A Few Good References

My late spring arrangements are situated, my decision is made: I will do my internship at the United States Navy J.a.g. Corps this mid year in the Washington D.c. Trial Office. There are various reasons why yet I'm not going to clarify them to any individual who peruses this web journal. Goodness! You feel qualified for my reasons, isn't that right? I have not the time or the slant to clarify myself to individuals that climb and rest under the cover of the very opportunity that I give and afterward address the way in which I give it. I would rather you simply said "thank you" and went on your way. Else I recommend you get a weapon and stand at post. In any case, I don't give mind what you think you are qualified for.

Too bad. I fear this site will get to be hindered in a reiteration of A Few Good Men references in the middle of now and the end of the mid year, yet I simply can't help myself. Truly, what am I going to say on the off chance that somebody approaches me for some help at my internship? "You're going to ask me cheerily." What else would I be able to say? What's going to happen on the off chance that I see a J.a.g. officer commit an error? "I overlooked; you were truant the day they taught law at graduate school."
In any case, I resulted in these present circumstances choice in light of the fact that I've needed to be a J.a.g. for quite a while, I cherish D.c., and I'll get a ton more handy legitimate experience than I would in Tokyo (which I can do one year from now on the off chance that I need to). Presently I recently need to discover some lodging in the District and I'll be straight. There will be more data about the internship later. Meanwhile, how about we check whether I can pass some of these classes.

Goodness, before I overlook, if anybody supposes I settled on the wrong decision about my internship, remember that I will not play "seems to or if we not take after the counsel of the galactically idiotic."

SoapBox Law

Soapbox is a temporary platform employed while making a spontaneous or nonofficial public speech. The term starts off from the days when speakers would raise themselves by standing on a wooden crate initially used for shipment of soap or other dry goods from a manufacturer to a retail store. In public places like London’s Hyde Park Individuals can advocate one cause or another. Some speakers in these public forums will carry a ‘soapbox’ to project their voice and to be spotted by those who might come together. 

During the 19th century and into the 20th, before the invention of corrugated fiberboard, manufacturers employed wooden crates for the shipment of wholesale merchandise to retail establishments. Discarded containers of all sizes were readily obtainable in most towns. These “soapboxes” made free and easily handy temporary platforms for street corner speakers trying to be seen and heard at improvised “outdoor meeting,” to which passersby would meet to hear frequently provocative speeches on political or religious themes.

Soapbox

A soapbox is a raised platform on which one stands to make an impromptu speech, often about a political subject. The term originates from the days when speakers would elevate themselves by standing on a wooden crate originally used for shipment of soap or other dry goods from a manufacturer to a retail store. The term is also used metaphorically to describe a person engaging in often flamboyant impromptu or unofficial public speaking, as in the phrases "He's on his soapbox", or "Get off your soapbox." Hyde Park, London is known for its Sunday soapbox orators, who have assembled at Speakers' Corner since 1872 to discuss religion, politics and other topics. A modern form of the soapbox is a blog: a website on which a user publishes one's thoughts to whoever reads them.

Astelia

Astelia is a genus of rhizomatous tufted perennials in the family Asteliaceae which are native to the Pacific region as well as the Falkland Islands, Réunion and Mauritius. The species generally grow in forests, swamps and amongst low alpine vegetation; occasionally they are epiphytic.

Expectations for SoapBox Law

First I’d like to thank you, faithful (and even the unfaithful) reader for reading SoapBox Law. What should you expect from it? Well, not much. You see if you come in with low expectations, perhaps you’ll be presently surprised, like when you check your fridge, knowing that it’s empty, but you still end up finding one of your favorite frozen meals hidden behind the ice cube maker. That’s me: you’re unexpected chicken pot pie.

I intend to make this forum an analytical playground of legal thought, peppered with a touch of autobiographical information about my impending legal education and employment. And while the transformation from revolutionary legal novice to seasoned attorney should be slow, the documentation of it will allow me and others to measure my progress. And while I sincerely hope you like this website, I vehemently encourage you to shackle this website with the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations.’ That gives you a better chance of being pleasantly surprised. Enjoy!

Thoughts on Thinking Like a Lawyer From a Soon to Be 1L

Definition of “Thinking Like a Lawyer”

“…the ability to analyze the interplay of law and fact.” - Professor Scott J. Burnham, University of Montana School of Law

Some things I’ve read regarding law school preparation states that a change of thinking is necessary in order to be a successful law student and lawyer. Broken down to its simplest form, this ‘change of thinking’ seems to mean in large part the idea of getting used to the so called Socratic method. Some have argued that there is no true secret to ‘thinking like a lawyer’, rather only two types of thinking exist both in and out of the legal world, namely “clear thinking and confusion.”

