Hey everyone! I'm still working through where I want to go with this blog (especially considering that the title is no longer accurate!) but I reeeeally needed to write something and I know this is way late but lolol cultural relevancy what r u even so here's my letter to Peter Jackson about this movie
Dammit, Peter Jackson, I trusted you.
Your work with Lord of the Rings is exceptional, and while you clearly knew what you were doing with that, I was skeptical when I heard that you made The Hobbit into three movies, because I didn't believe there was enough material there. After seeing the first movie, I was convinced I was correct in my belief, but you changed my mind significantly with the second. I LIKED the second. The expansions you made to the plot were overall pretty great (hey there, Legolas!), Smaug looked wonderful, and I really felt involved in the story. I was super psyched to see the third one, even though I knew it was going to make me sad.
Then I went to see the third one. GodDAMMIT, Peter.
Okay, there were some things that were genuinely quite lovely. Lee Pace's eyebrows, for example. The dwarves riding in on pigs, because PIGGIES! And, um...yeah, mostly Lee Pace. Face, hair, general demeanor. Actual elvish perfection in every way. Fine, okay, yes, Thorin's death was incredibly well-shot and Martin Freeman's acting in the scene made me cry, but just because you can shoot a death scene does not let you off the goddamn hook, Mr. Jackson. Also using Billy Boyd's angel voice for the credits? My individual tears are crying, you jerk.
I knew there wasn't a whole lot left in the Smaug plotline from the book, but seriously dude? I know Benedict was probably pretty pricey, but you could literally have walked up to the CGI team and been like "we need to have a man drop from the sky and transform into a bear on the way down and then land into a battle and fuck shit up" and they would have done it for you (....OH WAIT YOU DID THAT HI BEORN HOPE YOU ENJOYED YOUR CAMEO) so we couldn't have had like, a bit more dragon? Or some of the Necromancer that wasn't just a strobe light and the Minas Morgul track from RotK? And I get that Smaug's death is the ultimate in one-in-a-million shots but did we have to William Tell it up with Bard's kid? Come on, bro. It's a KID. We're gonna worry about the kid already, and then you gotta mount the freaking arrow of doom up on his shoulder? Kid, I don't know your name, but whatever you got paid for this movie, it wasn't nearly enough.
And Alfrid. What the HELL was up with Alfrid, bro? Did you give him and his unibrow individual contracts? Is that why we spent so much time filming him? And come on, man, no one read the script and was like "hey, this guy seems like an AlphaDouche, mayyyybe we shouldn't leave him in charge of everything?" Peter, come on, I realize you're going for comic relief, but letting Bard pick him out of everyone else to keep watch and then WHOOPSIES not noticing every elf in Mirkwood is on your front steps areyoukiddingme. People of Lake-town and Dale: I know you've got a gigantic leadership broner for Bard right now but his powers of delegation are CLEARLY lacking and perhaps you should place someone else (anyone else?) in charge. Like Thranduil's elk. Next time, Peter? More elk less Alfrid.
I was already super skeptical of Tauriel's plotline and general existence, and you went right ahead and proved my skepticism to be correct on literally every goddamn count. I would like whoever decided "why does it hurt so much? Because it was real" was an actual line that should be actually spoken and actually placed into the film to be publicly shamed. I would like you to tell me why we are so scared of giving women anything other than bows and short knives to fight that isn't "barely concealed phallic imagery when in the hands of women makes us uncomfortable so only boyz get the long sharp thingz kayyy." I would like you to offer a public apology to Fili, who has to be extraordinarily pissed off that his death was nothing more than a vehicle for the Dashboard Confessional, Romeo-and-Juliet, this-isn't-your-ordinary-love-story love story garbage, especially since his beard is CLEARLY THE SUPERIOR ONE.
And the White Council, Peter? Can we talk about that for a second? You gave them like two minutes of screentime after plastering Christopher Lee's face all over every promotional material that was made and it turned into The Expendables 19. How exactly did you explain this when you pitched the scene? SARUMAN. ELROND. GALADRIEL. GANDALF. They all reunite in a battle for the ages against the forces of evil that is given zero explanation and even less time and you kind of feel like Liam Neeson is gonna show up and shoot someone because everything old is there. Mr. Jackson, you gave us a Legolas backstory that is not canon nor was it relevant but we couldn't scrape together another couple thousand to keep the old guard on set for like, 10 more minutes? If you're going to make this scene, make this scene, sir! Don't throw McKellen and Blanchett around with some *~*cRAzY sAuROn'S eYe*~* graphics and then allow several thousand years of experience to arrive on-set looking like it's pissed that somewhere in the future, Aragorn is getting some and it's his daughter. MAKE THE EFFORT.
