I'm off to the capital of New York in the early morning. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

I'm done with law school, New York University, and the city and state of New York!


Time to get a burger in Richmond

At 11:10:38 AM EST on May 10, 2005, I completed the final technical requirement for law school. So I am technically graduated, the best kind of graduated.

I miss wash-soc a little now

As some of you know, the internet has facilitated the trading of useless junk. eBay and Craig's List are but two examples where people with different preferences can come together and exchange goods to increase marginal utility. It is much better to find someone willing to pay $10 for a desk you would rather throw away than carry to your new apartment. Nothing surprising about that. We are a generation raised on basic economic theory.

At the law school, an internal list has been created to facilitate these kinds of transactions. It is called Coase's List. All you economist nerds can stop laughing now, I didn't pick it. (For those of you who want the quick summary, Coase theorized that, if you assume there are no transaction costs, whatever the initial allocation of resources, the market transactions will ensure that the resources will ultimately be allocated to the person who values the resource the most.) So, an email list substantially reduces transaction costs (advertising, finding willing buyers, etc) and therefore more efficiently distributes goods and services.

People normally use it for books, commercial guides, concert tickets, and random furniture. Right before classes start, people begin bartering for classes. There is no waitlist for classes at NYU, so people have, for many semesters, asked people if anyone would be willing to trade class A for class B as a way of avoiding having to constantly recheck the website for openings. I do not know if it is ever successful, but there are usually about 100 emails over the span of four weeks with these kinds of propositions. The concept would entail person X dropping the class while person Y quickly then attempts to add the class. Nothing hard, just a coordination problem.

Sometimes, people offer cupcakes or baked goods in an attempt to encourage someone who is dropping a class to first give them advanced warning so they could snag the open spot. If someone is going to drop the class anyway, cupcakes may be enough, right? For full disclosure, a while back, while looking for help understanding a concept, I offered to donate money to a charity if someone would share their notes for a class with me. I got the outline, but the person has yet to tell me what charity she wants me to donate to, so I am assuming I will just pick for her this winter.

Anyway, everything changed last week. A person skipped the cupcake offer and simply stated he would pay cash for a spot in the class. If you were going to drop the class, or if you wanted money more, you could try and work something out where you would drop it and he would add the class.

This got everyone upset. He was violating the social mores of our law school! Cupcakes and bartering with in kind transactions of other classes was fine, but reducing it to money was unseemly and wrong. Actions had to be taken!

Step 1: Some people email the list with their opinions about how offering cash for classes is wrong
Step 2: Some go to Student Government, current administrator of Coase's List with total power
Step 3: The Student Government bans any offers of cash for classes from the list.
Step 4: Have huge pointless e-mail debate about democracy, capitalism and other matters of policy.
Step 5: Have people use economics in wildly inappropriate ways to justify their opinions.
Step 6: I respond on a minor point for several paragraphs, then add my own "big picture" critique.

From: Adam [email@address.com] Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 14:03:59 -0500 To: Law School Exchange [coases-list@nyu] Subject: Re: << Message from the Coases List Administrator << > PS Also it is a bad policy b/c it will make the class misallocation > problem even worse, and crease a self-fulfilling prophecy of people > not getting the classes they want: why? B/c some people, knowing > there is a cash market, will bid on classes they don't want in hope of > selling them, hence further creating more demand for the classes by > reducing the people who actually really want the classes from getting > the classes they want (due to statistic effects of the lottery) > b/c "cash-squatters" are bidding on them in the lottery for the sole > purpose of auctioning them. This is a self-fulling [sic] and positive-feed- > back-loop market failure. I hate exams and I love arguments. I promise not to post again, but I invite any and all replies, attacks, ad hominems, or jokes because I need something to read today as I watch my fantasy football teams lose again. And not that this matters, but I wanted to pipe in. (and maybe, near the end, I'll get mean!) To call a properly functioning market a "positive feedback-loop" market failure would probably hurt Coase. (Actually, I hypothesize that he is already in a lot of pain and this marginal increase won't be noticed. Why you ask? Because he is on fire. All this spinning in his grave has produced quite a bit of friction and heat by this point. How about it, you future patent attorneys? Assuming the human body is a sphere of carbon in a room temperature box and ignoring heat released by the chemical processes known as decomposition, what is the most efficient combination of time and rotational velocity for a body rotating in a wooden box (the closed 'system') until it bursts into flames? I would venture a guess, but I forget the frictional coefficient.) Back to the market failure hypothesis. I will admit that I am currently unclear on the goal of the lottery for the purposes of this discussion. The goal appears to be "allocate the classes with some regard to individual preferences (hence the ranking) but not with so much regard that we actually establish the perfect allocation because that would be unseemly." If that is the goal, then yes, any market after the fact is going to undermine the goal, even one that only allows, but cannot totally enforce, bartering between classes. But even with that, it isn't a market failure. Your problem is with a successful market. The "failure" IS the elimination of the system designed not to be unseemly, as the majority sees fit to define unseemly. Regardless of how many people bid on Class X, if there are only 20 spots then, in a competitive auction market, the spots will go to the 20 people willing to pay the most for those spots. This is not a failure. No matter what, the cost of getting into class X will be Y+1 where Y is the value the 21st person is willing to pay for the spot. Even if 100 million people were in the initial lottery, the price of the class would be the same and the allocation would be the same (assuming transaction costs are zero, which for Coase, I will do) as if there were only the 21 people who value the class the most involved in the lottery. Now this may be where we are getting into some confusion, in the 21 person scenario, it is possible that a lottery would result in no money changing hands-- but that is acceptable, because those 20 people are all turning down the 21st persons offer of Y+1 dollars -- an opportunity cost. Now, any economist worth his weight in salt will have to, after making such a brilliant point, admit that there is a "Bird In Hand" psychological problem with all our assumptions. This exists for things like superbowl tickets and many other scarce resources. Those who get the item will consider selling it for a price they would never be willing to pay to obtain the class. If I got a superbowl ticket, I would consider selling it for 6000 but not a penny less. Conversely, if I failed to get the free superbowl ticket after the lottery, I would only consider paying 3K to someone else for that ticket. That kind of irrational behavior exists, and could be what we are talking about... But... EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION IS IRRATIONAL. First off, I think it is going to be impossible for people to correctly gauge their preferences. What you want is goal X, but all you can do is pick class Y or Z. You cannot predict the future, so there is some risk that you will pick the wrong class for obtaining goal X. The lottery and lack of bidding is, perhaps paternalistically and arguably appropriately, PROTECTING YOU ALL FROM YOURSELVES. Many of you have gotten very far in life explicitly because you lack the appropriate perspective, so I'm not telling you to change. I'm just saying that sometimes good government cures the worse excesses of the population. (Would Thomas Jefferson, since he passed on many years prior and is therefore reduced mass, take less or more time to ignite, assuming he and Coase are spinning at the same rate?) You know, I don't have any answers, but I do have a few things I want to throw out there into this marketplace of ideas. 1) No one needs class X other than SOME con law and SOME professional responsibility. For you 2Ls, the class will most likely be offered again. For the class that is only offered once ever 4 semesters, it must not be that important, because most people never take it and do just fine. See below for discussion of success) 2) Every class you NEED to take before you graduate? You are irrationally overestimating its value. You will learn so little in that class A) Because you don't go, B) you don't do the reading, or C) because it actually doesn't teach you anything you wouldn't learn better by experience. 3) But judges like to see X for clerkships? Yeah, who the hell said when they were six years old "Gee, dad, I want to spent 11 months clerking for some random judge on the 5th circuit"? None of you! You've allowed your classmates irrational overvaluation to influence what you think is important. Secondly, you will be mailing out 200 letters. You may not get a callback because you picked the wrong thickness for your resume paper! Who the hell really knows how a judge picks one kid out of 600. 4) But X professor will write me a great recommendation! Not if you get a B in the class, and since everyone else in the class is a whiney little brown-noser too, you are going to have your work cut out for you. And since any professor can write a glowing recommendation for an A student, you'd be better off seeking out the classes with slackers so you could really shine. Again, you are behaving irrationally by trying to take the class with people who value it highly. 5) My lawfirm would like me to take X! Yeah, but you already have the job. You're a lawyer now, lie to them about it. Or if you don't like using the word lie, make up a compelling argument about why their preference set doesn't match what is best for you. I mean, you went to EIW, you know you "made compelling arguments" about why tax law was really interesting. Don't tell me that your firm needs you to have a better understanding of the topic. Especially because you are a 3L in this dilemma, which means A) You won't go, B) you won't read, and C) your firm will have to teach you everything again next year. 6) But I want to be successful! Two problems here. Correlation doesn't not mean causation, and further, you lack enough information to know if there even is a correlation between people who take class X and people who are successful in the way you define it. Secondly, you could be irrationally defining success. See above discussion about how your entire experience in law school has been a feed-back loop where your goals and ambitions have been radically redefined by what you think your peers value. Man, that took 30 minutes to write when I could have been studying tax! I'm going to theorize that some of you are writing short little replies in the hopes that others will write long-winded replies and then do worse on the tests in your class. Well-played, I say, well-played. But didn't I get you to waste time reading it by promising to be mean? Who is your daddy now? - Adam

Step 7: No major argument against my position since my statements are a wild tangent.
Step 8: Not satisfied with the student government prohibition, some people complain to the administration.
Step 9: Administration agrees that it is inappropriate to sell classes because classes are not property.
Step 10: Administration does not stop where complaints would like them to stop. Rules it is also inappropriate to exchange classes in any other manner because class spots are not property. All forms of barter are prohibited.

