arrogantsob's New Writeupshttp://everything2.com/?node=New%20Writeups%20Atom%20Feed&foruser=arrogantsob2005-03-25T17:25:41ZWant to be a lawyer? (idea)http://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob/writeups/Want+to+be+a+lawyer%253Farrogantsobhttp://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob2005-03-25T17:25:41Z2005-03-25T17:25:41Z<p>
<s>The above writeup is a mixture of a little bit of fact with a lot of <a href="/title/fiction">fiction</a>. But that's not why I'm writing. If you want to know the whole story, you can read about it on <a href="/title/snopes.com">snopes.com</a> at: http://www.snopes.com/legal/legalaid.asp (Short answer, the administrator wasn't in a position to change the rules, so he told the students to write to those who could. They did, and <a href="/title/allowances+were+indeed+made">allowances were indeed made</a>. The quote about priorities is <a href="/title/pure+fiction">pure fiction</a>.)</s> <i>Nevermind. There used to be a writeup above this one. It's gone now.</i>
</p>
<p>
No, I'm writing today to those people, as the title implies, who might want to be lawyers, and are thinking of making the plunge. Finishing my third year of <a href="/title/law+school">law school</a>, I understand the pros and cons much better than I ever did before I applied. Looking back, I still think it was the right decision for me, but for many it's not. So here's a list of what to consider, what not to consider, and anything else I think is worth saying. (Note that the following is for<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…Coca-Cola (idea)http://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob/writeups/Coca-Colaarrogantsobhttp://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob2004-05-13T00:02:02Z2004-05-13T00:02:02Z<p>
<em>"I'll have a Coke."<br>
"Is <a href="/title/Pepsi">Pepsi</a> alright?"<br>
"Yeah. <a href="/title/Whatever">Whatever</a>."</em>
</p>
<p>
If you're like me, you've had that little snippet of a conversation so many times you don't even notice it anymore. But every so often I used to wonder about the <a href="/title/anal+people">anal people</a> out there who really cared so much that they would order another drink instead. <a href="/title/But+not+anymore">But not anymore</a>.
</p>
<p>
This writeup expands a bit on the items above that mention that Coca Cola is a very heavily <a href="/title/protected">protected</a> <a href="/title/brand+name">brand name</a>.
</p>
<p><h5>
Coca-Cola Co. v. Overland, Inc.<br>
692 F.2d 1250<br>
C.A.Nev.,1982.<br>
</h5></p>
<p>
That, my non-<a href="/title/lawyer">lawyer</a> friends, is a citation to the judgment in a <a href="/title/lawsuit">lawsuit</a>. You'll note that Coca-Cola is in a dispute with Overland.
</p>
<p>
Overland owns the Topaz Lodge and Casino. It seems that, "on 23 of 29 separate occasions over a three-year period, employees at the Topaz Lodge and Casino substituted, without comment, Pepsi-Cola in response to specific orders for 'Coca-Cola' or 'Coke.'"
</p>
<p><!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…Negligence (idea)http://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob/writeups/Negligencearrogantsobhttp://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob2003-05-14T16:49:45Z2003-05-14T16:49:45Z<p>
<small>Note that this writeup is for the <a href="/title/United+States">United States</a>.</small>
</p>
<p>
Conventional wisdom has it that if someone falls on your <a href="/title/property">property</a>, they can sue you for <a href="/title/The+actual+facts+behind+the+McDonald%2527s+coffee+lawsuit">millions</a>. You're out in the cold, and all because some dumbass couldn't look where they were going.
</p>
<p>
It probably won't surprise you to find out things don't actually work that way. Instead, all <a href="/title/lawsuit">lawsuit</a>s based on accidental injuries are covered under the rubric of negligence.
