tick tock

What's that bar exam? $500+ and you can't even guarantee a clock in the exam room?

Matching watches of doom---$10 at Target, bar-approved. Analog watches smaller than 4 inch by 4 inch.

It's kind of the equivalent to ending your summer with matching friendship bracelets.

can I put my own spin on this?

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.

Wendy's defense

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.

sucker for anything Hello Kitty

and Chococat!

I've hit a wall

4 days left. Pray for mojo.

My one daily outing--spanish latte with an extra shot

So you want a pre-nup.

"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.

Issue

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.

Rules

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.

Conclusion

Pre-nup, is it a good thing to have? Sure.

Is it going to solve that mess you've described? Only half. ;)

bright blue liner, why not?