[Also if you listen carefully somewhere off in the distance Celeborn is screaming "I AM RELEVANT AND I MATTER AND I WILL NOT BE IGNORED"]
And Thorin, man? Come ON. We've got the greatest vaguely dirty majestic face since Viggo and we go and give him draaaaaagon sicknesssss and some grandstanding? Richard Armitage, who thought out his on-screen character enough to justify why he doesn't have the long beard Tolkien wrote him with, was given about a hundred variations of "I'm really high and would kill for a burrito right now" except the burrito was the Arkenstone and you were somehow okay with this. I realize it had been a long time in the movies since anyone had worn the One Ring and you were annoyed that you couldn't put weird-ass effects but the gold thing really COME ON. And while I will give you credit for his actual death scene with Bilbo, the fight was ridiculous and you know it. Ice! Snow! Extra weapons! Uncertain kill shot! Slidey around on this iceberg wheeee! This is a dwarf king, a ridiculously talented beast-with-a-beard and you're going to let him get Oberyn'd because we didn't have nearly enough jumpshots and it's fun to stab people through the foot. Seriously just give Legolas like 18 more trick shots and call it a day because you need to stop, sir.
Just...dammit, man. You won ten years ago. This was a kids' book. I trusted you, man, and you let me down.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Why does she stay?
I don't know Janay Rice. I don't know her story, other than what's been captured on film or filtered and given to us. I don't know if she loves her husband or fears him or both. But we need to stop putting any responsibility on her and other victims of domestic violence for their own abuse. "Why does she stay?" is the most disgusting of questions, because it puts all the agency on her, when she usually has none. If you ask the question, you might get an answer you like, or don't like, but it really doesn't matter, because you shouldn't be asking that question in the first place.
Why might she stay?
Maybe she stays because it earns her money. Maybe Rice earns enough that she's comfortable, and doesn't have to work, and he buys her nice things. Maybe she didn't want to give up the fame that comes with being married to a player on the Baltimore Ravens. And this doesn't change the fact that her partner hits her.
Maybe she has no support network. Maybe her family, or her friends, or her church, or the Ravens, are all telling her that he'll change, she should stay, or that they can't handle her moving in with them if she were to leave. Maybe she has no family. Maybe she has no close friends. Maybe he's made sure of her having no close friends. Maybe she doesn't want to leave her home and go to a shelter because it's not the same standard of living she's used to. This doesn't change the fact that her partner hits her.
Maybe she's scared for her daughter, Rayven. Maybe she's worried that if she leaves, her daughter will never see her father, and she doesn't want that. Maybe she'll be scared that if she leaves, her child will be in danger, or she won't be able to support her without her husband. Her abuser also being her daughter's father doesn't change the fact that her partner hits her.
Maybe she thinks she deserves it. Maybe she saw the tape, and thought that her actions towards him were too aggressive for a wife. Maybe her brain tells her that she mouthed off, that she got him mad, that she should have walked away before things got heated. Maybe her brain tells her that she's supposed to be the stability of their marriage, and she let him down. Maybe her brain talks in its own voice, or maybe it talks in his. This doesn't change the fact that her partner hits her.
Maybe she loves him. Maybe he's told her that he lost control, but he'll never do it again because his love for her is stronger than anything, and that together they can work through their problems. Maybe he buys her flowers after. Maybe he tells her that he wouldn't make it without her, or that he'll do something dangerous if she leaves. Maybe the video caught his worst moment, and 99% of the time she knows he's good to her. Or maybe in his calm moments he's good to her, and she only sees those moments every so often, but when they come, it's wonderful. Or maybe her love for him is completely irrational and he's never good to her. None of this changes the fact that her partner hits her.
Maybe she's scared. Maybe she knows the statistic that the time women are most likely to be killed by their abusers is when they attempt to leave. Maybe her statements about true love have all been under coercion. Maybe she thought that he'd hit her more if he lost his job because she wasn't standing by him. Maybe he's threatened her, or maybe he hasn't, but she thinks something bad will happen. Maybe she's scared but nothing bad actually will happen. This doesn't change the fact that her partner hits her.