From: Office of the Vice Dean Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:38:36 -0500 (EST) To: All Students Subject: Selling or Trading Class Spots To: Students From: Barry E. Adler Re: Selling or Trading Class Spots Date: December 7, 2004 Earlier today, you received a message from me announcing a prohibition on the selling or purchasing of class spots. That message, reproduced below, addresses only the sale or purchase of spots for cash or property but does not address the barter of classroom spots, one for the other. After discussing the matter today with a number of people, including many students, I have concluded that the prohibition should extend to the barter. Both my message this morning and this one are necessarily quick responses to a problem that has just been brought to my attention by those citing posting's on Coase's List. I invite students, through the SBA, to voice opinions on what our policy should be in future semesters. What I announce today, however, is the school's policy until further notice. We all agree by the way, that a waitlist is the ideal solution, and the administration is of course looking at ways to make that possible, though there may be technological reasons that prevent this. Earlier Message: It has come to my attention that some students enrolled in closed law school classes are selling their spots in these classes to students who, in exchange for money or property, are told when an opening in the class is likely to occur. (The seller of the spot withdraws from the class and the buyer simultaneously requests, and typically obtains, enrollment in the class.) This practice exploits limitations in the University's enrollment technology, which currently makes it impossible to operate a waitlist. Spots in law school classes are not property of enrolled students and may not be sold or bought. From this point forward, any student who purchases a spot in a law school class (by the method described above or otherwise) will be withdrawn from that class and will not be permitted to enroll in that class later even if it opens. Sanctions against the student selling the spot will also be imposed. If any student learns of another student offering for sale or offering to buy a spot in an NYU law class, please report such offer to Academic Services (as many of you have already). A link to any posting of such offeris sufficient. Barry E. Adler

Ultimately, through the law of unintended consequences, students seeking to end one practice they found offensive also managed to end a practice they originally enjoyed and found totally acceptable. By gaining the official ruling that classes are not property, the students effectively ended any trade that involved classes. If you cannot sell them, then you cannot trade them. You have no rights over the class spot once you are in it, save the right to drop for no reason. Query whether this is enforceable, but at least, there will never be a mass email list where the transaction costs would be quite low enough to insure your efforts have a high probability of success.

Not that I am a Republican, but there are times when involving the biggest power may not result in the result you wanted. In theory, had the students simply allowed the one person to try and offer cash and fail, it would have never even been a problem. Now, we currently have a situation that many find unacceptable. Of course, if this eventually establishes a legitimate waiting list, then everyone will be slightly better off than they were under the bartering system. If nothing else, we should be thanking our rich, money spending class seeker for touching off such a bold revolution by pointing to the flaws in the system.

This actually compares to the recent result in the 3rd Circuit with regard to the Solomon Amendments. Earlier, conservatives had fought hard to allow the Boy Scouts of America to exclude atheists, homosexuals, and whoever else they pleased. The decision came down-- any private organization has the right to exclude certain people from its meetings and property. The Supreme Court used the First Amendment's Free Speech protection to say that the Boy Scouts must be able to say what they want with regard to membership. The conservatives were briefly happy. The Boy Scouts were saved. But they did not consider how the application of this doctrine would affect other areas of the world.

Enter the Solomon Amendment. Under this statute, Private schools that receive any federal funding must allow government military recruiters onto their campus. Most law schools do not receive federal funding. But most medical and scientific graduate programs would die without it. Military recruiters can threaten to revoke all federal funding from the graduate schools if the law schools do not allow them to recruit for JAG on the law school's campus. Why would law school's not want to allow this? Because they do not allow any other recruiters that openly discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Recently, the 3rd Circuit took the BSA ruling and applied the principle to a case against the Solomon amendment. Private law schools have the right to exclude whoever they want. That means that the Solomon amendment is violating the free speech of the law schools. As such, through the law of unintended consequences, a ruling to allow one group to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation has allowed another group to discriminate against groups that discriminate. Is that poetic justice?

I'll get to the felony in a minute. The Press Release and Photos give a better background than I can...

Activists Hang 60-Foot Banner On Plaza Hotel For print quality photos, visit: www.questionauthority.org/nycplazaaction August 26, 2004 – This morning, a group of young professionals and students from across the country, unfurled a giant banner in midtown Manhattan off the front of the Plaza Hotel. The banner was critical of the Bush/Cheney Administration’s poor record of leadership during its term in office. Two climbers safely rappelled down the facade of the NYC landmark in order to deploy the banner, which stretched 60-feet across and several floors high, depicted arrows pointed in opposite directions; the forward pointing arrow, titled “Truth”, contrasted sharply with the backwards pointing arrow, titled “Bush”. “We love our country, but Bush and Cheney are taking us in the wrong direction”, said Terra Lawson-Remer, an organizer with New York City’s Operation Sibyl. “Bush lied about WMDs and Iraq, and he continues to deceive us regarding healthcare and the state of the economy. We can’t afford four more years of deception, miscalculation, and arrogance.”

Here's the story. Terra Lawson-Remer is a law student at NYU. We aren't friends or anything, but I happen to have a few connections that got me the basic story.

One of the police officers present on the roof after the successful action stepped onto a skylight. He was injured by the skylight. The city then brought a felony charge against the protesters, including Terra, for reckless endangerment or something. Basically the state is taking the positions that the protesters took an action that required police response, so any injury to the police during that response was caused by the protesters acting in the first place.

Most people I have spoken to belief this to be a trumped up charge, but Terra did have to spend the night in jail. She is being represented by some fancy protest-protecting lawyer and was released this morning on her own recognizance. I suppose I should say "developing..." but I think I'll leave that to the real news agencies, should this ever make the papers. Like the NY Times. It's too bad the nude protesters got so much more airtime.

PS. Jesse, our moot court leader, took the picture displayed in this entry and all of the photos on the website linked to above.

This is breaking news, so I am unable to link elsewhere. I have just been told that our own Associate Dean Larry Kramer has just accepted an offer from Stanford Law for their deanship. I guess that means the real news is for Stanford, not here.

I imagine he will be departing over the summer. To try to make an obligatory joke (and fail), I'm sure the professors at Stanford can look forward to getting the same evaluations from him each year. Let the party begin!

Discuss this in my absence.

Nothing new, I just can't spell.

Gossip appears to get a lot more comments, so I might as well start reporting more like Wonkette.

Here are the standards of the blogsphere as the NY Times Article "First With the Scoop, if Not the Truth" (which detailed Wonkette) reported:

The rules of the blogosphere demand displaying corrections quickly and prominently, said Mr. Denton (and sarcastically, in Ms. Cox's case), but he has no hesitation about running an item with paper-thin sourcing. "I think it's implicit in the way that a Web site is produced that our standards of accuracy are lower," he said. "Besides, immediacy is more important than accuracy, and humor is more important than accuracy."

With that in mind, let's spread this little bit of hearsay and see how far it gets...

An unnamed source (who has no physical evidence of this event nor can anyone else corroborate his story) reports that our Dean was recently seen engaging rather remarkable behavior. The alert student was on his way to see Dora The Explorer Live (Yeah, I know) when he happened to spot the leader of the law school in a subway station. Leaving the subway station with his wife and daughter, the student believed the Dean may have been heading to the same afternoon show. He approached the dean at the outbound turnstile, planning on greeting him in a friendly manor that is our custom in the Big Apple. But on his approach, he noticed that the Dean, who had just let the rest of his family travel through the subway turnstile was actively engaged in nose picking! Not wanting to create an awkward moment, our considerate student hung back, hoping to approach the Dean after the moment had passed and pretend he had seen nothing. But as he hung back waiting for the dean to clear is nostrils, our student watched in shock as his dean removed the booger and then stuck his finger... in... his... mouth! Needless to say, the student could not approach the dean, but could eventually relate the story with much fanfare.

