Saturday, September 25, 2010

Alternate Dispute Resolution Society v. Ricks

I'm informed that the Alternate Dispute Resolution Society of George Mason University (ADR Society) is preparing to file a claim against me in the coming days.  It seems entirely frivolous.  (Obviously, every "claim" on this "blog" is going to be "frivolous" because if these were not "frivolous" I would probably be filing them in an actual "court of law."  Wait... forget those last two "quotation marks."  And yes, you should read that sentence by doing air quotes with your fingers each time.')

A note I received from an inside source at the ADR Society's representative firm (Lyons, Tigers, Behrs, & Ohmi) read as follows:
RE: ADR Society v. Ricks
The ADR Society felt that from the looks of excitement, diversion, and general relish on your face during the negotiation intramural today, you had too much fun.  They feel that the exercise wasn't supposed to be so entertaining, and that you should probably learn to better hide how much you really enjoyed the opportunity to get a taste of what real-world negation could feel like.  They feel that you've intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon them by not reacting appropriately.  You seemed to enjoy when you discovered that you're actually the type to go on the offensive and push to reach your "client's" objectives.  You didn't seem to mind when you felt intimidated by the 2Ls that you faced in the second round (of the two) that clearly had a much more coherent game-plan than your own team.  You seemed to have fun working together with your teammate, Spencer, who's from Payson, UT and is a very cool guy (but you know that already, why would I tell that to you?  Oh well.)  The judges, practicing attorneys from the area, could tell that you weren't highly experienced at this, but that your lack of experience didn't prevent you from acting like nothing was wrong and having "a blast."  As your friend and informant, I'd recommend:

  • That you not participate next year unless you intend on having fun with it again.  
  • If you should happen to have won the competition and be qualified to move on to the regional competition in Virginia Beach, I advise you to chill out and not enjoy it so much.
  • That you not post anything about this on that weird blog of yours.  I know no one reads it, but if word happened to get back to our client, you could get yourself into even more trouble.
  • Go eat some cookies.
--Your friend,
        Informant Behrs

So, as you can see, I competed in the intramural negotiation competition today.  It was really quite fun.  Spencer and I represented a man that was being recruited by a fictional university for a business program (round 1), and then we also represented a union who represented TAs that were getting hosed on their monthly stipend and on the amount they had to work (round 2).  Both pairs we faced off against were girls, the round 1 team were 1Ls like us, and the second round team were 2Ls.  It's funny, but I was telling someone the other day that there is a visible difference between 1Ls and 2Ls/3Ls.  You can just tell who has more time.  The first round was the easier of the two fact patterns, but I felt like Spencer and I might have done a lot better in the second round.  THe problem with that is that I feel like our opponents did better that second round as well.  I don't know what exactly the judges were looking for, but based upon the feedback we got in the first round, I really doubt that Spencer and I will "win."  I was surprised that I didn't get more flustered.  I tend to have that problem when facing situations like this where there are a lot of unknown factors.  It was tough, but quite fun.  

K, bye.

(Yeah obviously it's tough to work all the stuff about my real-life experiences into these dumb fake cases.  Whatever.)  K, bye...... for real.  

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Ricks v. Apple's iPod Nano Pedometer

Ricks v. Apple's iPod nano Pedometer*:
258 Int.Barn. 3 (DCoLIB 2010)
[The plaintiff, known for his ability to whine and ramble on about nothing, gave this testimony to the court, "On September 14, 2010 I was having a rough week.  I was studying up for my big econ test that would take place on Thursday of that week [two days later], and I just reached a point where I needed a break.  So, naturally, I decided to suddenly buy an iPod.  You see, I won an iPod in college.  It was only a 2GB nano.  I was very happy that I won it, and I have gotten a lot of use out of it.  However, I have always wished that I had an iPod that could fit more of my music.  So when I decided to go get this new 16GB iPod nano, you have to realize that this was a very exciting experience.  This was the first iPod I ever bought.  I was thrilled to discover that this iPod also included a pedometer app that I could use to keep track of the length of my runs.  Well, Thursday came along and I took my horrible econ test and I decided that I generally survived it, but am very unsure about what score I will fetch.  Anyway, after a nap I decided to head out for a run and finally put this cool pedometer feature to the test.  So I forged out into the dense humid air of Arlington, compelled by a strong desire to enjoy this interesting feature of my supposedly cutting-edge gadget.  Upon returning from my run I was highly chagrinned to see the result listed on my pedometer.  442 steps!"  The plaintiff's counsel also entered into evidence that Google Maps verified that the plaintiff ran 2 and half miles on this particular run.  In response to the defense's allegation that the plaintiff must have failed to use the product properly, the plaintiff responded that he had followed the instruction on that reads, "Clip iPod nano to your sleeve, jacket, or running shorts," by clipping the device to his running shorts.  The plaintiff seeks damages for emotional distress inflicted by the failure of the device to meet his needs just hours after his painful experience with his first law school exam.]
SAM JUDGEGUY, J. gives the opinion of the court:
The defendant has moved for summary judgment and I am inclined to grant this request.  As the plaintiff's only real accusation amounts to the common law tort of outrage, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, I find no possibility that a jury could reasonably determine that any outrageous harm of any extraordinary measure is found within the facts of the case at bar.  While it is certainly regrettable that the pedometer device measured only 442 steps when the defense admitted that the average mile run as measured by a pedometer generally measures approximately 2000 steps, the failure of an electronic device to achieve its implied purpose is certainly a common experience for any who experiment with the cutting-edge of technology.  Also, the plaintiff testified that the iPod device met his primary need in desiring to purchase the item, while the pedometer abilities (or lack thereof) were merely an afterthought as far as his desire to use the iPod nano.  This does not amount to an outrage that no reasonable person should be expected to endure.  Also, there is clearly no intentional infliction of emotional distress as I find any evidence of a malicious intent entirely wanting.  I think the plaintiff should just chill out and try attaching the device to his shirt sleeve next time he runs.  That might work.
Motion for summary judgment granted, with costs.  