Unless you're a trained professional directly aiding the victim, trying to determine why a woman stays in an abusive relationship is a selfish, insulting, horrible thing to do. This question is nearly never asked for the victim's benefit; it's asked so whoever's asking gets to stop caring because she could have left and helped herself.
There are so, so many better questions you can ask.
Why do so many men hit the women they're married to?
Why did the Ravens take so long to fire Ray Rice?
Why are DV shelters so full, and why can't they get funding?
Should DAs be able to prosecute abusers when their victims don't want them to?
What do we do to help?
I don't know if we'll get answers to any of them any time soon, but these are the questions that have to get asked.
Why might she stay?
Maybe she stays because it earns her money. Maybe Rice earns enough that she's comfortable, and doesn't have to work, and he buys her nice things. Maybe she didn't want to give up the fame that comes with being married to a player on the Baltimore Ravens. And this doesn't change the fact that her partner hits her.
Maybe she has no support network. Maybe her family, or her friends, or her church, or the Ravens, are all telling her that he'll change, she should stay, or that they can't handle her moving in with them if she were to leave. Maybe she has no family. Maybe she has no close friends. Maybe he's made sure of her having no close friends. Maybe she doesn't want to leave her home and go to a shelter because it's not the same standard of living she's used to. This doesn't change the fact that her partner hits her.
Maybe she's scared for her daughter, Rayven. Maybe she's worried that if she leaves, her daughter will never see her father, and she doesn't want that. Maybe she'll be scared that if she leaves, her child will be in danger, or she won't be able to support her without her husband. Her abuser also being her daughter's father doesn't change the fact that her partner hits her.
Maybe she thinks she deserves it. Maybe she saw the tape, and thought that her actions towards him were too aggressive for a wife. Maybe her brain tells her that she mouthed off, that she got him mad, that she should have walked away before things got heated. Maybe her brain tells her that she's supposed to be the stability of their marriage, and she let him down. Maybe her brain talks in its own voice, or maybe it talks in his. This doesn't change the fact that her partner hits her.
Maybe she loves him. Maybe he's told her that he lost control, but he'll never do it again because his love for her is stronger than anything, and that together they can work through their problems. Maybe he buys her flowers after. Maybe he tells her that he wouldn't make it without her, or that he'll do something dangerous if she leaves. Maybe the video caught his worst moment, and 99% of the time she knows he's good to her. Or maybe in his calm moments he's good to her, and she only sees those moments every so often, but when they come, it's wonderful. Or maybe her love for him is completely irrational and he's never good to her. None of this changes the fact that her partner hits her.
Maybe she's scared. Maybe she knows the statistic that the time women are most likely to be killed by their abusers is when they attempt to leave. Maybe her statements about true love have all been under coercion. Maybe she thought that he'd hit her more if he lost his job because she wasn't standing by him. Maybe he's threatened her, or maybe he hasn't, but she thinks something bad will happen. Maybe she's scared but nothing bad actually will happen. This doesn't change the fact that her partner hits her.
Unless you're a trained professional directly aiding the victim, trying to determine why a woman stays in an abusive relationship is a selfish, insulting, horrible thing to do. This question is nearly never asked for the victim's benefit; it's asked so whoever's asking gets to stop caring because she could have left and helped herself.
There are so, so many better questions you can ask.
Why do so many men hit the women they're married to?
Why did the Ravens take so long to fire Ray Rice?
Why are DV shelters so full, and why can't they get funding?
Should DAs be able to prosecute abusers when their victims don't want them to?
What do we do to help?
I don't know if we'll get answers to any of them any time soon, but these are the questions that have to get asked.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Universal Studios by the numbers
- Engagements: 1
- Directions you can ride the Hogwarts Express: 2
- From Hogsmeade/Hogwarts to "London"
- From "London" to Hogwarts/Hogsmeade
- Directions I can describe the Hogwarts Express ride because we got engaged on the way from Hogsmeade to "London": 1
- Seriously guys I think someone rode a broom or something but I got nothin' else
- Things I did not consider about getting engaged at a theme park: 1 but it's big
- "Oh look pretty ring yay...wait we're going on a rollercoaster, shoot what if I lose it WHAT DO I DO okay calm down it'll be fine"
- Spoiler alert it was fine
- Degrees Fahrenheit: ALL OF THEM
- oh my GOODNESS it was 95 with humidity and I was sweating at 6 AM seriously how do people live in Florida I do not understand it
- Plus Hogsmeade has snow on top of the buildings so that's a nice little extra "lol FUUU"
- Plus sunscreen is vital but it keeps you from sweating to your Fullest Potential so that was tough
- You just kinda have to embrace the heat but dang, y'all, SO WARM
- Frozen butterbeers consumed: 1 per day for 3 days
- Trips around the lazy river loop at our hotel: ~15
- Times Andrew dragged me under the waterfall: 1
- Amount I screamed: A lot
- Longest time waiting in line: One hour forty-five minutes
- Amount of time people waited for "Harry Potter and the Escape from Gringotts" on opening day according to the dude in one of the shops: 8 and a half hours
- Not paying a hundred dollars a person to skip lines: priceless
- Okay not priceless but it felt like we *~*beat the system*~* or something
- Average age of the people in my group at Ollivanders for the wand-choosing skit: 7
- Don't judge me
- Harry Potter swag purchased: 3
- Mug
- Ornament
- Wand, ash, interactive, but I swear I didn't walk around the park with it and try the spells that you can do with it
- It was a close call though let's be real
- Number of characters who are like TOTALLY dead in the series but are on the rides: a lot?
