Thursday, July 19, 2007

Rules are meaningless!

Okay, rules are not really meaningless. It's just that they take on greater meaning when the context in which they are applied is understood.

"Sure", you reply. "What else is new?" And you are correct. What I'm referring to here is Prop 8's effect on Evidence. I spent most of the day yesterday on Torts (defam, IOP, PL) and Evidence. My Evidence material was scattered on my desk this morning when I turned on the lights in my study dungeon. When I went to bed at 12:30 this morning, I was frustrated by Prop 8. The opening page of the BarBri supplement read like it was stuck in a "divide by zero" error. Something was wrong with the formula. It was tracking back on itself, a variable wasn't being properly initialized, and I was trying to decipher Prop 8 with nothing. When you're programming, a calculation that attempts to divide something by nothing gets you a "divide by zero" error.

Well, That variable got filled this morning. Yay! Another roadblock bites the dust.

Regarding the title of this post; I really, really don't like to simply apply rules without knowing the reason why. I don't have to know the reasoning behind a rule to be able to apply it as required, but it helps anchor it in my brain if I can grow it some roots. When I picked up the BarBri CA Evidence supplement this morning, I found that roots had sprouted. What a relief.

Now, It's time to find a foundation for the CA Civ Pro distinctions.

I know, I know... I'm behind all y'all. But I'm not that far behind. And I have long legs so I can catch up when we get close to the finish. What's that, you say? The finish line is fast approaching? Indeed. That's why I'm sprinting now.

15 comments:

Richard said...

I need to root some of this stuff - it seems to slip out of my mind the moment my mind's back is turned... so to speak

Anonymous said...

Ah! What's Prop 8? I am doing Barbri but didn't get a supplement!

Anonymous said...

Ahhh! Just the truth in evidence amdnement. Phew!

The Grand Poobah said...

That's exactly right! Both of you's!

Anonymous said...

So I am deathly afraid of the PT. Is anyone else? I even took the Holtz course but I still fear the unknown. The sample memo for the Estate of Keefe in Bar/Bri is crazy and much more that I could do. Help, anyone, help.

The Grand Poobah said...

I could have written your comment because I feel exactly the same way, except for the first sentence. I'm anxious, but not too fearful.

So, unfortunately, I'll not be able to provide assistance or advice.

Anonymous said...

are you going to use holt's crazy method setup? I have trouble figuring it all out. especially the "matrix", it takes longer for me to set it...but i like his insights.

The Grand Poobah said...

I'm going to try. I'll experiment this weekend. And I agree about the insights. His program was definitely worth the investment.

calbar blondie said...

I strongly suggest experimenting with H's method of the matrix before Tuesday. I decided that the Honigsburg/Holtz variation-hybrid works for me.

Anonymous said...

What's IOP? You have me worried that I missed something...

Karen said...

I too have decided to go with a hybrid version. H's method is good in theory but in practice is a little unworkable for me. The bar/bri method is a little, well, not enough of a method at all. Therefore, I've decided to hybrid it too. !

The Grand Poobah said...

IOP is the Olde Irish Tort of "Invasion O'Privvy".

It occurred quite frequently in the early 1800s. The prima facie case was the malicious tilting of an occupied privvy. The usual scenario was where a bunch of kids would push over a privvy as someone was inside attempting to relieve themselves. Consent was a defense but was tough to establish. Malice was implied based on the depraved actions of the defendants and general damages were presumed. Special damages were also available, and punitives were frequently granted.

Modernly known as Invasion of Privacy; appropriation of likeness, intrusion upon seclusion, false light, public exposure of private facts.

Cutie said...

how much time do you need for reading and outlining a PT now?

The Grand Poobah said...

Me? I need ... let's see ... 4 days, 11 hours, 46 minutes, and some seconds.

I haven't written one out completely in about 6 months. So right now, I would say it takes me 3 hours, plus however much time I need to finish.

Seriously, I'm going to try to figure that out this weekend. I'll have a better idea on Monday.

Jonathan Kramer said...

Cutie, the 'common wisdom' is that it takes 90 minutes to read the PT crap and outline it before writing. Some even advocate getting up and taking a potty break at the end of the first 90 minutes.

Remember, The PT is a test of endurance, issue spotting, top-to-mid level evaluation, and coherent writing, evan if youre speling skils out not being tseted.

Hummm... Did I say it was the PT... I was referring to the GBX.

Kick the Bar's ASS!

You, too, Poo!

Jonathan