Proper Mindset

However in order to prepare my mind for the rigors of law school, I have looked at some on how to do so. Here are a couple of tips from the Law Nerds website.

Accept Ambiguity
There is an exception for every rule. This makes sense. The law is inherently flexible because of the inability to predict every possible situation. There are innumerable examples of this. Take a look at a recent story of a college professor who was fired for joining a group that advocates Nazism and white supremacy. Is that a violation of his First Amendment right to assembly? Certainly the Constitution is explicit about this right, but is a right as fundamental as the right to assembly absolute? If exceptions can be made where do you begin and end? A lawyer has to prepare him or herself to delve into these gray areas.

Avoid emotional attachment to a position
Since we are talking about Nazism, how do you feel about a Nazi group, after securing any requisite permits, that advocates white separatism in a Jewish neighborhood? Could you or I fight just as vigorously for their right to free speech as any historically underrepresented minority? Or how about Hollywood’s new ‘safe’ villain Big Business? Could you make an argument for their property rights in a small town that is trying to keep them from building on property already owned by the company? Perhaps these are they types of questions a law professor will ask while in the throws of the Socratic Method. A law student needs to be able to apply the law in different, evolving situations.

Legal Reasoning

Law Nerds defines analysis as “the simple act of proving each element of a rule to be true or false.”

Here is a very simple example:

Facts: At 12 noon, Joe forces open the door of a houseboat and enters the cabin. He takes the houseboat's expensive navigation equipment, which he plans to sell at a pawnshop the next day.

Rules: In order to be convicted of Common Law Burglary, the following conditions must be met: One would have to break and enter into a residence at night with the intent of committing a felony.

Analysis: Common Law burglary is not satisfied because the action was committed at night.

Conclusion:

Granted this is a very simple example above, and I’m sure that there is quite a bit more to the ‘proper’ legal mind set. But hopefully understanding some of these basic principles before hand should serve me well in law school.

Thoughts on Thinking Like a Lawyer From a Soon to Be 1L

Thoughts on Thinking Like a Lawyer From a Soon to Be 1L
Definition of “Thinking Like a Lawyer”

“…the ability to analyze the interplay of law and fact.” - Professor Scott J. Burnham, University of Montana School of Law

Some things I’ve read regarding law school preparation states that a change of thinking is necessary in order to be a successful law student and lawyer. Broken down to its simplest form, this ‘change of thinking’ seems to mean in large part the idea of getting used to the so called Socratic method. Some have argued that there is no true secret to ‘thinking like a lawyer’, rather only two types of thinking exist both in and out of the legal world, namely “clear thinking and confusion.”

Proper Mindset

However in order to prepare my mind for the rigors of law school, I have looked at some on how to do so. Here are a couple of tips from the Law Nerds website.

Accept Ambiguity
There is an exception for every rule. This makes sense. The law is inherently flexible because of the inability to predict every possible situation. There are innumerable examples of this. Take a look at a recent story of a college professor who was fired for joining a group that advocates Nazism and white supremacy. Is that a violation of his First Amendment right to assembly? Certainly the Constitution is explicit about this right, but is a right as fundamental as the right to assembly absolute? If exceptions can be made where do you begin and end? A lawyer has to prepare him or herself to delve into these gray areas.

Avoid emotional attachment to a position
Since we are talking about Nazism, how do you feel about a Nazi group, after securing any requisite permits, that advocates white separatism in a Jewish neighborhood? Could you or I fight just as vigorously for their right to free speech as any historically underrepresented minority? Or how about Hollywood’s new ‘safe’ villain Big Business? Could you make an argument for their property rights in a small town that is trying to keep them from building on property already owned by the company? Perhaps these are they types of questions a law professor will ask while in the throws of the Socratic Method. A law student needs to be able to apply the law in different, evolving situations.

Legal Reasoning

Law Nerds defines analysis as “the simple act of proving each element of a rule to be true or false.”

Here is a very simple example:

Facts: At 12 noon, Joe forces open the door of a houseboat and enters the cabin. He takes the houseboat's expensive navigation equipment, which he plans to sell at a pawnshop the next day.

Rules: In order to be convicted of Common Law Burglary, the following conditions must be met: One would have to break and enter into a residence at night with the intent of committing a felony.

Analysis: Common Law burglary is not satisfied because the action was committed at night.

Conclusion:

Granted this is a very simple example above, and I’m sure that there is quite a bit more to the ‘proper’ legal mind set. But hopefully understanding some of these basic principles before hand should serve me well in law school.