- Like I guess whatever no sadness at Harry Potter World but Moody's dead, yo, not waving to you on the platform of the train? oh well
- Creepiness of Knockturn Alley: 100%
- This was pretty great guys, for real
- That hand thing from the second movie is there and it is TERRIFYING
- Frequency the dragon on top of Gringotts breathes fire: about every ten minutes
- Amount the dragon is amazing: ALL OF IT FOREVER the dragon looks SO GOOD
- How close I got to buying a battery-powered Monster Book of Monsters: real close
- Serious summary: it was lovely to do the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, especially to both parks, and our hotel let us in an hour early because it was on the property so we rushed to HP and did the rides and despite the crowds it was just excellent
- "Despicable Me" swag purchased between the two of us: 3
- Mugs: 2
- Shirt with giant minion eye on it for Andrew: 1
- Number of minion quotes we said on the trip: legit like 25 per day
- Amount we love the minions: like clearly wayyyyy too much because they're for kids, and stuff? Whatever
- Times "Theme from Jurassic Park" sung: at least 30
- High score Andrew got at the bowling alley at our hotel: 189
- My boy's wicked good at bowling
- Pina coladas tried for the first time: 1
- Guys holy crap these things are delicious where have I been
- Naps taken: 1 per day
- Friends made in line: 4
- Harry Potter people are super cute, everyone
- Like both were a mom and her daughter but oh my gosh soooo cute
- British people at the Wizarding World of Harry Potter: thousands
- Percentage of British people I assumed were just like, in character, or something?: 100%
- No really guys I didn't get that actually English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish people came to the park I thought they were all just being fun
- Creepiness of the music in the Dr. Seuss section: 95%
- Amount Andrew really didn't like the giant spiders on one of the Harry Potter rides: a lot
- Amount I did not know Andrew does not like spiders: a lot
- Dismay Andrew expressed when I mentioned potentially re-riding: a lot
- Times Andrew picked up a Dobby figurine in the hotel's store and put it right next to my face so when I turned around it was like DOBBYYYY:1
- Small heart attacks had: 1
- Huge jerk I am apparently going to marry: 1
- Tears shed in movie 7 with "Dobby is happy to be with friends": a billion
- Despite previous bullet point, amount I underestimated the creepiness of a Dobby figurine: 97%
- Rollercoasters ridden: 3
- Rollercoasters ridden in the front row: 2
- Rollercoasters not ridden in the front row but letting you play ZZ Top while you ride it if you want: 1
- Percent surprised I was at the proposal: 5-10%
- We planned out most of this stuff (I'm not a big fan of surprises!) but I didn't know at what exact point during the vacation it was going to happen
- Percent we're both really happy: like about a billion
- Percent effort I'ma need from you all to keep me from taking a picture with the ring and the wand I got because that's just a really really REALLY terrible idea: 110%
Thursday, July 17, 2014
The bar exam's wacky and dumb cast of characters
The MBE (also known as the "Multistate Bar Exam") is the multiple choice part of Pennsylvania and New Jersey's bar exams. It's a part of many other states' exams as well. It is three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon, with 100 questions for each session. It is the bane of my existence, partially because the same stupid people keep showing up in the fact patterns for each question. If you're taking the bar, you already know about a lot of these, but the explanations are for the benefit of those who are not currently in #barprephell. This is the test that will let you be an attorney and that is absurd.