So that's it. No big deal, but pretty awesome! In order to mitigate the damages and quickly add context, I will present the results of a scientific study or two:

J Clin Psychiatry. 1995 Feb;56(2):56-9. Rhinotillexomania: psychiatric disorder or habit? Jefferson JW, Thompson TD. Dean Foundation for Health, Research and Education, Madison, WI 53717-1914. BACKGROUND: Conditions once considered bad habits are now recognized as psychiatric disorders (trichotillomania, onychopagia). We hypothesized that nose picking is another such "habit," a common benign practice in most adults but a time-consuming, socially compromising, or physically harmful condition (rhinotillexomania) in some. METHODS: We developed the Rhinotillexomania Questionnaire, mailed it to 1000 randomly selected adult residents of Dane County, Wisconsin, and requested anonymous responses. The returned questionnaires were analyzed according to age, sex, marital status, living arrangement, and educational level. Nose picking was characterized according to time involved, level of distress, location, attitudes toward self and others regarding the practice, technique, methods of disposal, reasons, complications, and associated habits and psychiatric disorders. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four subjects responded. Ninety-one percent were current nose pickers although only 75% felt "almost everyone does it"; 1.2% picked at least every hour. For 2 subjects (0.8%), nose picking caused moderate to marked interferences with daily functioning. Two subjects spent between 15 and 30 minutes and 1 over 2 hours a day picking their nose. For 2 others, perforation of the nasal septum was a complication. Associated "habits" included picking cuticles (25%), picking at skin (20%), biting fingernails (18%), and pulling out hair (6%). CONCLUSION: This first population survey of nose picking suggests that it is an almost universal practice in adults but one that should not be considered pathologic for most. For some, however, the condition may meet criteria for a disorder-rhinotillexomania. MORE DATA: 91% stated that they had picked their nose in the past and were still actively practicing this habit. 49.2% of the respondents thought that nose-picking was common in adults. 25.6% actually pick their noses daily, 22.3% do it 2 to 5 times each day, and 3 people claimed to do it hourly. 82.8% had picked to "unclog the nasal passages", 66.4% to relieve discomfort or itchiness, 35.7% to avoid the unsightly appearance of a booger hanging out, 34.0% for personal hygiene, and 17.2% picked out of habit.  2.1% (five people) claimed to pick solely for enjoyment. One person picked his/her nose for "sexual stimulation." 65.1% use their index finger, 20.2% use their pinky, and 16.4% use their thumb. Most people (90.3%) disposed with a tissue or a handkerchief, 28.6% used the floor, and 7.6% stuck it to the furniture.  8% of the respondents actually ate the end product.

See Also: J Clin Psychiatry. 2001 Jun;62(6):426-31. A preliminary survey of rhinotillexomania in an adolescent sample. Andrade C, Srihari BS. Department of Psychopharmacology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India.

I imagine anyone with access to that journal could find that study and check their citations. Wouldn't it be amazing to know who else has already studied nose picking? I think you owe it to yourself to at least visit a medical library and read the full studies yourself. As a final medical note, some researchers have concluded that mining for gold in your nose may have substantial benefits. And here you thought the Atkins® Diet was going to help you live a healthy lifestyle. All this time, you've had good health and clean living right at your fingertips! (rimshot please!)

Getting back to the social implications of nose picking, here are a few more links. For those of you looking for solutions to you or your child's problem go read "Nose-picking: Why it Happens and what to do about it" from the Baby Center. For those of you with religious concerns about the whole process, it turns out that it is alright to pick your nose on the Sabbath. Thank goodness you don't have to let it sit there for 24 hours.

And of course, we need to discuss one of the most famous "illegal picks" in the game of nose mining. if you think that nobody rich and powerful has ever needed to pick his nose, the Memory Hole reminds us of the Photographs that Kissinger tried to stop the <b>Journal do Brasil</b> from distributing these pictures of the Former Secretary of State apparently orchestrating a nose "coup" against the left-wing nostril and personally assassinating the former occupant. The paper took the pictures in 1992 and began selling copies, eventually refusing to bow down to a legal threat from Kissinger. They were republished in a book called "Washington Babylon" in 1996 written by A. Cockburn and K. Silverstien. That's enough on this whole subject. Feel free to share your comments and/or experiences. I think this is an awesome entry. I can only hope to someday also receive a cease and desist order from someone like Kissenger. Or maybe a dean...

Couldn't it be both?

The critics agree! It's a hit! Don't be the last one on your block to read about it! But don't just take my word for it:

"Holy Shit . . . check out this email that one of my classmates sent to the entire section, including [the] [Professor]." - [Person R]

"This email is absurd." - [Person H]

The message is clear: If you read only one email this year, make sure it's this one!!!!

I hope that caught your attention. Here is an email that has been flying around NYU Law School all day. I don't know if it was real or not, but given that I received it after it had already been forwarded to 5 other groups of people, I assume the cat is out of the bag. Still, it gives me pause, so i am going to remove all the names. In the law world. that is called Redacting. I am not interested in anyone getting in trouble, but I imagine the damage has already been done. By the time this blog hits the search engines, the administration will have its talking points available. It appears that this email was sent to BOTH the professor it was intended for AND the entire class. I guess that is what happens when you send a message at 5 am. Also, I think sending a message to that many people surrenders any expectation of close confidence. So read on, weary traveler.

So without further ado, I present you with the best email forward of April...

From: [Person E]
Date: April 20, 2004 5:00:19 AM EDT
To: [Professor]
Subject: Re: Exam length

dear professor [Professor] ,

as one of the self-admitted "people [who] seemed to spend the entire class time doing things unrelated to the class on their computers," i just wanted to respond to your email and thank you for keeping the exam length at 24 hours.  while i voted for an 8 hour exam in class, upon further reflection i have changed my mind and decided that a longer exam period will most benefit me, as a non-participant, in attempting to write a semi-coherent exam.

i would also like to comment generally on my dissatisfaction in the first year law school educational experience as a whole.  it has seemed to me to be more of a mind-numbing training procedure than an enriching intellectual experience.  your class, however, stands out as a particular disappointment.

may i respectfully suggest that perhaps having an instructor who seemed somewhat interested in actually teaching the material objectively and creating an even slightly welcoming classroom discussion atmosphere would have prompted both myself and the vast majority of the rest of the class to pay attention and participate rather than sending each other instant messages, playing online games, and checking our email.

if i may be so bold as to quote one of my fellow students, i believe [Person N] summed this general issue up quite succinctly earlier in the semester.  in response to your half-joking comment referring to your disappointment in students' clothing choices today as opposed to in the past, he said, "the professors used to wear suits too."

with this comment i merely wish to illustrate your personal role in creating an effective educational environment.  personally, i was very eager to learn criminal law at the beginning of the semester.  however, when it seemed that class was not going to help me much in attaining that goal, i decided to use the time to enjoy myself instead.

i apologize wholeheartedly if my blatantly obvious dissatisfaction with your class was offensive to you.

sincerely,
[Person E]

So that's it. Hope you enjoyed reading it. Perhaps the comments would be a good place to debate the nature of law school. Sure, E may have a problem capitalizing and a rather sharp tounge, but do those failings make her substantive points less valid? Isn't the first year of law school really a joke? Is there anything she said that you would disagree with? Let me know if there is. I think i would disagree with her use of citations and other classmates, but like I've heard that "When the facts aren't on your side, pound the law. When the law isn't on your side, pound the facts. When the facts and the law aren't on your side, pound the table." I like to think that this is a form of pounding the table when the exams aren't on your side. Or whatever. I just wanted to post it.

A few words and images about the competition.

It's been a while since I reminded everyone that I am a member of the Moot Court Team (They call it a "Board" because law firms like to hear words like that) here at NYU Law, so I'll start off by giving you a little background. A journal monthly briefing, or JMB if you will. I hope you pay attention to this one, so I'll call it "Adam Moore Determined to Club Baby Seals." Do you love baby seals? Then you better keep reading...or they all die!

Moot Court is fundamentally a mock court where law students argue hypothetical cases. At NYU, part of our Moot Court Team does just that. They attend competitions where they submit briefs, argue in front of judges, and then perhaps return with a giant trophy. People know NYU has a moot court team because they see our gladiators at these compeititons. The administration here likes the Moot Court Board because of the accolades and recognition that the team brings home. If I were speaking in metaphor, I would posit that competitions are the engine that drive this "Board." As you probably already suspected, these team members are selected for their ability to combust gasoline internally.

At this point, you are probably thinking to yourself, "Adam, I've never had to replace your oil every 3 months or 3000 miles. What's the deal? How do you power the car?" The long answer to your valid question is "By magic!" but there is a shorter and more accurate answer. "I don't." To stick with this stupid analogy, I am some other part of the car that is Moot Court. I'd like to claim I am a member of the steering column, but in reality, I am the gasoline. The premium stuff. You've probably dreamed about putting it in your car. And in a world where a group of people is a automobile, a car in this world is actually your friends. But don't your friends deserve to be doused in gasoline and set ablaze?