</p>
<p>
That is, if you were negligent in your actions, and those actions caused injury to someone else, then you have to pay up. But if you didn't do anything wrong, you owe nothing. Not even if they fell on your property. <a href="/title/How+to+get+hit+by+a+car">Not even if you hit them with your car.</a>
</p>
<p>
The question, then, is,
</p>
<p>
<h1>"What is negligence?"</h1>
</p>
<p>
Negligence is the failure to take due care in your actions. You have an obligation to others not to go around willy-nill<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…jail (place)http://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob/writeups/jailarrogantsobhttp://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob2003-05-07T23:46:27Z2003-05-07T23:46:27Z<p>
Jails are often lumped together with <a href="/title/prison">prison</a>s (<a href="/title/Webster+1913">Webbie</a>'s writeup below is a good example), when the two are in fact different in several respects. (Note that this writeup is for the <a href="/title/United+States">United States</a>.)
</p>
<p>The primary difference between jails and prisons is that jails are used to house inmates guilty of lesser <a href="/title/crime">crime</a>s. Depending on the <a href="/title/jurisdiction">jurisdiction</a>, a jail is generally used to hold inmates that have a maximum sentence of 1-2 years.</p>
<p>Second, whereas prisons are usually run by the state, jails are generally run by the <a href="/title/county">county</a>, often under the jurisdiction of the county <a href="/title/sheriff">sheriff</a>. This is more important than it might seem. A sheriff is an agent of <a href="/title/law+enforcement">law enforcement</a>, rather than <a href="/title/corrections">corrections</a>. Consequently, many sheriffs will tend to focus their attention elsewhere, not worrying very much about how the jail is run. When they do pay attention, it is often to "<a href="/title/make+time+tougher">make time tougher</a>."</p>
<p>Finally, since jails are generally run by the county, rather than the state, they generally<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…Consideration (idea)http://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob/writeups/Considerationarrogantsobhttp://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob2003-02-15T21:55:00Z2003-02-15T21:55:00Z<p>There's a <a href="/title/Virgin+Mobile">Virgin Mobile</a> <a href="/title/cell+phone">cell phone</a> <a href="/title/commercial">commercial</a> I've seen recently where <a href="/title/Wyclef+Jean">Wyclef Jean</a> is walking out of his limo when a middle-aged woman asks for his autograph. He signs her paper...and then she unrolls it to reveal that he signed a rather lengthy <a href="/title/contract">contract</a>. Cut to Jean, hard at work, vacuuming the woman's house.</p>
<p>After my first semester at <a href="/title/law+school">law school</a>, I can think of three reasons offhand why such a <a href="/title/contract">contract</a> would never be enforced. <a href="/title/Fraud">Fraud</a> would be a slam dunk, but there might be some problems proving it. <a href="/title/Unconscionability">Unconscionability</a> wouldn't have any problems of proof, but in general, this is a losing argument in court. Ah...But lack of consideration, that's an argument that has no real problems of proof, and is pretty certain to kill a <a href="/title/contract">contract</a> like the one mentioned above.</p>
<p>The doctrine of consideration simply states that the courts are not willing to enforce all contracts. Promises of gifts, even if in writing and signed, are not the kind of thing courts are interested in.</p>…Korean War (person)http://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob/writeups/Korean+Wararrogantsobhttp://m.everything2.com/user/arrogantsob2002-09-22T17:48:57Z2002-09-22T17:48:57Z<p><small>A <a href="/title/Node+your+homework">Node your homework</a> enterprise.<br>In eleventh grade I interviewed a Korean War veteran, transcribed below. I, of course, am C. Naim, and the veteran is D. Warnock. <br>Please excuse the lack of talent on the part of the interviewer. The interviewee is much better.</small></p><hr>
<p><strong><u>C. Naim<!-- close mismatched tag --></u></strong>: Just in general…Let’s start at the start. How did you get there?
</p><p><strong><u>D. Warnock<!-- close mismatched tag --></u></strong>: Well, I was <a href="/title/draft">draft</a>ed in January of ’51. And I’d been living at <a href="/title/Kansas+City">Kann’ City, Missouri</a>, at the time. And I was married, got married just about six months before. So anyway, I got drafted, and I got sent to Camp Cook, California, which is now <a href="/title/Vandenberg+AFB">Vandenberg Air Force Base</a>. But I got sent out there and assigned to the 40th <a href="/title/infantry">infantry</a> division, which was California <a href="/title/National+Guard">National Guard</a> Division. And as a draftee, well they put about five thousand of us in that division to bring it up to strength. So I got my basic training at Camp Cook, California,<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…