Here's our WACKY CAST of SILLY CHARACTERS :D :D :D
1. The adverse possession guy
So there's this thing in real property law (think "land 'n stuff" when I say "real property") that says, essentially, "if you sit on a piece of land long enough, even if you don't own it, if the owner doesn't notice and formally try to kick you out, it's yours now." Adverse possession (or, for white folks, "colonies") takes a looooong time, like 10 to 20 years, and I guess the policy behind it is if you're too stupid to notice that some guy is grazing like a thousand cows all over your land, you don't deserve to own it? Idk. We have to sit there and then analyze if this total asshole who literally TOOK SOMEBODY ELSE'S STUFF now gets to keep it because Law. I waste time sitting there going "but it's not yours, you douchebag" which is a waste of time because apparently *~*~*aNyTHinG iS pOsSIbLe if you just ***belieeeve***~*~*
So in essence, there are a ton of people on the bar exam who just pull this move:
This land is your laaaand
Oh, whoops it's my laaaand
'Cuz I just sat here
For several decaaaades
2. The guy who owns a goddamn bear
Let me explain. There's this concept in torts that they inexplicably like to test on which basically says "if you own a goddamn wild animal, you are responsible for anything the WILD ANIMAL does because you put it in a house instead of the WILD, you PIECE of SHIT." There are two different ways this question shows up.
a. The guy who owns some wild animal but it's chill
The question will start off with some ridiculously implausible situation like "a man had owned a bear for many years. It was OLD, you guys. Like SO OLD. It had no teeth, and its claws were like little nubbins, and it would just sleep all day and it was just such a mellow bear, you guys. Like a bear rug but not yet." The question's narrator basically turns into a giant Hagrid impersonator talking about Aragog ('e's just a big softy, 'e is! I swearrit! Tot'ly misunderstood creatures, bears!) but you're supposed to determine that if the bear does something to hurt someone, even if it's just escaping and hanging out in the woods and a little girl sees it and gets scared you are STILL RESPONSIBLE because it's a GODDAMN BEAR. Only you can prevent strict liability by NOT OWNING A BEAR.
b. The guy who uses his own personal zoo to defend property
The concept here is a combination of that first rule, plus "you are not allowed to use deadly force to protect your property which includes setting Shark Week on intruders." No, seriously, this is on lots of practice MBEs and is almost guaranteed to be a question on my actual bar exam which is just...why. Why does this exist. I want to be a lawyer, not goddamn Siegfried and Roy. The two choice ones I've had recently are a guy who had a declawed bobcat (a fucking BOBCAT, YOU GUYS) on his property because people were cutting across it to get places. The question hinged on "bro if you operate a personal zoo you're responsible for When Animals Attack" but it was still about protecting property, but it was hard to focus because BOBCAT.
The second, even better one I had recently, involved a mall security guard who owned pet rattlesnakes, and because people kept breaking into the mall, he decided to bring his rattlesnakes to the mall to help defend it. I'm not kidding. My test for becoming a lawyer includes "Paul Blart: Mall Cop and his Plucky Team of DEADLY FUCKING RATTLESNAKES." No, sir, you can't bring your rattlesnakes to help protect the mall, and even if someone breaks in, you are liable to the person when your MALL COP RATTLESNAKE DOES THE SNAKE THING AND BITES THE INTRUDER. Did not think I had to write this one down for you but lesson learned, y'all
3. The criminals from the 1930s
I guess the MBE can't swear, or something, I'm not sure, but the slang these guys use is like, dad-joke level terrible plus a dash of Jay Gastby in their dialogue. These questions test a whole bunch of stuff, usually criminal procedure or hearsay evidence stuff, but it's just so painful to read. I'm not expecting The Wire quality conversations, but can we seriously not use the expression "somebody finked to the cops"? I'm gonna get this question wrong because 1. I don't know what the hell "finked" means 2. I am the whitest girl in history and even I know "snitches get stitches." Is that shit copyrighted or something? TRY HARDER, BAR EXAM.
Other things that have showed up on practice questions:
A gang called "The Dineros"
A criminal called "Condor"
"Bookies" (do we seriously have bookies anymore?)
Someone selling a stolen painting and calling it "fenced" goods
"Do it or the kid gets it!" THREE SEPARATE TIMES
"Shut up or I'll knock your block off"
An actor who shot another actor who said "You've stolen the part I've always wanted to play, now you will die for it!"
A guy saying to his wife "Dear, we really did know those TVs were hot, after all, we bought them for $10 each!"
