Shot of espresso at the Starbucks in the hotel testing center. Overheard some guy on the phone talking about how "law students have taken over the Starbucks" on his way out. You mean baby lawyers? Unlicensed attorneys?
Multiple choice is the worst. I was bored out of my mind. Couldn't bring anything into the test center, so I couldn't have a midway shot of caffeine to get my mind going again.
Lunch break. Waited close to 25 minutes to order and get my banana latte from Coral Tree Express. It was worth it though.
Second session. Drew a monkey in the exam booklet. Took a walk around the hotel lobby in the middle. Saw others doing the same. Read the directions and there IS a $12 parking lot. Eff. I've been parking at the mall for $21 a day b/c hotel parking is $24 a day.
Went back to car. Made myself another peanut butter sandwich. I bought a jar of peanut butter and loaf of bread yesterday, and that's what I've been eating since.
Contemplating doing a little more studying tonight. Ugh, I think I need some energy drinks.
I love this story, because according to Newsweek, the scene didn't end there!
"The cameras cut off as she fell to the ground. But the scene didn’t end there. An eyewitness saw Wendi back on her feet, grab the pie plate, and shove it right back into the face of her husband’s attacker, who later described the “rage” in her eyes. As police dragged him away, she pummeled him with punches..."
The various news outlets that ran this story kept referring to her as a "loyal wife" and "fiercely protective" of her husband. Can we just give this woman kudos for being a bad bitch? She is a 6 foot tall lady! She grew up on mainland China where her parents were "devout Communists." She later went to Yale for her MBA. Everything about her so far says, "Fear me." (at least to me anyway)
If I were her, I wouldn't be thinking, "I must perform my marital duties." In my imagination, it went a little something like this: "Oh hell no, this is a parliamentary hearing. Where is security? Look at this joker, a shaving cream pie? Unarmed? I can take you." That's when she smoothed her pink blazer, rose to full height and watched the fear in his eyes as she not only pied him, but pummeled him with punches in a room full of people. You don't mess with someone like that.
So come on news outlets, this is a powerful woman. We can handle this nowadays right? Don't play down her strength by talking about her loyalty as a wife.
Oh yeah, let's put this through the cursory bar analysis. There's a possibility for a tort suit.
Pieman's claim against Wendi
Battery. Battery is when there is an offensive contact and the person who made the contact had a specific or general intent to make such contact. Specific intent is when the person's goal was to bring about the eventual consequence and general intent is when a person is substantially certain the consequence will occur.
Here, we have a clear case of battery, because Wendy: grabbed the guy's head, slapped him, threw a pie at him, and "pummeled" him. She had the specific intent, because she seemed pretty mad at him for trying to throw a pie at her husband. Her goal was probably to make contact with the guy's head and body and use the pie to make contact with his head or body.
Damages are presumed when there is an intentional tort. He can try to recover for compensatory damages (personal injury in this case), nominal damages, and punitive damages to punish Wendi for her malicious act.
Assault. Assault usually goes hand in hand with battery. A person is liable for assault when she causes reasonable apprehension of imminent offensive contact in another. She must have had specific or general intent to cause the apprehension.
In this case, Wendi lunged at Pieman more than once. A reasonable person would have perceived these actions and understood them to be attacks or threats of imminent harm. Wendy performed the act and probably knew with substantial certainty that her actions will cause someone to think that he was about to be attacked. Thus, we have general intent which is enough for a prima facie case of assault.
Defense of others. A person is privileged to use the same amount of force to defend another as she is allowed to use to defend herself. She must reasonably believe the other person has the right to to defend himself and must use reasonable force.
Reasonable belief that the other person had the privilege of self-defense. Rupert was not the initial attacker. He had the right to use force in self-defense. Wendy had a reasonable belief that Rupert would have been able to use force, because she was present at the meeting. She saw someone run up to Rupert and reasonably believed that the person was about to attack him. She had the right to defend him.
Reasonable force. However, the pummeling was probably not reasonable. The subsequent pie in the face may not be reasonable. Wendi could have used reasonable force necessary to defend Rupert, which means that her initial actions, grabbing Pieman's hand and hitting him, were probably reasonable in this circumstance. They were enough to thwart the pie in the face and the slap would deter him from proceeding further. However, she did not need to throw the pie in his face and pummel him after the attack was over and he was restrained by the police.
Because Wendi went beyond the scope of a reasonable amount of force to defend against an attack, she may be liable to Pieman for damages.
"She was supposed to buy ya shorty Tyco with ya money She went to the doctor got lipo with ya money She walkin' around lookin' like Michael with ya money Shoulda' got that insured, GEICO for ya moneeey(your money) If you ain't no punk holla' we want pre-nup WE WANT PRE-NUP!, yeah It's something that you need to have 'Cause when she leave yo' ass she gon' leave with half 18 years, 18 years And on her 18th birthday, he found out it wasn't his?"