For a competitor to set themselves on fire, they need a hypothetical case. That is honestly where I come in. I and everyone else on the "Case Book" side of Moot court have spent the last year researching and writing so that we can provide realistic hypothetical cases for potential moot court competitions in the future. (Yes, I realize how far from reality that last sentence takes us.) Case book writers find areas of the law where there are still unsettled questions. Two major circuit courts may have interpreted the same statute in two different ways, district courts are having difficulty applying a new test created by the supreme court, or maybe no court has ever encountered a particular set of facts before. Once you have that "circuit split," you start creating a fact pattern that would highlight the dispute. Both circuit courts have made persuasive arguments in their original ruling, so there is a real question as to how other courts should deal with a similar problem in the future. Competitors will argue the two sides once they have read your problem and done their own research into the matter. All in all, it is a symbiotic relationship. I write a problem, someone else eventually argues it and wins a prize.

Last night was the culmination of our school's annual internal competition. The tournament started last fall where students interested in earning a credit and improving their oral advocacy skills signed up to compete against each other. The field was narrowed down slowly, cutting out people with the lowest scores in oral arguments and for their written brief. Fast forward to April 15, 2004. The final four players from the original field of 34 original NYU student competitors were in the biggest argument of their fake lives.

Personally, I had almost no stake in the matter. It was not my problem being debated. I was not giving an introduction. I was just an usher. My only concerns were related to joining posteriors with the appropriate seats and continuing to live large. Now I don't think any of you have forgotten how I live or my attitude regarding butt, so I will just move on.

The competition kicked off right at 5:30. We had real judges acting as fake judges. The Dean and several professors were in the audience. The problem revolved around how a Congressional statute wanted the price of goods to be calculated (Wholesale price vs. Retail Price) and how a different statute wanted to punish government agents for accepting bribes. They asked many hard questions of the competitors. The best question was clearly, "Now counsel, does anyone pay retail for diamond earrings anymore?" I sat and chuckled with the audience as the arguments continued. During this period of butt/seat interaction, I took the two pictures you may have noticed in this entry. Then the arguments ended. Eventually one was declared the best. Everyone clapped.

The rest of the night was spent celebrating the end of the Moot Court calendar year. The old Editorial Board (Amanda, Jenn, Vanessa, and Emily pictured right) was stepping down so that the new people could step up to the plate and throw a touchdown. Their final hurrah was highlighted by our banquet in Lipton Hall. Our new leader, Jesse, made some humorous remarks, likening his election to that of the current adminstration. He has declared war upon the Review of Law and Social Change, made recess appointments, and given huge tax breaks to rising 3Ls at the expense of the 2Ls. Getting the important review out of the way-- the salad was good, the bread was good, the pasta was good, and the desert was like eating a lemon. No one ever refilled my water, but everyone seemed pleased with the open bar with some beer and wine. After the party that was sitting at a table with the 9th Circuit Judge, we students went down to cash in our Westlaw Rewards at a bar called Swift. It was here that I learned Ben Folds song "In Between Days" was actually a cover of a Cure song. Mainly because I was like "how could someone have already come out with a cover of a song on a Ben Folds EP released six months ago? And why does it sound like the Cure?" I mean, it was totally just like that in my head. There were too many people there to mention them all here, and of course, I've never mentioned them before, so why should I change now? Anyway, we might be losing a bunch of 3Ls but we are gaining future fake judges for next year's competition.

Around midnight, the scene was getting old, so many people left to hit up the local Karaoke bar. I passed, preferring to sleep at that point. I'll just keep singing in my shower, thank you very much. So that's it. Some of these things were made up, of course, but you don't read for accuracy, you read to be entertained, right? Glad you made it through. Even if died a little inside.

The law school has an annual fundraiser for those students interested in practicing public interest law over the summer. Mostly it is first years who cannot get a job with a firm that would like $4000 dollars to get some legal experience at a non-profit over the summer. I did it last year, so I went to this fundraiser to show my support. Basically, there are some big ticket items that raise some serious money. The rest of the money for the scholarships is just hidden in our tuition. It was nice to get back some money from the school last summer. It allowed me to go into less debt this year.

So I arrived at seven and stayed until ten-thirty. I didn't bid on things. Also, for the ticket price, I got free dinner and drinks. I think I almost finished a liter of coke. Hard to say because I didn't drink out of a one liter bottle. There was a large group of second years hanging around, so I talked with people as we feasted and debated bidding strategy. Good thing I was in an experimental economics course! Everyone seemed to have a fun time. Not bidding on things may have been a wise move. (Someone paid 4000+ for a pair of superbowl tickets!) Although it would have been exciting to compete for some item, I don't have any reason to purchase cookies from a professor. Maybe next year.



It wasn't that boring though. I saw stuff while I lived in the state of non-bidding. I saw crazy stuff. I think you will agree with me on this one-- that's one evil clown at the podium. I like clowns, but not ones that thirst for the blood of the living. Oh, and that's our dean on the far bouncy ball. He would eventually win that race. Go him!

Now it is time for some bed. If you need me, I'll be keeping it real.

I was checking out the events posted on the official board at the law school. One of the postings caught my attention. How fortunate that I have a digital camera, an online journal, and friends who love Strong Bad. (Otherwise this post would be even more boring.)



I think this post speaks for itself. It says that the person didn't know how to set the printer to landscape. Man, I wish I could think of a joke here. Feel free to take your best shot in the comments section. Maybe one will come to me in a dream and I'll have something to say when I wake up.

PS. I'll work on a post describing tonight's saucy puppet show tomorrow morning. Mark your calendars! (Did he say what I think he said?) You read right and you are in for a treat.

Anyway, I am always behind the times, but this is hilarious. As you probably know, DVDs are protected by some pretty simple codes. At least simple in retrospect and for other people. Some European dude hacked it so that he could play his DVDs on Linux. I won't bother going into the back story, since you probably don't read /. or care. But the important thing is that this makes it possible for people to use the data stored on DVDs in ways that the original architects of the format never intended. Lots of powerful interests attacked him and lawyers representing the MPAA have used the DMCA to try and stop the distribution of this code in America. Their efforts have largely been successful, but that doesn't mean that there aren't illegal DVDs floating around the world, it just means that courts have held that US based companies cannot distribute this illegal code. In fact, I read somewhere that Jon won his case in a Norwegian court. But US Courts have been forced to follow the dictates of the DMCA.

So what did ordinary people do? Most of you just sat around. But the libertarian geeks got to work. They put the code on T-shirts, in haikus, and in the greatest triumph, into song. Someone was kind enough to put together a gallery of the creative ways that people have showed DeCSS .The DMCA says you can't distribute anything that could help a person circumvent a protection mechanism, so song lyrics that give the appropriate instructions are, in theory, just as illegal.

Song you say? Yeap, multiple songs. There is a painful Square Dance Version. NOTE: DO NOT DOWNLOAD. This isn't the one you want on your computer. It isn't the one I have on my computer. I have done the research and I can offer you the advice that the better one is classified as Grunge/Folk (or maybe Code/Folk). It was written way back in 2000 when this was a lot hotter debate in the hacker community. It has a guitar and surprisingly catchy beats. What? Your curiosity has been piqued? Then allow me to give you satisfaction.

This song is titled "Descramble (This Function is Void)". Joe Wecker wrote this seven minute song based on someone else's spoken word translation of the code. As an aside, Joe is also in a band called Don't Eat Pete. You can currently download the high quality mp3 from his webpage. It was originally pulled from mp3.com (R.I.P.) for having offensive lyrics! It starts well enough but perhaps gets a little confusing in the final few minutes, unless you are a coder I think. At least listen to it long enough to get the chorus about the DMCA. I too don't understand code surrounding the chorus, but the whole thing raises some interesting issues about censorship in the name of the DMCA. Are we prepared to censor songs to protect weak and flawed security schemes when they arguably unfairly restrict the use of end-users? Food for thought, anyway. Here are some lyrics so that I can potentially get in trouble myself. You'll notice it has a political message in the chorus.

This function is void
it takes two args
the first is SEC,
a pointer to a vector of 2048 unsigned bytes:
that are the encrypted disk sector
and will be the decrypted
The second is KEY
a vector of 6 unsigned bytes:
the decrypted title key

Local variables t1 through t6 are
unsigned ints
local variable END is a pointer to
SEC plus 2048

DMCA steps on me
I don't like the DMCA
it makes this song illegal
ooh whoa DMCA
it steps on me
it makes this song illegal
makes this song illegal yeah

As you probably remember from a few weeks ago, my law school opened up a new building adjacent to the old one. Furman Hall is pretty cool (and you can check out artist renditions of it with that link), but I didn't think it was enough to write about until I found out that there was some minor controversy surrounding the building.

