Hi guys

I don't know if you remember me, but I used to write for this blog.

With finals approaching, I've been spending a lot of time studying recently (and, it turns out, inspiring the creation of other blogs). A few things I've learned:

Everybody in Los Altos Hills is rich, which, as a matter of federal law, means its okay to keep poor people out. Ybarra vs. Los Altos Hills, 503 F.2d 250. (9th Cir. 1974).

I live next to the stupidest bike lane in America. The only one that might be dumber is one I lived near last summer.

Minimum sentencing laws still suck. We can blame them both for the large-scale disasters like the unconstitutionally shameful condition of the health care system in our state prisons as well as for the more personal tragedies like the harsh prison term facing troubled Iraq veteran Sarge Binkley. Binkley may yet catch a break from the District Attorney, but other defendants from different backgrounds are unlikely to get the same treatment.

I've got to get back to studying administrative law, so I can explain why the County Board of Education inexplicably prevailed against the Los Altos School District's case alleging that Bullis Charter School's charter was too racist for the County Board to approve. I know that part of the answer has to do with the chemicals used by downtown Los Altos dry cleaners. Stay tuned.

Focus the 'Tos

Today is "Focus the Nation," a national teach-in on global warming. It comes amidst a lot of exciting progress on climate change at UCLA Law. Last week's law review symposium highlighted some of the best idea for addressing the problem. The school announced that it had received a $5 million gift to open the country's first center for climate change law. A group of students has embarked on an effort to personally comply with the Kyoto Protocol. And I even got to meet one of the impostor Jonathan Wieners. (Details to follow in another post).

But this blog is not about the nation, the globe, or even UCLA Law. It is about the 'Tos, which joined the party last week.

Thanks to the efforts of Kacey Fitzpatrick and the other folks behind Cool Los Altos, our city has pledged to meet the Kyoto Protocol by 2012. This seems like it will require rethinking, among other things, how much we want to continue use free public parking to subsidize driving. I'm not optimistic that we will necessarily pull it off -- at least so long as council member and blog whipping boy Ron Packard believes that the only thing Los Altos should do about the great challenge of our time is promulgate weak revisions to the building code. But at least it will be nice to know that we inspired Iraq.

Our future leaders

Another great e-mail from the UCLA Student Bar Association:

Dear Class of 2009,

The vote for 2L President was marked by irregularities on both sides. SBA has investigated the situation and determined that it was not necessarily the result of any intent or bad faith on the part of the candidates. To ensure fairness and best honor the intent of the voting student body, however, a re-vote will be held. The polling process will last 24 hours beginning 4pm today. Voting will close on April 19 at 4:00 p.m

~ SBA

Things I learned at law school this week

Wearing a tux, attempting to bribe a juror and accusing a defense witness of having 'San Francisco values' are not as effective ways of winning a trial as you might think. (The nine-fingered litigator I am not).

Poor bloggers can say just about whatever they want. (My next post: "The following people are gay.")

And, according to my Constitutional Law classmates, Reagan "liberated" mentally disabled patients, voting equals political power and social welfare programs are evidence that the poor have a strong voice

Things us nerds find funny

Apologies for the lack of posts. I meant to finish my guides to local elections this weekend but have been engrossed in my law school reading. Here's a brief sampling:

from Favrot v. Barnes, a 1970s divorce case before the Louisiana Supreme Court:

"...at the husband's insistence, they agreed to limit sexual intercourse to about once a week. The husband asserts, as divorce-causing fault, that the wife did not keep this agreement but shought coitus thrice daily."

This case inspired my contracts professor, an Oxford graduate from Kansas who pretty much fits the stereotype of what a law school professor should look and act like, to go into a long and involved hypothetical featuring (I'm not lying about this) penal-vaginal intercourse, missionary position, oral sex, dildos, butt plugs and threesomes.

Meanwhile, the Civil Procedure has these nuggets, from actual cases, borrowed (and reprinted here without permission) from Richard Lederer's Anguished English:

Q: Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?
A: No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.

Q: Mr. Smith, do you believe that you are emotionally unstable?
A: I should be.
Q: How many times have you committed suicide?
A: Four times.

Q: When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?
Mr. Brooks: Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.

And lastly, this, from Professor Richard Friedman:

The Court: Next Witness.
Ms. Olschner: Your Honor, at this time I would like to swat Mr. Buck in the head with his client's deposition.
The Court: You mean read it?
Ms. Olschner: No, sir. I mean to swat him [in] the head with it. Pursuant to Rule 32, I may use the deposition "for any purpose" and that is the purpose for which I want to use it.
The Court: Well, it does say that.
(Pause.)
The Court: There being no objection, you may proceed.
Ms. Olschner: You may proceed.
(Whereupon Ms. Olschner swatted Mr. Buck in the head with a deposition).
Mr. Buck: But Judge...
The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Buck: We object.
The Court: Sustained. Next witness.