Movin' on up - literally

I've been in the process of moving - out of the basement on the hill and into a new apartment. With all the sortin', packin' and U-haulin' I never got a chance to describe my complete exhilaration at being done second year law.

In typical fashion, the final week of study was a harried affair, compiling case charts and essentially compressing over 300 pages of notes into 6 pages. (It can be done.) In the end, I think the exams went as well as could be hoped, but if you had any questions relating to Intellectual Property or Evidence law - too late. I think within a few hours after the exam all knowledge of patent procedure and principled approaches to hearsay withered like so many flowers in the winter - but not in Vancouver, this city is perma-green.

Anyway, things I can't wait to attend to: going to the beach, waking up in a new apartment, watching my Flames (and their fans) dominate the playoffs, tackle some summer reading, watching Jack Bauer try to prove his innocence by hijacking a plane, going to the Jazz festival, etc. etc.

And For those poor souls still writing exams, some Simpsons-related humour. I know - nothing takes the pain away.

But seriously folks,

As a reader pointed out, recent posts about studying mean that this here blog is in need of some levity (what, Westernized trademark law doesn't do it for you?) - so here's a quick read. Enjoy:

Advice from your Public Defender [Thanks for the link B.]

So You've Knocked over a Row of a Motorcycle Gang's Motorcycles

Possible Surprise Endings to the New Samuel L. Jackson Film, Snakes on a Plane

Shoot first, cross-examine later

For readers not in law school, there's a specific way that we law students study. Your course notes are great, but the real help is in someone else's notes, specifically, things called CANs - "Condensed Annotated Notes." A good CAN synthesizes the facts in the most efficient way, and sums up the main point of the case - the "ratio" - simply but correctly.

That's a good CAN. A great CAN does all that with a Western drawl and a wicked sense of humour. While flipping through a CAN for my Intellectual Property class, I came across this summation of a trademark case, where the Gucci family was suing their estranged son for using their name on his own products and where this particular law student was trying to make things interesting. Some excerpts:

Meubles Domani's v. Guccio Gucci Spa

Facts: Now, Paolo Gucci had split off from the rest of the Gucci clan some years back. After settlin' down, he figgered he could make him some money offa that famous name. So, he set about making him some furniture to sell - Gucci style. Now, the rest of the Guccis weren't too happy about ol' Paolo using their trademark on his chairs, and set about tryin' to put a stop to all the nonsense...
One thing was for sure... ol' Paolo was banking on gettin' some of that Gucci consumer goodwill...
Well, Paolo lost this one.

Apparently I'm not the only law student taken to watching a Western while studying.

List not exhaustive

My Current 5 Preferred Methods of Procrastination (apart from the obvious):

1. Burning CD's I've always wanted for the car, like Waiting for the Siren's Call and Exile on Main St. (ironically, track 9 being the favourite off of each.)
2. Shopping for clothes in New York City via a camera phone and a willing special someone.
3. Making unnecessary and unhealthy trips across town to pick up fast-food (corroborated by witnessing another law student in the same drive thru 2 cars back).
4. Understanding that with Pacific Coast time, it's really Hockey Mid-Afternoon-Up-Until-Evening in Canada.
5. Watching multiple episodes of Conviction to determine if they really have a firm knowledge of Evidence procedure, or if they learn it on the fly - thereby reducing my own study burden. Damn they know it.

What were they smoking?

As an honourary Vancouverite, I felt an obligation to cheer for the Canucks - at least as far as the playoffs. But now that that hippie pipe dream is over, I can shrug off that conflict of interest we read about so much in law school and get back to cheering for my homeboyz, (the "z" means we're closer to the street) the Calgary Flames.

Bonus: I can now drive around town with my fuzzy Flames dice without fear of vicious Canuck fan reprisal.

Damn you double Donald!

Three finals down, two to go. In the past, I've likened that sort of progress to points in famous movie trilogies, like my December '04 finals in relation to Lord of the Rings, and my April '05 exams to Die Hard. Who am I to buck tradition?