You see, Edgar Allen Poe used to live in the building they knocked down to build my law school. And there were lots of people who did not want the University to destroy the landmark. They had some dream that it would one day be as famous as the random lawn room the University of Virginia is. But the school knocked it down anyway. So that dream is dead. I thought all they had done was put a plaque up on the wall to let people know what used to be there.



But my initial research and discoveries did not explain everything about the southern exposure of our law school. For some reason, the bricks were different, the windows were not uniform, and it just didn't make sense to me. Then reading the actual plaque connected the dots that I was too ignorant to see. The southern exposure of the building is meant to be an artistic representation of how Poe's house would have looked while he was living there. "Interpretive reconstruction" they call it. I like that. I like it more than what the University of Virginia did with Poe's room in Charlottesville, especially because he really didn't do anything of note while he was there.

That's it. And this font is rocking my world. Time to suit up for some kind of Happy Hour.

Snow has hit NYC. I bailed on the trip out to see Bishop Allen because I didn't want to be cold. So I just hung out my window and took pictures of the snow.



My window faces east, so technically, if you look hard enough, you can see France. Also, if the lights were on in the apartment across the street, you could see someone's underpants. It's a good time to be alive.

The legal world has been rocked by my inability to pick a class to drop. It will most likely be Economics and the Law or Antitrust. Let your voice be heard, rock the vote or something.

Here are some random shots I took this morning while I wandered around my new school building. There is the main lobby, the second floor lounge, the main stairwell, and then the view from my Employment Law class. I imagine that all the prospective students will be very impressed. There is a tunnel that runs under the street and connects the two buildings. That's basically the first thing I like.



That's about it for now. I am in class right now, so I am going to end this entry and let the pictures speak for themselves.

I've been reading over my notes. I won't say it has been a good time. But look at what kinds of questions I have to answer, if you dare. This is an exam made up of three questions. The first one has two fun parts!

QUESTION ONE (suggested time: 90 minutes)

The question is in TWO PARTS. Both parts draw on the same facts and concern the same statute.

This question draws its facts from a real case (and a well-known event) that arose in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New York, an area with a long history of tension between its African-Americans and Hasidic Jewish residents.

The Crown Heights Hasidic Jewish population consists mostly of immigrants from Poland and Russia (mostly emigrating between 1880 and 1924), their American-born descendents, and converts. They are followers of a number of religious leaders (“rebbes”), the most famous of which in recent years was the rebbe of the Lubavitch (also known as Chabad) sect. Many Crown Heights Hasidic Jews dress in identifiable clothing (for men, heavy black hats and coats in all seasons; prayer fringes hanging from garments; for women, long-sleeved skirts or dresses below the knee for modesty) and have identifiable hairstyles (for men, long beards; for married women, wigs or headscarves). Many speak Yiddish as their primary language, or as their language of choice in interacting with other Hasidic Jews.

The African-American population of Crown Heights consists of individuals born in the US, of 20th century immigrants from the Caribbean (and, to a lesser extent, Africa), and their American-born descendents.

Shortly after eight o'clock in the evening on August 19, 1991, a station wagon struck two children. The driver of the car was Jewish, and both children were African American. A crowd soon gathered at the scene of the accident. As some of its members attempted to aid the injured children, others began to attack the driver of the car.

The first ambulance to reach the scene was from a Jewish hospital and was readily identifiable as such by Hebrew writing on its sides. The driver of the car that had hit the children was treated by personnel from this ambulance, and, at the direction of police officers who had arrived, the ambulance quickly left the scene in order to protect the injured Jewish driver from the angry crowd. Shortly after the ambulance from the Jewish hospital departed, two New York City ambulances arrived at the accident site. Their crews gave medical assistance to the two injured African American children, and took them to the hospital. Both children had been seriously hurt; one ultimately died.

In the meantime, a crowd of several hundred people (watched over by between seventy and one hundred police officers) had formed in the neighborhood of the accident. Some members of the crowd complained about Jews and the preferential treatment that Jews allegedly received. They cited, as an example of this favored treatment, the fact that the Jewish driver had received medical attention before the African-American children even though the children were more seriously injured. Some members of the crowd began to throw objects.

At about eleven o'clock, an African American man (not the defendant) began addressing the crowd. His speech, which was captured on two videotapes (one made by an NBC cameraman covering the incident and the other made by the superintendent of a nearby building), was angry and aggressive and included, according to police and civilian witnesses, the following statements:

"[I]f it was a black man that did this they would have been gone to jail instead of being pulled inside of an ambulance for safekeeping."

"We can't take this anymore. They're killing our children. The Jews get everything they want. The police are protecting them."

"What are we going to do about this? Are we going to take this anymore?"

"Let's get the Jews" and "Eye for an eye. No justice no peace."

In response to these exhortations, many people in the crowd began to yell, "Get the Jews." Toward the end of his speech, Price shouted something to the effect of "Let's go to Kingston Avenue [a predominantly Jewish commercial street in the Crown Heights neighborhood] and get the Jews." Thereupon, a large part of the crowd, including the speaker and the defendant (named Mr. Nelson) (who had been in the crowd and had heard the speech) proceeded towards Kingston Avenue.

Witnesses testified that prior to the speech, the crowd was neither unified nor particularly out of control, but that after he spoke, it became transformed into an explosive mass. It also became violent. As the crowd proceeded past Kingston Avenue and onto the next block (Brooklyn Avenue), it spotted Mr. Rosenbaum, a bearded man in orthodox Jewish dress. A member of the crowd yelled "get'em" and "there goes one." Someone else in the crowd was also heard to shout "get the Jew, kill the Jew."

On being targeted, Rosenbaum sought to escape the mob, running across Brooklyn Avenue and then across President Street. The crowd, however, caught up with him. A group of between ten and fifteen people, including Nelson, then began beating him, knocking him to the ground, and striking him repeatedly. Eventually, a police car approached the scene, causing the attacking group to scatter. Nelson attempted to flee with the rest of the crowd, but Rosenbaum grabbed hold of Nelson's T-shirt and prevented him from making good his escape. After trying unsuccessfully, by other means, to induce Rosenbaum to let him go, Nelson stabbed Rosenbaum and fled.

After receiving what the government concedes was inadequate medical care, Rosenbaum died from the stab-wounds he had sustained. Nelson was thereupon tried in New York State court on a variety of charges, including second degree murder in connection with the death of Rosenbaum. In October 1992, a jury acquitted Nelson of all charges.

Following Nelson's acquittal in New York State court, Nelson was indicted on federal charges. Nelson was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 245, (Section 245, for short). Congress enacted Section 245 in 1968. Its provisions broadly criminalize interference with "federally protected activities." The only portion of the statute relevant to this case (and this question) provides as follows:

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with--
...
(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been-
...
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof;
...
shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon .... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section ....., shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

The federal indictment against Nelson principally alleged that he by force and threat of force did willfully injure, intimidate and interfere with, and attempt to injure, intimidate and interfere with, Rosenbaum, an Orthodox Jew, because of his religion and because he was enjoying facilities provided and administered by a subdivision of the State of New York, namely, the public streets provided and administered by the City of New York, and bodily injury to and the death of Rosenbaum did result. Nelson was tried and convicted. (The speaker was also indicted and convicted, but that is hereby deemed not relevant to this question).

PART ONE OF QUESTION ONE

You have been contacted by January Justice (Jan for short), Nelson's defense attorney, who is preparing Nelson's case for appeal, both to the Second Circuit and eventually to the Supreme Court. Jan has sought your counsel on only a portion of the case: namely, she intends to challenge Congress' power to enact Section 245, and she needs your help.

Jan knows that the Justice Department will claim that Section 245 was a proper exercise of two Congressional powers: (a) section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (in relation to the Equal Protection Clause), and (b) section 2 (the enforcement power) of the Thirteenth Amendment. She asks you to address both of these anticipated claims -- by laying them out as they might best be made, making the best arguments against them, and then neutrally evaluating their likely success.

She understands that your exposure to the Thirteenth Amendment has not been extensive. She knows it was discussed in the Slaughterhouse Cases at page 318 of your casebook; in a long note on the Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer (upholding a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866) on pages 503-505; and in a comment by Prof. Amar at page 537. She knows, therefore, that you will need to think creatively as to that aspect of the case.

