeks. For those of you that actually know me, you know this is not a good thing for me. Never fear, I have gained it all back and then some…

Soon after taking the bar exam, Us Magazine ran a cover story on Jennifer Love Hewitt losing 18 pounds in ten weeks. Needless to say, I was mad that I lost more weight in a shorter period of time and no one asked me how…

Well, I received my bar exam results today, and I passed. Needless to say, it was the best 19 pounds I ever lost…even if I did not get famous for it.

I’m not purposefully singling out Atlanta here: the baggage claiming situation in US airports is completely absurd. In Japan, where people rarely steal others’ property anyway, they make you match your baggage claim ticket with the one on the bag. That it remains a free-for-all stateside blows my mind.

Stuff getting stolen at ATL airport

Because, apparently, people are still going to shoot up schools until we actually do something about our gun problem in this country, I will be cursed to re-post this every year or so.

Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.

Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.

From ACSblog:

Judge Robert Bork, one of the fathers of the modern judicial conservative movement whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate, is seeking $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, after he slipped and fell at the Yale Club of New York City. Judge Bork was scheduled to give a speech at the club, but he fell when mounting the dais, and injured his head and left leg. He alleges that the Yale Club is liable for the $1m plus punitive damages because they “wantonly, willfully, and recklessly” failed to provide staging which he could climb safely.

thank you Judge Bork for providing me with the example I will forever use for “everyone wants tort reform until they are hurt.” jackass.

originally written for the 9/11 attacks, this short essay sums up a lot of the degenerate pricks on the television you are seeing right now in the wake of the VT shootings.

Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.

Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.

(via BoingBoing)

I would love to get your opinions on this recent cover model on a local free magazine called Bar Stool Sports. The link to this week’s issue is here.

It is also being picked up on a law blog here.

Internet users in China should be thrilled to learn that thesupernicety.com is currently not blocked over there. Damn near everything else worth reading on the internet, however, is. Try out any site on the great firewall of china.org.

Courtesy of Japundit.

Update, 6pm March 7th: The supernicety.com has been blocked.

Another humorous ruling, this time from a Superior Court of Arizona:

Plaintiff’s counsel extended a lunch invitation to Defendant’s counsel “to have a discussion regarding discovery and other matters.” Plaintiff’s counsel offered to “pay for lunch.” Defendant’s counsel failed to respond until the motion was filed.

Defendant’s counsel distrusts Plaintiff’s counsel’s motives and fears that Plaintiff’s counsel’s purpose is to persuade Defendant’s counsel of the lack of merit in the defense case. The Court has no doubt of Defendant’s counsel’s ability to withstand Plaintiff’s counsel’s blandishments and to respond sally for sally and barb for barb. Defendant’s counsel now makes what may be an illusory acceptance of Plaintiff’s counsel’s invitation by saying, “We would love to have lunch at Ruth’s Chris with/on . . .” Plaintiff’s counsel.1

1 Everyone knows that Ruth’s Chris, while open for dinner, is not open for lunch. This is a matter of which the Court may take judicial notice.

speaking truth to what-feels-like my 2347832764rd hour in the office:

Ben Johnson III, the managing partner of Alston & Bird, tells a story about being a young partner at the firm in the early 1970s.

He was sitting in on an interview between then-senior partner Philip Alston, Jr., and a second-year law student. The student said, “It must be really exciting to practice law here.” Alston would have none of it: “No, it’s not. Lawyers are paid to do things too tedious for anyone else to do.”

i’ve often argued that we are hired to take care of a specific kind of minutia that the rest of the business world can’t be bothered to figure out. when you feel good about it, it’s called ’specialization.’ when it is deadly boring, you call it tedium.

a friend of mine just sent this court order (pdf) to me, entitled “ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INCOMPREHENSIBILITY”, written by a bankruptcy judge in Texas. click the link above to read the entire order, which includes a bonus footnote that is freaking hilarious.

this is fantastic.  at least one company in the music business gets it (via boingboing): 

Nettwerk became involved in the battle against the RIAA after 15-year-old Elisa Greubel contacted MC Lars, also a Nettwerk management client, to say that she identified with “Download This Song,” a track from the artist’s latest release. In an e-mail to the artist’s web-site, she wrote, “My family is one of many seemingly randomly chosen families to be sued by the RIAA. No fun. You can’t fight them, trying could possibly cost us millions. The line ‘they sue little kids downloading hit songs,’ basically sums a lot of the whole thing up. I’m not saying it is right to download but the whole lawsuit business is a tad bit outrageous…”

Nettwerk Music Group has agreed to pay the total expense of all legal fees as well as any fines should the family lose the case against the RIAA.

“Litigation is not ‘artist development.’ Litigation is a deterrent to creativity and passion and it is hurting the business I love,” insists McBride. “The current actions of the RIAA are not in my artists’ best interests.” (emphasis added)

of course, it truly goes to show that when RIAA speaks of working in the interests of the artists, that they are full of it.

piggy-backing on my past posting about phrases that I love that have entered into the popular vernacular, i noticed today a reference of note in an article entitled “Next Big Leap for Search Technology Could Raise Privacy Issues for Consumers” in BNA’s weekly Electronic Commerce & Law publication. specifically, when referring to potential privacy issues, the author in a *legal* journal referred to “the ‘My TiVo thinks I’m gay’ problem.”

awesome.

Why is it that in every class of every law school in the country, no matter the size of the class or the law school, there is the obligatory bow tie guy? Is there a box that I must have missed where you can check that commits you to being the token bow tie guy in a way to increase your chance of acceptance? Why is it that this guy is never seen outside the world of law school and the legal profession? Does he just spontaneously appear during the application process as a person specifically bred for this degree raised in the basement of his parent’s house picking out a different bow tie for each day of the week when he finally makes his debut into society once he gets accepted into law school?

I cannot figure this one out…

More schadenfreude? No, I couldn’t possibly have another bite…. oh, okay just a little more:

* Rep. Tom “The Hammer” Delay indicted not once, not twice, but three times.
* Sen. Bill Frist under formal investigation for insider trading.
* Bush appointee and Jack Abramoff colleague indicted and arrested. Norquist will be involved as well in the Abramoff probe.
* Conservative right totally hosed over the nominations of Miers and Roberts, and PISSED about it.
* Exposure of Bush’s cronyism in FEMA (2) and EVERY OTHER PLACE IN THE ADMINISTRATION.
* The wrapping up of and potential indictments leading from the Plame Affair (finally!).
* The further downfall of righteous Bill Bennett.
* The potential breakup of the Conservative Movement / Big Business Coalition.

So full…. so full…. need…. nap.

i would really like to post a great deal more on the following article, but given that I just got home from my seventh weekend travelling, I’m just going to post this article and say that Dr. Lessig is spot on concerning the grokster ruling:

When the Supreme Court handed me a defeat three years ago in a challenge to Congress’s practice of perpetually extending copyright terms (Eldred v. Ashcroft), it said it defers to Congress in judgments about intellectual property. With Grokster, the Court has now qualified that deference: We defer, except when we don’t like the defendants. Then we make up a common law rule to punish the bad guys.

This is absolutely true. Many pundits have read the ruling to say that it has something for everyone. As Lessig says, “[t]he pundits are idiots.” Here, we have yet another worthless standard that will hurt innovation.