I'm feeling Western, (maybe it's a reaction to this new salty sea smell in the air) so I'd have to say that if my exams were the Man With No Name Trilogy, I'd be at about the point well after For a Fistful of Dollars and before The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, in For a Few Dollars More (the underrated one) where Clint Eastwood, assessing the inevitable fallout from the upcoming gun battle, squints his eyes really, really tight.



Ok, that pretty much sums up the whole trilogy. Suffice it to say I'm doing the same, surveying what's about to come, and trying to minimize the damage. So, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to begin this next phase by watching the 2 hours of Apprentice I taped last night.

You don't divide Jack Bauer's power

With classes for the year officially over, this blog post comes on the eve of study season: those days before your first exam when any moment not spent studying feels like committing a crime. Ironically, studying law would tell you how to evade or, alternatively, successfully defend yourself against such a crime.

Anyway, since I'm reading Federalism, here's a great read for the rest of you. Kiefer Sutherland talks to Rolling Stone about living in a barn, fighting a Christmas tree, crying during Love Actually, and in my favorite part of the article, sticking it to 24 fans:

He once heard that some college-going 24 fans had developed a drinking game in which you have to down one shot for every time Jack Bauer says, "Damn it," which is the show's "f---" and "s---" substitute. So during one episode, in one scene, he took it upon himself to say "Damn it" three times in a row, "Boom, boom, boom. And that was just one scene. By the end, there had to be fourteen 'Damn its.' And I could just see all these college kids going, 'Oh, f---!' "

Ah yes, the AJBCPC

Take the time to brush up on last year's Constitutional poem folks, because I've got another one for you. Yes, once again it's the Annual Joel Bakan Constitutional Poetry Contest, which is neither a contest with any discernible prize beyond publication (click here for the original article) - nor is it, as far as I can tell, even read by professor Joel Bakan.

Anyway, my entry this year is sort of an unofficial sequel to last year's poem, tracing budding love to a failed relationship. All written with a dirty mind of course.

For those of you who've taken Federalism, hopefully you'll get the jokes. For those of you who haven't, I've taken the liberty of providing informative links, thereby having the dual effect of exhausting any humour you might have found and simultaneously reaffirming your opinion of me as a nerd.

Ahem.

The Constitutional Cuckold

What you call concern, ‘tis emergency,
For matters of love are ancillary
To naught. Whither once was paramountcy
Now you deign not, gaze yonder, to mount me!
Whose pith and substance hath int’rested thee,
Made me incidental, torn symmetry
Asunder? Why forsake my dominion,
Central for so long, for province of sin?
But hark! Ye o’erlook a double aspect,
Mine own trade and commerce with fairer sex.
Long hath I played Zellerbach to pristine
Waters of yours. Now I turn to doctrine.
I’m held immune by Ninety-One’s success,
While thee made whore of multiple access.

Previously: From John A. to Connie

Two winning poems in two years. And no, I haven't learned any lesson from the Matrix films, so expect a trilogy.

Thus invoking the "feng shui" approach

If the Constitution changes before our exam, does that mean we don't have to take the Federalism test anymore? It's interesting how a new political party can discuss altering a quasi-permanent, yet nevertheless entrenched, piece of legislation as if they just moved into a house and didn't like the paint colour.

Also worth noting is that use of the phrase "quasi-permanent" would have scored me extra points on an exam. Booya.

Don't bother reading this

You're probably wondering what sort of hijinx ol' Lawyerlike might get up to on this April Fools. Rather, you probably didn't, and rightly so, because I've got nothing.

I briefly considered replacing some of the album covers on the right with incredibly gauche bands to give you the impression that I listen to music mucher lamer than I do, but that takes time to code and I'd probably forget to change it back later.

Plus, I'm trying to study for Federalism and am just using this post to take a quick break. And really, you're probably still smarting from the Constitutional switcheroo I pulled on you last April.

No my dear readers, this will be a foolish free zone, because I respect all of you too much to take such liberties and I really appreciate all the comments you leave.... April Fools!