STOP TRYING. DON'T TALK. JUST DON'T DO ANYTHING, BAR EXAM. I'M DISGUSTED.
"Hi Disgusted, I'm Bar Exam"
4. The guy who never records any paperwork pertaining to his property
This can also go for lenders, owners, literally anybody. There are certain rules for who owns rights to property, based on several things, but one of the big ones is "notice," meaning "this is written down somewhere that someone else owns this property so you can't buy it because it's not for sale." Depending on the jurisdiction/made-up law/drunk-ass set of circumstances, exactly what type of headache this is can change, but it is always a goddamn nightmare. However, based on the bar exam, roughly 90% of the deeds, mortgages, etc. out there are never written down or filed because there are jackasses who receive the paperwork to this ENORMOUS PURCHASE and are like "fuck it, I don't need to write that down anywhere important. Everything will be fine." NO IT WON'T, YOU ASSHOLE.
I have had questions where there are three separate claims on this property, and two of them forgot to record the fact that they spent like tens of thousands of dollars to acquire it because apparently they are Scrooge McDuck and just have swimming pools of gold coins because LOL what's money is that this paper with pictures on it someone else takes care of my problems for me. From now on, if you don't write your stuff down, I am throwing the deed in a Hunger Games-esque arena and y'all can fight for it: whoever lives wins the deed (or if two of you are cute and theoretically in love I guess you can both win idk THAT'S MAHOGANY)
5. The guy who leaves his property to his family like it's the Iron Throne
This is another fun part of real property law (can you tell I hate this subject most? because I dooooo) where you have to figure out what type of property rights a person in the future has. When you normally think of a will, or any other "leave my stuff to a person" deal, you probably think of something along the lines of "my kid gets my house, my sister gets my jewelry, and here's ten grand for a charity."
HOWEVER, if you are a person on the bar exam, LOLOL NOPE FARRRRR TOO SIMPLE. "I leave my property to my sons, and upon their death my grandsons, and upon their death the Baratheons, unless the Baratheons have been conceived in incest between Lannister siblings, and if so, then it goes to the Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good, unless all the kids can read, then let the kids dig up all the grass and throw it at each other until the Others take us all." FUCK YOU AND YOUR STUPID PROPERTY. You are dead and we are all running your dirt errands and seriously everyone hates you.
6. The guy who thinks anybody's gonna buy his bullshit story in court about what he meant to do
This one is probably my person favorite, just because it's got a great combination of Big Brother-mind reading and astounding incredulity were it to ever actually show up in court. As you may know, much of criminal law requires a person to have a certain intent (the "mental element") to commit a crime. Lots of statutes will say things like "knowingly," "recklessly," or "with the intent to." This is obviously important because "oh shit I didn't mean to do that" is actually a legit defense sometimes, but in order to test it, the questions have to be all up in the person's head and tell you what they thought. It is always and forever the highest octane bullshit that would get you laughed out of court if your defense attorney is dumb enough to bring it up, but for the bar exam? Absolutely crucial to getting points. Lawyer licensing, everybody!
My personal favorite is this one, which has shown up three times that I can think of offhand and probably more. Person A thinks Person B took their stuff and brought it home with them. Instead of a) asking them for it back b) filing a report with the police c) doing literally any other goddamn thing, this person decides "the best possible thing for me to do is to follow this person home to find out where they live, wait until The Cover of Night, and break the fuck into their house to get my coat/laptop/who cares you broke into someone's HOUSE."
But Wait, There's More!
This person then realizes "oh shit, that's not my coat/laptop/whatever," it actually belongs to that other person, and then Person A decides LIKE A SOME KIND OF SOCIOPATH to just KEEP THE STUFF. Yep, they realize this is not their belonging, but they decide to hang on to it anyway. The question then goes "so, Future Lawyer, what crimes can they be charged with?" and you have to answer "well not burglary because that requires breaking in with the intent to steal and they thought the coat was theirs ahahahaaa what is this what is my life" and pretend like someone would legit show up in court and say "no but seriously I thought it was mine and the best option was to pull a home invasion but then the coat was just super cute so I kept it."
This list doesn't include the less frequent offenders, such as "Dude with a Bow and Arrow," "Mobster who Didn't Mean to Kill Anyone Just Meant to Shake 'Im Up a Little," and my personal favorite, "Important Witness Who Dies After Saying Something Crucial to the Case Outside of Any Court Proceedings." Two weeks, guys. Two weeks.