PART TWO OF QUESTION ONE

Jan is troubled, as a matter of policy, by the implications of the Justice Department's decision to use Section 245 to prosecute Nelson. There is admittedly pervasive conflict between African-Americans and Hasidic Jews in Crown Heights over allocations of power and resources in the neighborhood, and tensions are high. One could imagine that from the standpoint of many Hasidic Jews in Crown Heights, the death of an innocent bystander at the hands of a raging anti-Semitic mob is a horror at the very core of what the Reconstruction civil rights amendments aim to prevent. One could also imagine that from the standpoint of many African-Americans in Crown Heights, the terrible events of that day arose out of a pervasive pattern of public and private discrimination against African-Americans in Crown Heights, which was reenacted at the scene in a symbolically charged fashion when the police allowed (indeed, instructed) a Jewish ambulance to take the Jewish driver to the hospital without first assisting the innocent African-American children he recklessly injured and killed. Jan deplores inter-ethnic violence, but she nonetheless thinks that using the Reconstruction amendments to convict an African-American whose frustration with this situation took a turn to violence is a painful and anachronistic irony.

Based on your studies this semester, how would you respond? As a matter of constitutional law? As a matter of prosecutorial discretion?

END OF QUESTION ONE

With that said...


A DC firm gave me an offer. I will be there for the summer. Oh, and that means I can start looking at all the homework I have been putting off for a month. But I am already in my pajamas.

Appeals Court Postpones Oct. 7 Recall Vote

The ACLU argued that election officials should have more time to replace antiquated voting machines in several California counties.

If Monday's ruling stands, the recall vote would be moved to March 2004.

The court in San Francisco ruled that the vote can't proceed as scheduled -- because some of the votes would be cast using outdated punch-card (search) ballot machines. Ah, that's cool. Basically, there is still one appeal left for those that want the election to happen in three weeks. The US Supreme Court. This was a ruling by the highest court in the 9th Circuit, so it has some chance of going through if the Supreme Court doesn't want to hear it. In my mind, the willingness of the Supreme Court to embrace expediency over accuracy in Bush v. Gore (which was also a case that substantially removed a state's supreme court right to interpret state law), may mean they are both willing to stay the appeal and have the election go forward. Time will tell. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Scalia knows!

Oh, I skimmed the decision. There is a long history of the Punchcard and chads, if you are bored.

"It is perhaps ironic that the sitting governor could well cast a vote on his own recall that would not be tallied."

"Plaintiffs argue that the use of defective voting systems creates a substantial risk that votes will not be counted. In addition, they claim that the use of defective voting systems in some counties and the employment of far more accurate voting systems in other counties denies equal protection of the laws by impermissibly diluting voting strength of the voters in counties using defective voting systems. In short, the weight given to votes in non-punchcard counties is greater than the weight given to votes in punchcard counties because a higher proportion of the votes from punchcard counties are thrown out. Thus, the effect of using punchcard voting systems in some, but not all, counties, is to discriminate on the basis of geographic residence."

"Plaintiffs’ claim presents almost precisely the same issue as the Court considered in Bush, that is, whether unequal methods of counting votes among counties constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In Bush, the Supreme Court held that using different standards for counting votes in different counties across Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause."

"In addition to the public interest factors we have discussed, we would be remiss if we did not observe that this is a critical time in our nation’s history when we are attempting to persuade the people of other nations of the value of free and open elections. Thus, we are especially mindful of the need to demonstrate our commitment to elections held fairly, free of chaos, with each citizen assured that his or her vote will be counted, and with each vote entitled to equal weight. A short postponement of the election will accomplish those aims and reinforce our national commitment to democracy."

I just returned from my interview with Fried Frank and have decided that making my final decision on where to work, if i get more than one offer, will unfortunately be based mainly on a coin flip. I just can't say that I see much difference at this point, but maybe after I get an offer, I will be able to more accurately assess two firms side by side. It may be that comparing six is just too complex. And of course, I may get one or zero offers, so there is less reason to stress about an embarrassment of riches.

Tomorrow is Proskauer Rose. Knock on wood again.

PS. Here is the list of things on my todo list. I'll just type them in as i have them written next to my desk.
PILC final report due
DC travel plans must be made
Study PR
FF Thanks
Make list of missed homework
Moot court assignment

I have successfully found the internet in DC. Since this is costing me a dollar to write, it will be short. I ran into (as if by accident!) Matt Voit, Praveen Kathpal, Kristen (Something Italian?), and Hillary Rollins. There are probably only two people who have meet that group of people before. Bill Hunt and possibly David Tyndall. Who knows? maybe there are a few others, but not likely. I thought that maybe Eden was also here, but then it would have been just Tyndall, and even bill needs love sometimes. (sorry, typing fast to save time and money. I will actually be funny some other time.)

So, two interviews tomorrow. Should be interesting. I connected to the internet mainly because I need to remember what both of these firms do. Ha. Kidding, I wanted to see the pictures and activities of the people who will actually be talking to me. That way I can skip some of the boring "so what do you do" questioning. Hopefully it will make me seem like the right candidate for the job that pays millions of dollars.* (Over several years, of course)

Good night then!

I have completed 34 interviews in the span of about 104 hours. That breaks down to one interview every three hours, but you need to subtract four nights of 6 hours of sleep.

That takes you down to 80 hours of awake time. Of the 80 hours I was awake, I was actually in the interviews for 20 minutes each. That accounts for 11 hours and 20 minutes. We are down to 69:40. Except I was always at least five minutes early, and they also usually started about 2 minutes late. On average, let's say that I sat in front of the door for the interview for 10 minutes each time. There goes another 4:40 hours. 65 hours. Then take out 15 minutes for each day's shower. 63:45.

Even though I wasn't sitting in front of the door, the rest of my time between 9:20 AM and 5:10 PM was spent in the single building where all the interviews were going. I was either reading about the firm, talking with other people, or in a very rare case or two, juggling as I am wont to do. So, going back to the 80 hours of awake time, since we know I always spent eight hours of my day in my suit, we can just subtract 40 hours from the 80. That leaves me with 40 hours to explain.

I would walk up at 7:30, shower, dress myself, and generally get my bags ready. I would leave the apartment at 9 sharp. That was true all five days. Except once. When I had a 9:40 interview instead of a 9:20. It was a great day. So, 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM are accounted for on all five days. That leaves us with the 5:30 PM to 1:30 AM (since 1:30 to 7:30 were sleeping time). What did I tend to do for those 8 hours?

Monday - went home to set things down, changed into business casual, went back to school for a talk on the call back process, then walked a block past my building, and spent two hours at a reception. Then I came home and did the research on the next six firms for Tuesday.

Tuesday - mirror of Monday, except I only spent one hour at the reception, then walked 20 blocks to see Tom Tomorrow talk about his left wing comic, then walked back 20 blocks with a signed book to a pizza reception. My feet were quite sore when I finally arrived back at my room to do research on the nine firms I would see on Wednesday.

Wednesday - went back to my dorm, changed into street clothes, went to a reception where I got a free book, then I went to Kinko's to make more copies of my resume, transcript, and writing sample for Thursday. Forgetting my charge card in the copier slot, I went to Kmart to buy supplies. I returned and retrieved the credit card. Returning home, I think that I went shopping for food and drinks at the grocery store before beginning another night of researching. Oh, Tuesday night I had also decided to pass on doing the whole UVA alum party thing.

Thursday - went back to my dorm room, changed into street clothes, and realized I only had two interviews left. 32 Had been done in four days. I went out to eat Italian food, then I returned to watch a few more episodes of Futurama. I started to clean up my room, but left it for the next day.

Friday - Today was boring. I am currently writing this.

Things I missed out on: Soundtracks Live. UVa Alum event. Sleep. Ability to distinguish one firm from another. Eating regular meals. Not having to kiss up to people all the time. Nada Surf at Tinkle. Keeping 50 copies of my resume.

Items gained: Three juggling balls. Mini-basketball hoop and ball. Two light balls. Several stress balls. Many pieces of paper about indistinguishable firms. Mints. One message on my machine. One email. Ability to pronounce Fried like you would pronounce Freed. Lots of random food from Dean and Deluca. A desire to stop typing and watch TV.

Having traveled over 200 miles today, I successfully made it to South Boston for the second time in my life. Nothing amazing to report about the trip. Only eleven days of work left. Only 11 days left to decide which classes I would like to take in the spring. Sometime in the next 15 days I will learn if I will be working on a journal. 20 days until I can ask someone how to upload the ipels website to the NYU server. I need to call my mock interviewer to schedule a practice interview. There you go. Lots on the table, all probably could have been done earlier, but they were not. Well, times a wasting I think.

Lunch is looking good tomorrow. Dinner on Saturday should be better.

Much of the last two days have been spent randomly picking fifty firms out of four hundred in an effort to make my future less random. Those fifty firms will then decide to offer me spots during Early Interview Week or not. The firms that like me will then bring me to their office. The firms that love me will offer me a summer job. The firm I work for over the summer next year will offer me a full time job or throw me to the wolves. Either way, the next three years are pretty much going to be decided in 45 days. Of course, the previous 18 months were decided in about three weeks last may, so it really isn't too scary I suppose.