*Fake court case, duh!
About my econ test: Really, it wasn't horrible.  I really don't know what to think about it though.  I know I didn't nail it.  It's so disconcerting when I can't just get whatever score I get, but rather my score will be adjusted for our harsh curve.  All things considered, (including that there are many former econ majors in my class) I think I'll be ok with a B.  (That's a new feeling.)
K, bye.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

My latest lawsuit: Ricks v. Keebler

(So sorry if you hate this, but you're going to have to deal with the fact that this is how my posts are going to be until further notice.)

Ricks v. Keebler*:
257 Int.Barn. 2 (DCoLIB 2010)

[The plaintiff, Ricks, has sought damages for a heretofore unestablished branch of tort law that his counsel has entitled "Fattery."  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, Keebler, has exploited the plaintiff's debilitating addiction to chocolate chip cookies and has inflicted many pounds of cookie-weight.  This has left the plaintiff feeling rather out of shape and flabby.  He is saddened by the outcome of his excessive cookie binging.  Plaintiff claims that the defendant's actions amount to fattery through creating irresistible cookie treats with chips of chocolate in every bite!  He has asked for $3 million for emotional distress and physical harm that will surely only be removed by liposuction due to the plaintiff's lack of time for continuing his P 90 X regimen.  The defense has filed a countersuit for court costs, due to what they consider a highly frivolous claim.]

CASSANDRA NIGHT McCONNOR, Judge in the District Court of Lame Internet Blogospheria gives the opinion:

This is a really, really stupid claim.  I'm going home.
Case dismissed, and plaintiff must pay defendant's costs for a frivolous claim.  Fattery?!  Wow, I thought I'd heard it all.

K, see ya.
*This is a real** case.
**Really fake.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Law School Style Post: Ricks v. Sleep

Ricks v. Sleep:
256 Int.Barn. 1 (LIBCoA 2010)
[On September 13, 2010 Mr. Ricks felt incredibly tired and decided to sue Sleep for not giving him enough energy to fend off the onslaught of Law School's impact upon his personal well-being.  Plaintiff claims that Sleep has a duty to provide energy for such activities, and was negligent in not providing quality enough of energy such that plaintiff could reasonably pay attention in his Torts class.  A jury in the District Court of Lame Internet Blogospheria found in favor of the plaintiff and assessed damages in the amount of an afternoon extra-power nap.  Defendant appeals based upon erroneous jury instructions that the Plaintiff could not himself have been contributorily negligent with regard to amount of sleep.]
UNLEARNED FOOT, Justice of the Lame Internet Blogospheria Court of Appeals gives the opinion:

Affirmed for the defendant that jury instructions erred in the trial court by stating that Plaintiff could not be found contributorily negligent by not acquiring a sufficient quantity of sleep.  A person such as the plaintiff should well know that Sleep's benefits are directly proportional to the quantity of hours that a buyer like the plaintiff purchases from the sleep store.  This court finds that a jury could very reasonably determine that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent if the plaintiff did indeed lack in sufficient quantity of hours purchased the preceding evening from the sleep store.  

Reversed and remanded for retrial, with instruction to determine whether the plaintiff could be contributorily negligent due to insufficient quantity of sleeping hours purchased the foregoing evening.

The District Court of Lame Internet Blogospheria assembled a new jury to determine the aforementioned component of the case at bar.  The evidence in the original trial presented by the defense revealed that the plaintiff had purchased at most 6 hours of sleep the preceding evening.  What result on retrial? 

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

This is me, freaking out calmly...

As the reality of how hard my exams are going to be--and more specifically how hard it will be to stand out in the crowd on those exams--is getting more and more apparent, I'm freaking out... more and more.  But I'm still calm.  I feel that everything will be ok no matter what happens come exam time, but it's still troubling when I'm afraid of things not going how I want them to go.

I'm currently chilling in my professor's "Office Hours" where he just stays after class and answers anyone's questions in an open forum.  (Thereby giving everyone the chance to hear what he says to any question asked by anyone.)  A very fair process.  He's a hilarious professor, too.  It's entertaining just to listen for that value alone.

I don't really have much to say right now, but law school is tough.  K.... see ya.

Friday, September 3, 2010

Some stuff...

Well, it has been a week since I've written in here.  Here are some things about this week.

  1. Having awesome memorials/monuments that people pay hundreds of dollars to travel to see in my neighborhood is encouraging my desire to go for runs.  
  2. Near miss by Hurricane Earl I suppose.  Not really that near.  We just had one of its tentacles go over us.  It didn't even rain.  It's been great weather temperature-wise.  Thanks Earl!
  3. I saw a guy that looked just like Gary Coleman, only 6 foot 2.
  4. I got a lot of free stuff this week from various student organizations and local businesses.  Even a shoe shine.
  5. Being graded on a strict curve against my classmates is not great.
  6. Just found out that the Supreme Court had a vote on how to spell Marihuana/Marijuana.  They chose the version with a J.  
  7. My teacher gave us a hypothetical the other day about a cow named Jonathan.  It was hilarious.
  8. I love my institute class.  It's only 45 minutes long, but it's great.
  9. I decided one of my professors should have the nickname: Gray-Hair Colbert.  He has the exact same mannerisms as Stephen Colbert.  (Yes, this would be the comedic-genius behind Jonathan the Cow.)  
  10. One of my other professors reminds me of Garry Marshall.  He's not funny.
K, see ya next time.