Here's our WACKY CAST of SILLY CHARACTERS :D :D :D
1. The adverse possession guy
So there's this thing in real property law (think "land 'n stuff" when I say "real property") that says, essentially, "if you sit on a piece of land long enough, even if you don't own it, if the owner doesn't notice and formally try to kick you out, it's yours now." Adverse possession (or, for white folks, "colonies") takes a looooong time, like 10 to 20 years, and I guess the policy behind it is if you're too stupid to notice that some guy is grazing like a thousand cows all over your land, you don't deserve to own it? Idk. We have to sit there and then analyze if this total asshole who literally TOOK SOMEBODY ELSE'S STUFF now gets to keep it because Law. I waste time sitting there going "but it's not yours, you douchebag" which is a waste of time because apparently *~*~*aNyTHinG iS pOsSIbLe if you just ***belieeeve***~*~*
So in essence, there are a ton of people on the bar exam who just pull this move:
This land is your laaaand
Oh, whoops it's my laaaand
'Cuz I just sat here
For several decaaaades
2. The guy who owns a goddamn bear
Let me explain. There's this concept in torts that they inexplicably like to test on which basically says "if you own a goddamn wild animal, you are responsible for anything the WILD ANIMAL does because you put it in a house instead of the WILD, you PIECE of SHIT." There are two different ways this question shows up.
a. The guy who owns some wild animal but it's chill
The question will start off with some ridiculously implausible situation like "a man had owned a bear for many years. It was OLD, you guys. Like SO OLD. It had no teeth, and its claws were like little nubbins, and it would just sleep all day and it was just such a mellow bear, you guys. Like a bear rug but not yet." The question's narrator basically turns into a giant Hagrid impersonator talking about Aragog ('e's just a big softy, 'e is! I swearrit! Tot'ly misunderstood creatures, bears!) but you're supposed to determine that if the bear does something to hurt someone, even if it's just escaping and hanging out in the woods and a little girl sees it and gets scared you are STILL RESPONSIBLE because it's a GODDAMN BEAR. Only you can prevent strict liability by NOT OWNING A BEAR.
b. The guy who uses his own personal zoo to defend property
The concept here is a combination of that first rule, plus "you are not allowed to use deadly force to protect your property which includes setting Shark Week on intruders." No, seriously, this is on lots of practice MBEs and is almost guaranteed to be a question on my actual bar exam which is just...why. Why does this exist. I want to be a lawyer, not goddamn Siegfried and Roy. The two choice ones I've had recently are a guy who had a declawed bobcat (a fucking BOBCAT, YOU GUYS) on his property because people were cutting across it to get places. The question hinged on "bro if you operate a personal zoo you're responsible for When Animals Attack" but it was still about protecting property, but it was hard to focus because BOBCAT.
The second, even better one I had recently, involved a mall security guard who owned pet rattlesnakes, and because people kept breaking into the mall, he decided to bring his rattlesnakes to the mall to help defend it. I'm not kidding. My test for becoming a lawyer includes "Paul Blart: Mall Cop and his Plucky Team of DEADLY FUCKING RATTLESNAKES." No, sir, you can't bring your rattlesnakes to help protect the mall, and even if someone breaks in, you are liable to the person when your MALL COP RATTLESNAKE DOES THE SNAKE THING AND BITES THE INTRUDER. Did not think I had to write this one down for you but lesson learned, y'all
3. The criminals from the 1930s
I guess the MBE can't swear, or something, I'm not sure, but the slang these guys use is like, dad-joke level terrible plus a dash of Jay Gastby in their dialogue. These questions test a whole bunch of stuff, usually criminal procedure or hearsay evidence stuff, but it's just so painful to read. I'm not expecting The Wire quality conversations, but can we seriously not use the expression "somebody finked to the cops"? I'm gonna get this question wrong because 1. I don't know what the hell "finked" means 2. I am the whitest girl in history and even I know "snitches get stitches." Is that shit copyrighted or something? TRY HARDER, BAR EXAM.
Other things that have showed up on practice questions:
A gang called "The Dineros"
A criminal called "Condor"
"Bookies" (do we seriously have bookies anymore?)
Someone selling a stolen painting and calling it "fenced" goods
"Do it or the kid gets it!" THREE SEPARATE TIMES
"Shut up or I'll knock your block off"
An actor who shot another actor who said "You've stolen the part I've always wanted to play, now you will die for it!"
A guy saying to his wife "Dear, we really did know those TVs were hot, after all, we bought them for $10 each!"