I started thinking about how my 2L year will be different than my 1L year. I am in the same room, most of my classes will have the same people, why should anything but the content of my classes change? Will I study the same amount? Will I actually...gasp...not get the notes from someone after I skip? Eh, I think that my grades are set in stone. Now, getting all A's both semesters would only raise my grades some amount because I have grades from this past year to pull them down. Why do twice the effort (that I may not even be capable of producing) for 1/2 of the result. If I couldn't pull off As before, who am I kidding if I think I can do it now. Sure I will be more efficient at studying, but so will everyone else. my only hope would be to somehow pick out the classes for jocks. Too bad there do not seem to be any such things available.

Also, the stress of law school has managed to kill off my desire to talk with anyone in the NYU Psych department. We'll see about that. If I do not make any sort of journal, I will have lots of time on my hands because all my friends will be busy in the early evening. That may get me to go wander into an office and demand on know what is up. Also, not getting out of my classes at four pm each day may give me more chances for office workers to actually be there when I want to go.

So, there you have it. I am not currently doing anything other than the path of least resistance. Hopefully, the two week break between the end of my job and the start of early interview week will be rejuvenating. If nothing else, it will be time spent in NYC after collecting the last portion of my grant. I'll party, interview for jobs, and accept an offer. Then I'll finally have wealth, fame, and access to the depths of sleaze that those things bring. Well, I need to get to sleep. I'm getting up early and going parasailing with movie stars. Goodnight!

I have gotten my preliminary schedule for law school. I made it into a table for easy reference.

Also there were some big Supreme Court Rulings. Can you guess who joined R-dog on the dissent in the case about limiting state's rights? Scalia and Thomas! Who would have guessed it? Here is my one question, why do people say the federal government is taking too much control? In this ruling and in the ruling about abortion from years ago, (you may have heard of it) the power is going to the individual. The Federal Government is already limited by the constitution, it is now just saying that state's are similarly limited. Also, the case about Nike Free Speech -- that turns out to be what my journal writing competition essay was technically about this year. They had changed all the names, and I didn't know to look on this years Supreme Court docket.

Some excepts from the decision.

Today, we hold that the law school has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body.

The law school's educational judgment that such diversity is essential to its educational mission is one to which we defer. The law school's assessment that diversity will, in fact, yield educational benefits is substantiated by respondents and their amici. Our scrutiny of the interest asserted by the law school is no less strict for taking into account complex educational judgments in an area that lies primarily within the expertise of the university. Our holding today is in keeping with our tradition of giving a degree of deference to a university's academic decisions, within constitutionally prescribed limits.

We have long recognized that, given the important purpose of public education and the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition...

...The law school's claim of a compelling interest is further bolstered by its amici, who point to the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity. In addition to the expert studies and reports entered into evidence at trial, numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and "better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals."

These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, "[b]ased on [their] decades of experience," a "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps . . . is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security." ...

...To be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious admissions program cannot use a quota system — it cannot "insulat[e] each category of applicants with certain desired qualifications from competition with all other applicants." Instead, a university may consider race or ethnicity only as a " `plus' in a particular applicant's file," without "insulat[ing] the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats." In other words, an admissions program must be "flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same footing for consideration, although not necessarily according them the same weight."

We find that the law school's admissions program bears the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan. As Justice Powell made clear in Bakke, truly individualized consideration demands that race be used in a flexible, nonmechanical way. It follows from this mandate that universities cannot establish quotas for members of certain racial groups or put members of those groups on separate admissions tracks. Nor can universities insulate applicants who belong to certain racial or ethnic groups from the competition for admission. Universities can, however, consider race or ethnicity more flexibly as a "plus" factor in the context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant...

...What is more, the law school actually gives substantial weight to diversity factors besides race. The law school frequently accepts nonminority applicants with grades and test scores lower than underrepresented minority applicants (and other nonminority applicants) who are rejected. This shows that the law school seriously weighs many other diversity factors besides race that can make a real and dispositive difference for nonminority applicants as well. By this flexible approach, the law school sufficiently takes into account, in practice as well as in theory, a wide variety of characteristics besides race and ethnicity that contribute to a diverse student body. Justice Kennedy speculates that "race is likely outcome determinative for many members of minority groups" who do not fall within the upper range of L.S.A.T. scores and grades. But the same could be said of the Harvard plan discussed approvingly by Justice Powell in Bakke, and indeed of any plan that uses race as one of many factors.

Anyways, I am responding to this blog in order to satisfy the requirements for being a web journalist. So, here are my thoughts. One, race is a factor that matters. Two, this decision was close. 5-4 means that the next decision could be determined by the next appointment. Three, the undergrad admission was struck down because it was clear, the law school affirmed because it was vague. You know who really benefits -- the lawyers. Vague standards invite more law suits. Four, white people need to stop pretending things are equal and that if we just didn't talk about race somehow things would actually be perfect. Five, it is going to be impossible for UMich's undergrad program to process 25,000 apps in the way that the law school does. The point system will remain, it will just have to be secret and within the head of each worker. Quotas are bad, points are bad, but another process that produces the exact same result will be fine. Hmmm, until it becomes explicit, then the court will order them to pretend they are doing it some other way. Six, don't conservatives have something better to do with their time? I mean, they can't make a tax cut work, they can't remember to fund Afghanistan, and they are about to need to fight to outlaw gay marriages by way of the constitution. Man, i can't wait for the flag burning amendment. Okay, I am out of here.

On the quiet afternoon of June 2, some 20 partners at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom doubtless raised their collective eyebrows upon reading the pungent contents of a personal missive meant for a pal of Blank's, but inadvertently copied to his bosses.

"I'm busy doing jack shit," wrote Blank, an intern in Skadden's corporate department earning about $2,500 weekly. "Went to a nice 2hr sushi lunch today at Sushi Zen. Nice place. Spent the rest of the day typing emails and bullshitting with people. "Unfortunately, I actually have some work to do," continued Blank, a student at Harvard Law School class of 2004. "I'm on some corp finance deal, under the global head of corp finance, which means I should really peruse these materials and not be a fuckup."

As you can see from this choice section of a longer article, the law school world is abuzz with the "Did you hear? Oh man, that is funny!" This news article is actually at the tail end. I already had a copy of his formal apology by the 19th. I feel like I was in the loop on this one. Since we all like suffering, I present you with that apology sent to this firm's top brass.

Now, here is what he sent out a few hours later...

I am thoroughly and utterly ashamed and embarrassed, not only by my behavior but by the implicit reflection such behavior could have on the firm. The content of the e-mail was inappropriate, showed a total lack of discretion, responsibility and judgment, and undoubtedly did my reputation and my future here no favors. It showed disregard for the firm's policies and procedures and for the very explicit speech that all summer associates were given about personal responsibility and using good judgment at the start of their training.

The appropriate parties, including hiring partner Howard Ellin and hiring director Carol Sprague, are aware of the incident and [are] working with me to deal with it appropriately. Although I cannot change what you and the other recipients saw, I do reiterate my sincerest apologies. I do and will take full responsibility for my actions in this incident, and I will do everything I possibly can to correct my mistakes and, more importantly, ensure that this and things like it will not happen again.

Final note on this matter, there was some interesting analysis down at the bottom of the original article, since I know most of you do not want to read it. (And before I end this post-- Thanks to Joi for the original forwarded email and to Jeff for the article with the cool quote.)

A hiring partner at a rival law firm, who asked to remain anonymous, compared the confession to enforced self-criticism during the ascetic regime of the late Mao Tse-tung. "It was a sort of Chinese water torture, where you had to go in front of a lot of people and talk about how you're a backsliding capitalist running dog," said the partner. "This isn't just about punishing [Blank]. It's what the French call a coup de semonce, a shot across the bow to the spoiled kids out there.

My job will take me to Charlottesville both of the next two Fridays. There is a task force session both days, so I get to go on up. I will probably end up asking if I can just drive myself up for the one on the 13th. That way I will just be there when the Wash Meeting starts. That just means that I will need to pack early and basically pretend that I am going to Cville at 8 am on Friday the 13th.

Also, yesterday was a meeting with the Virginia Employment Commission. There was a pub next to the office on 7th and Main that had a strip of ice on the bar. When you sit there, you put your drink on the strip and it stays cold. The waitress said that only four bars in the United States have one right now. Richmond is on the map. I did not get to investigate the mechanics, but I imagine it is the same system that produces ice in those little micro freezers. A small level of frost forms on the metal, and your drink gets cooled from the bottom up.

Having now completed 8 of my 50 days, I could very easily see myself in the life of a smaller town lawyer. I just do not know if I could jump to 10-11 hours of work a day for two years. I guess next summer will be the final test.

I've been having some difficulty with the one button publishing of this journal in the past week. I assume that is because it is still beta software. Having to log in AND THEN click copy is twice the work. I just don't have time for this. (that is my excuse for not posting as much). Also, you will notice that I reorganized my collection of links over there on the left.