What up Kanye, I'mma let you finish...as soon I do a quick legal analysis.
You've got people in the club hollering they want pre-nups. Is it something that you need to have? Is it going to prevent her from "leaving with half?" You seem to have two issues: 1) You don't want to pay child support and 2) You don't want your spouse walking off with your assets.
California is a community property state. This means that any property acquired during marriage is presumptively property of both spouses. This includes salary and wages earned by either spouse. Is that what you meant when you said she's going to leave with half? You're right, in CA, she gets to leave with her half of what you earned just as you get to leave with half of what she earned. This is the default rule.
You can contract around the default rule with a pre-marital or pre-nuptial agreement. You can agree to just about anything in a pre-nuptial agreement. For example, you can agree that each party's salary and wages will remain separate property. You can also limit spousal support or have your spouse waive it entirely. The sky's limit! Or is it??
You cannot limit either party's contribution to furnish child support, which leads us to our first issue.
Child support obligations
Sorry Kanye, she is going to walk around looking like Michael with your money whether or not you have a pre-nup. You can't contract around child support.
But what if it wasn't yours? Well, any child born to a married couple is presumed to be the biological child of that couple. A married man may bring a suit to establish paternity, but the window on this is narrow. After two years, you can no longer initiate a paternity suit. I guess it doesn't matter in this scenario anyway, because your spouse isn't going to tell you until he turns 18.
Right to half the assets
This is a right that you can contract around. You can both agree that your respective salaries will remain separate property. You can both waive the right to spousal support.
However, you still have to be careful! You can't foist a piece of paper and expect your lady friend to sign on the dotted line. The agreement will be invalid if she was not represented by independent counsel and given at least 7 days to sign OR she was not fully informed of all the terms in the writing (she'll have to sign a separate document acknowledging this) and given at least 7 days to sign.
Additionally, the court can later decide that the waiver of spousal support is unenforceable. If the agreement, at the time of enforcement (not the time that it was made), was so unfair that to enforce it would be unconscionable, the court will not give it any effect. You may still have to pay child support after paying fancy lawyers for drawing up a pre-nup due to changed circumstances.
Pre-nup, is it a good thing to have? Sure.
Is it going to solve that mess you've described? Only half. ;)
Most of my friends who've been to karaoke with me know: 1) I only rap and 2) 99 problems is one of my go-to songs, because of the legal references in the 2nd verse.
Hov, I know that you haven't passed the bar (and neither have I), but you know a little bit. Are the cops really illegally searching your shit?
Let's put this through a cursory crim pro analysis.
"My glove compartment is locked."
Excellent. Locking something shows that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area to be searched. Generally, the police cannot search without probable cause and the lack of a search warrant is presumptively lack of probable cause. Also, telling him this impliedly negates consent.
However, you are in an automobile and the police had reasonable suspicion to pull you over. (You were doing 55 in a 54.) They have a right to ask you to step out of the car and according to the Terry stop-and-frisk doctrine, if you are unsecured (this means they haven't put you in handcuffs or placed you in the squad car), they CAN look in your passenger side to prevent destruction of evidence or if they think you are dangerous. (which the officer probably does b/c he thinks you are carrying a weapon)
The police can also search your trunk (and any containers within it) whether or not it's locked if they have probable cause to believe that there may be evidence of a crime or contraband in the car. Remember what we said before about the presumption of lack of probable cause if no search warrant? This doesn't apply to automobiles due to the "lower expectation of privacy" in a vehicle and the fact that the car is readily mobile ( you can take off with the contraband and evidence at any time--thus it's more of emergency enabling them to search right away).
So, through a very cursory bar level analysis, they probably had the right to search both.
Yves and I have been talking for some time about starting a blog called, "You are entitled to OUR opinion" where we just rant. Although, I should be studying for the bar, I do want to do a quick rant before I forget.
I think it's hilarious when guys my age (mid-20s) or even younger think that they need to watch out for gold diggers. Fool, no one is after a dude that is pulling in 50K minus student loans (if he is even employed in this economic climate). I had a guy friend in his early 20s tell me that he didn't want to pay for dates too often, because he didn't want to attract gold diggers.
Reality check. You are a 22 (23?) years old, still in college and work at restaurant on the weekends. No gold digger worth her silicone implants is going after that. Your $500 savings account and Grandma's government bonds are safe, sweetie.
Am I taking crazy pills? Are guys just flattering themselves? Alright, guys, you make decent money. You want to establish an equal partnership early on. You want to be fair. This is all pretty normal. You don't have to pay for every date. It's totally legit to accept when she offers to foot half the bill. It's okay to not invite a girl out again if she is not pulling her weight. It's 21st century dating. There's no need to frame your modern day sensibilities in this outdated trope, especially when you're still young and haven't developed your career. It's a joke to think that girls are after you for your money. Unless you are Mark Zuckerberg or sitting on a mighty big trust fund, you don't have to watch out for gold diggers. Trust.