STOP TRYING. DON'T TALK. JUST DON'T DO ANYTHING, BAR EXAM. I'M DISGUSTED.
"Hi Disgusted, I'm Bar Exam"
4. The guy who never records any paperwork pertaining to his property
This can also go for lenders, owners, literally anybody. There are certain rules for who owns rights to property, based on several things, but one of the big ones is "notice," meaning "this is written down somewhere that someone else owns this property so you can't buy it because it's not for sale." Depending on the jurisdiction/made-up law/drunk-ass set of circumstances, exactly what type of headache this is can change, but it is always a goddamn nightmare. However, based on the bar exam, roughly 90% of the deeds, mortgages, etc. out there are never written down or filed because there are jackasses who receive the paperwork to this ENORMOUS PURCHASE and are like "fuck it, I don't need to write that down anywhere important. Everything will be fine." NO IT WON'T, YOU ASSHOLE.
I have had questions where there are three separate claims on this property, and two of them forgot to record the fact that they spent like tens of thousands of dollars to acquire it because apparently they are Scrooge McDuck and just have swimming pools of gold coins because LOL what's money is that this paper with pictures on it someone else takes care of my problems for me. From now on, if you don't write your stuff down, I am throwing the deed in a Hunger Games-esque arena and y'all can fight for it: whoever lives wins the deed (or if two of you are cute and theoretically in love I guess you can both win idk THAT'S MAHOGANY)
5. The guy who leaves his property to his family like it's the Iron Throne
This is another fun part of real property law (can you tell I hate this subject most? because I dooooo) where you have to figure out what type of property rights a person in the future has. When you normally think of a will, or any other "leave my stuff to a person" deal, you probably think of something along the lines of "my kid gets my house, my sister gets my jewelry, and here's ten grand for a charity."
HOWEVER, if you are a person on the bar exam, LOLOL NOPE FARRRRR TOO SIMPLE. "I leave my property to my sons, and upon their death my grandsons, and upon their death the Baratheons, unless the Baratheons have been conceived in incest between Lannister siblings, and if so, then it goes to the Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good, unless all the kids can read, then let the kids dig up all the grass and throw it at each other until the Others take us all." FUCK YOU AND YOUR STUPID PROPERTY. You are dead and we are all running your dirt errands and seriously everyone hates you.
6. The guy who thinks anybody's gonna buy his bullshit story in court about what he meant to do
This one is probably my person favorite, just because it's got a great combination of Big Brother-mind reading and astounding incredulity were it to ever actually show up in court. As you may know, much of criminal law requires a person to have a certain intent (the "mental element") to commit a crime. Lots of statutes will say things like "knowingly," "recklessly," or "with the intent to." This is obviously important because "oh shit I didn't mean to do that" is actually a legit defense sometimes, but in order to test it, the questions have to be all up in the person's head and tell you what they thought. It is always and forever the highest octane bullshit that would get you laughed out of court if your defense attorney is dumb enough to bring it up, but for the bar exam? Absolutely crucial to getting points. Lawyer licensing, everybody!
My personal favorite is this one, which has shown up three times that I can think of offhand and probably more. Person A thinks Person B took their stuff and brought it home with them. Instead of a) asking them for it back b) filing a report with the police c) doing literally any other goddamn thing, this person decides "the best possible thing for me to do is to follow this person home to find out where they live, wait until The Cover of Night, and break the fuck into their house to get my coat/laptop/who cares you broke into someone's HOUSE."
But Wait, There's More!
This person then realizes "oh shit, that's not my coat/laptop/whatever," it actually belongs to that other person, and then Person A decides LIKE A SOME KIND OF SOCIOPATH to just KEEP THE STUFF. Yep, they realize this is not their belonging, but they decide to hang on to it anyway. The question then goes "so, Future Lawyer, what crimes can they be charged with?" and you have to answer "well not burglary because that requires breaking in with the intent to steal and they thought the coat was theirs ahahahaaa what is this what is my life" and pretend like someone would legit show up in court and say "no but seriously I thought it was mine and the best option was to pull a home invasion but then the coat was just super cute so I kept it."
This list doesn't include the less frequent offenders, such as "Dude with a Bow and Arrow," "Mobster who Didn't Mean to Kill Anyone Just Meant to Shake 'Im Up a Little," and my personal favorite, "Important Witness Who Dies After Saying Something Crucial to the Case Outside of Any Court Proceedings." Two weeks, guys. Two weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)