I have been told that arriving before 9:30 is no good. I have been told that leaving after 4:30 is no good. 9:40-4:20 seems like a manageable work day. Not only do I get to avoid rush hour traffic both ways, but I am avoiding them in ways that make the day short.

Luckily, my lack of posts has nothing to do with a busy lifestyle. I have done almost nothing for the past few days. I did go to see The Devil's Workshop last night with Tyndall. We got there at 9, which I assumed would be late. Turns out they do not start playing until 10 nowadays. Anyways, I did not want to sit in the club for an hour and wait. So we went out on the 'turn a random direction at every street corner' adventure. We walked passed my friend Lucy's house, possibly past Mr Schrieber's house, and then, what did we see in the distance? It was Bill Hunt sitting on a stoop. He is now a para-legal at a bankruptcy firm living in the fan. I just want to make sure everyone understands how unlikely this was. The fan has a grid pattern with streets every 50 yards or so. As such, we could have easily made our loop back to Bogart's in literally hundreds of possible combinations. We could have made loops that would have made Bogart's the closest point that we ever got to that porch. So, then he also needed to be sitting on a porch at 9:30 at night. This isn't like running into someone on the Corner in Cville. So there. Enough about that

He reports that the job market currently sucks. I now have one more person in Richmond to call. I am now of the opinion that a trip to the Byrd Theater will fully cement me in the city. The band was excellent. It would appear Toby may have completely moved on to Bio Ritmo. C'est la vie. Our waitress did not charge us for the cokes. That saved us at least 2 dollars! We left a big tip. Cheese fries are worth the four dollars, fries for three dollars would not be worth it. That's about it. I have finally done something other than eating and writing my law paper.

Oh, I went with the family to eat Brunch at the Jefferson on Sunday. That really doesn't count as normal eating.

Another exam done. I wrote a lot, but did not really take the time to make a great outline. My grade is up in the air, but I believe that I produced enough to pass the class, so all is well. I'm sure you are not concerned, but the more I listen to other people talk, the more that I realize that some people lack the desire to make accurate statements about their lives. There are lots of people who seem to need a conversion scale to translate their statements into the real world. Also, turns out people in law school may not have been on any list-serves in undegrad, because they are just as incapable of avoiding stupid mistakes.

Yeah, that's the extent of my rant. Not really funny, but what do you expect? This is more of after dinner conversation than anything else. Two new exit lines have been established.

You hear that faint whistle? That's the clue train. It pulled out of the station while you were still in line for a ticket.

What was that? hey if you see (blank) can you tell him that his grandmother was over here trying to (blank)

This is an entry while in class. I apologize for the lack of grammar and everything, I tend to half-listen.

That said, people still ask crazy questions in review sessions when you get to law school. It's nice to hear the professors touch on subjects once again, but only when he goes into specifics. Normally, you could get the same information from reading your notes in class. I always listen to the question and think that this person could have come up with the answer on their own, but like me they are lazy. We walk a fine line between dumb and not dumb, I suppose.

People are expecting to get asked questions that they know has no 'right' answer, but then they don't ask to be told what the two answers are, they ask for the answer, and the professor has to start his answer by pointing out that there are two schools of thought. luckily, the professors seem better able to guide discussion. Admin teacher only allowed an hour and had three specific practice questions. Property has a little less structure, but at least he refuses to allow a new topic to come up until all questions about one topic are gone.

I ran into my friend Jeff after the moment of triumph. We only have one more task in our Law Skills class, to actually talk about our desire to hurt small indian children. I have to play catch up now, since I am almost 30 pages behind in all three of the other classes.

Oh, Bob Odenkirk's film won the film award for best american movie. The French short we saw came in second place in the French short category. So, basically, for six bucks I was able to see most of the good and none of the bad. Hopefully, this will be a trend in the adventures. Everything I do needs to win.

No jokes again. I have been people watching in Washington Park these last few days, but no one has done anything awesome. I only watch people for like 10 minutes though, so maybe I need to set up shop or something. Usually I am on my way somewhere else though, so I don't have time or something. Perhaps if I spend t a summer here in 2004. Look forward to that.

I was once again reminded why I did not audition. I hate singing and dancing more than I hate watching singing and dancing. I would have potentially enjoyed writing the inbetween jokes, but at the time sign ups were happening, I was completely under the impression that this was a full on musical. No talking other than brief discussions that set up a scene for a song. Had I know there would be a longform joke, I might have given it a second thought. Of course, I still would have passed because I would have been scared that it would take up too much of my time. But, where as I walked into the show knowing I would never do anything for it, now I will have to make a new decision next year when the activities fair comes around.

Hopefully, I will be able to pass with a clear conscious. Anyways, I spent way to long tonight talking to Colombia Law students. Luckily, I was able to point out that we won Dean's Cup (which I made possible by not attending, given my bad luck at events where I am a spectator rooting for one side). More discussion about what I should say to celebrities when I see them on the street, but again, nothing that clearly would be the correct thing to say. If I were talked at first, there would be no problem, but that will not occur, so we reach an impasse.

Anyways, I once again managed to instantly produce a pun (if that is the right word) tonight without even thinking. One of the people returned to our table claiming that all of the rules were out the window in the bathroom, the male door was wide open and everyone was just urinating at will. I asked if she would define it at "going willy nilly" which could be a joke if you take a different definition of willy. Actually, I was just trying to use a strange Dr Suess phrase. It was not until I saw Lisa do a rim shot that I once again realized that my poor joke actually had a second meaning that made it an even worse joke. Life is good. I'll be here all week.

Nothing exciting has happened recently because I have either been working on a short little moot court assignment or because I have been watching TV to put that off. Luckily, I can do not work on it after 5 PM on Monday, so my life style should return to normal soon. Normal being a relative term and probably has nothing to do with the activities and jokes described in this journal.

I am not sure if I posted, but I will be working at the Virginia Poverty Law Center this summer from May 26-August 1. That means I get to live in Richmond and drive my sister's car. I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but any way, I am just 90 minutes from DC and 65 minutes from Charlottesville. The organization is paying me nothing, which is good for them. I have secured a grant from NYU (well, I still need to jump through one hoop involving some kind of meeting), which will pay me some cash. And of course living at home radically reduces my costs.

I went to another law student birthday party last night. They blur into one another since they are all simply in a bar with lots of people. I would think that cake is required, but obviously not. I agree with the basic proposition -- the birthday person should not need to purchase any thing for everyone to eat and drink -- but dispute that a bar is the best way to do this. The bar environment is expensive. If the party was in a home, we could certainly still listen to very loud music and have people constantly ask us if we wanted drinks while other groups pass through the room...and yet we could eat and drink for 1/5 of the cost. If you ask me, such cost savings would probably result in actual gifts for the birthday boy/girl. For example, I got a card for the last one. It was literally the least I could do. Just showing up would have downgraded my action to "being."

Here is a quick list of items I have given people for their birthday in recent memory, with no explanation. Mailbox, sledgehammer, windshield wiper fluid, Jerry Springers Greatest Hits, and a 50 gallon bucket of lard. Okay, the last one is a lie...but a boy can dream. Of course, normally when someone turns 21, I tried to get something that reflected alcohol just because that was the thing the party seemed to focus on. So those gifts have been less off the wall.

I finally have a (horrible) draft of my ICWA brief. Since we are doing a rewrite after we get feedback from another person AND get the chance to read their brief, I am unmotivated to do more work right now. I know I will apologize to the person who read mine, but I do want to have some energy to produce the six page Moot Court Brief. Once again, I have adopted the "It would be nice if I make it, but I will not allow it to occupy my thoughts" mindset which has led to mixed results in the past. Although, the difficulty in the one shot games is that you do not know your odds. I imagine I would have a 30% chance of making it in a perfect world, so my lack of care probably doesn't reduce my chances that much. My expected outcome is not making it, so why try?

Anyways, back to polishing the thing so that I can put it out of my mind by 1 pm tomorrow. Expect a comedy update after I get back from our attempt to get into the Daily Show tomorrow.

I have managed to put off doing any of the homework that I could be doing here over break. I guess I may do some while in Charlottesville while everyone else is in class. Who knows at this point?

My interview is tomorrow morning at 10 am on Broad St. I am hoping that they get back to me in a week or two with a job offer. I imagine they will turn me down, but there is some chance that I will be the best candidate for the job. I am probably going to leave earlier than normal in order to get a parking spot on Grace Street and then walk over.

I still need to go online and read more about what they do in Richmond. I want to have all their litigation and lobbying areas down cold so that I do not act surprised at one person's job and so that I can ask some solid questions.

That's really it. I decided to make this a law school update because I have not had to do anything else today.