So they equate law school with automatic lawyer

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692188)

I told my father I was taking tax and he told the yokel neighbors that I'm "majoring" in tax law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692219)

While some law schools offer concentrations, I don't think most folks know that a J.D. is a rather generalized degree in law.

Edit: Sorry Mitten, didn't see your post when i posted.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692215)

How often in movie or tv shows about lawyers does a lawyer actally do one stitch of paperwork? (Other than to sign some huge contract or close some big deal.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692225)

[Some idiot will now argue that this is in fact what all ibankers do, and that they pwn lawyers.]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692239)

and i hate the way movies and TV shows never show show spies doing the mundane parts of their jobs; or how people take really long craps while they read the sports section. and the portrayal of sleep is far from realistic. infuriating.

as for law school, most people seem to think that the bar exam has the effect of re-unifying those who went to bad law schools with those who went to good ones. i suppose the profession his a strong incentive to conceal that it is basically segregated in this matter, even at firms that actually hire from beyond the top three schools.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692380)

People don't spend MOST of their time taking craps and for most people it does not define their existence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692412)

You'll see.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692479)

Date: May 1st, 2006 2:06 AM

Author: Ariel Sharon's Flaccid Penis (formerly freundshaft)

Why do post here? Your posts aren't intelligent, they lack wit, and your febrile defensiveness is annoying. You might be a cool guy IRL, but you're wasting your time here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692285)

(1) "shtick" posts by you: "NO WAI!", "O RLY DOOD?!", "LINk!>!1", "SO WATS YR POINT?", etc.

You think these are funny, and they're not. This is what you consider to be the "dumb" shtick.

(2) The rest of your posts, often of greater length, reflect a fundamental inability to understand simple concepts. An example is when you couldn't figure out that the comment, "Do you post here?" is not meant to be taken literally, but is an indict of the poster it's directed at.

The problem with your "shtick" is that it's not shtick at all- you're just a fucking moron. There's nothing wrong with this, and XOXO has been a safeharbor for banal idiots for years. You should accept the fact that you're a fucking retard and join forces with rasquach and &#. It's nothing to be ashamed of- everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. One of your weaknesses is that you're dumber than a retarded 5 year old- accept it and stop trying to convince us otherwise, as this only makes you look dumber.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692449)

my response to the "do you post here?" was shtick. like everything else i fucking post. HTH LOL.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692462)

You're just a fucking dumbshit idiot, shut the fuck up about being shtick. You probably think this guy is shtick, too: http://www.sptimes.com/2002/05/12/photos/tb-downs.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692475)

Anyway, lay off the ghost. His shtick might simply be a total lack of self awareness.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5693489)

n. 1: When a group of males sit in a circle, jerking each other off. 2: The first three responses to this post, see above.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5693289)

Oh, wait, that's the *students* misconcepetion about law school.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692291)

If you sink so low as to deal with state laws, i guess there's a lot of "common law."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692471)

the fed courts decide cases arising under the constitution/statutes/treaties. there is no "common law" power to decide cases.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692516)

Precedent based law IS common law. Any time a circuit hold that statute X means Y and the district courts are bound by that, they have created common law.

As I said before, you can also google 'federal common law' and you will find numerous law review articles and other sources of info about this.

I am really pretty shocked that you are so clueless. Wow, way to flush all that tuition money down the toilet - your 'education' is worthless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692588)

No. They've interpreted a statute; nothing has been "created." They've given effect to legislative intent.

"As I said before, you can also google 'federal common law' and you will find numerous law review articles and other sources of info about this."

As we've said before, this is a horrible argument, at best.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692591)

It isn't an 'argument' in support of my position, it is merely pointing out to you all of the many sources that back me up. You can ignore them all if you wish, but persisting in this is extremely stupid.

Interpreting a statute IS creating federal common law in many cases. What exactly do you think common law is?

Imagine this:

A statute says 'it is unlawful to engage in fraud in the sale of securities.'

Imagine a case where A fraudulently offers to sell securities to B.

The first circuit says that offering to sell is also unlawful.

The second circuit gets a similar case and says that an offer to sell is NOT unlawful under the statute.

They disagree.

Guess what? That's federal common law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692602)

Google 'federal common law' and you'll find links to law review articles about it.

If I google 'flying elephants' I'm not going to find a single hit that makes a convincing case for their existence - your analogy is completely worthless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692553)

I haven't taken a position on this debate at all, except to point out that "google it" is not a good argument.

PS: Go read Erie v. Tompkins, shithead.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692556)

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817 (U.S. 1938)

_________

Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. And whether the law of the state shall be declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. There is no federal general common law.

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, *78, 58 S.Ct. 817, **822 (U.S. 1938)

____________

The fallacy underlying the rule declared in Swift v. Tyson is made clear by Mr. Justice Holmes.FN23 The doctrine rests upon the assumption that there is ‘a transcendental body of law outside of any particular State but obligatory within it unless and until changed by statute,’ that federal courts have the power to use their judgment as to what the rules of common law are; and that in the federal courts ‘the parties are entitled to an independent judgment on matters of general law’

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, *79, 58 S.Ct. 817, **823 (U.S. 1938)

______________

The phrase “laws of the several states,” as used in statute requiring federal courts to apply laws of the several states except in matters governed by federal Constitution or statutes, held to include not only state statutory law, but also state decisions on questions of general law, in absence of any constitutional provision purporting to confer upon federal courts power of declaring substantive rules of common law applicable in a state. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1652.

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817 (U.S. 1938)

__________________

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692579)

But this CERTAINLY did not put an end to federal common law of FEDERAL law matters! You see the words 'common law' pop up but you fail to distinguish state vs. federal. This is not a tough concept.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692596)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=638061

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/ipsc/2003/papers/attendees/IPSC_2003_Gibbons2.pdf

There are tons and tons and tons more but I assume you know how to use google.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692517)

Because if you believe that, I seriously hope you aren't in law school because you've wasted your money.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692559)

I'm glad people finished up their 1L civ pro classes and can quote Erie, but sorry to tell you retards that federal GENERAL common law and Federal Common Law are not the same thing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692959)

see, that's the problem...you went to law school and delusionally think that the "federal common law" trumps everything. sad. "

you stupid cunt: you've gone from claiming there's no such thing, to the claim that some imagined view that federal common law "trumps everything" is "sad."

why would someone like you even bother developing an interest in anything vaguely academic? haven't you gotten enough signals at this point that you are destined for some lower realm of the law? did you really believe it when they told you a 162 is a good score?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5693051)

i know it's late, but "tremendously" would have worked better.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692528)

(This is gonna be good. Caesar is lying. I never happened. Keep in mind the words "binding law.")

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692332)

Translation: Caesar concedes defeat.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692365)

(This is gonna be good. Caesar is lying. I never happened. Keep in mind the words "binding law.")

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=408848&forum_id=2#5692742)