You are viewing studentwannabe

Mad today


I am so mad at an illness. Is it even possible to be mad at something inanimate? Something that emotion cannot change? Well, I am.

This illness stole into Harbour's life like a thief - robbing her of who she was, robbing her of the ability to see how much she was loved and what a great contribution she was making to the world at large. I am mad because she did everything right - she got help, she talked about her problems, she took her medication. And yet, everything she did didn't work.

There are no regrets in her situation - she has a wonderful, loving husband who has always been there for her. She has a loving family who would do anything for her and loved her wholeheartedly even if they were not geographically proximate. She has so many loving friends who were there for her whenever she needed them.

I am so mad that I do not get to see her again, that she does not get to visit the kids and Leo again. I am mad that more people will not get to know her and feel her contagious energy.

And I am so, so sad that her husband has to deal with her loss - he does not deserve this amount of grief, to be so utterly abandoned, to have his future so impossibly changed. Obviously there is nothing that can be done to change the situation, but I am still left with the cliched question of "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

I miss you Harbour and I hope that your pain has been alleviated and you are at peace.

Idiot attorney


So, I'm trying to take some positive out of the loss suffered by my poor pro bono client yesterday. The best thing I can come up with is the ole "at least I'm not as dumb as the other attorney" argument. My best example so far:

The opposing party calls me today and leaves a message saying "I want you to help me see my kids." I call his attorney and say "tell your client he can't call me - he's represented by you and its an ethical violation for me to talk with him without a written waiver from you." The attorney says: "Can you call and tell him that?"

a fine piece of evidence


From the transcript:

[Q]: You said that your wife recently had her IUD removed?
[A]: Yes
[Q]: Well, do you have any proof of that?
[A]: Yes
[Q]: What proof do you have that the IUD was removed?
[A]: I don't have it now, but I gave it to my lawyer. I think my lawyer should have submitted it.
[Q]: What proof did you have that your wife's IUD was removed?
[A]: IUD was sent out here.
[Q]: So you have the actual IUD?
[A]: Yes
[JUDGE]: I don't think I'd want to see that.

So a guy that I met three years ago and who pretty much professed his love for me although I was engaged and told him I was uninterested (which would have been true no matter if I were single!) keeps popping up. Its almost like clockwork actually - every 6 months he reappears. In the latest installment, he responded to my email sent back in February? March? that said I was uncomfortable talking to him and did not want to do so any more and said, "Are you seriously not going to talk to me any more?" Of course, this is now almost 6 months later.

I don't suppose I'd be so disturbed if 1) we were friends before he made his verbal misstep or 2) I had not said already that I was uncomfortable. However, for a guy who I knew for really all of a couple of weeks to profess his love and then expect me to be best buds with him down the line, its all a little weird.

Beaurocrats


So, in order for me to get hired permanently, I have to pass a background check - no problem, I'm about as vanilla as they come. I thought they would perhaps get hung up on my pechance for Eastern European travel or my non-citizen husband. But no, they got hung up on the 3 weeks that I spent in Maine working for a camp for spoiled brats from NYC. Obviously, I listed the employment because god knows that the retired FBI agents who do the "investigations" wouldn't have otherwise found out about it. They got hung up, however, on me not saying that I departed under "unfavorable circumstances." Fine, it was a "mutual agreement" that I leave, but the circumstances aren't really important - they used mushy language on their form, there is an argument to be made that "mutual agreement" is not the same as "unfavorable circumstances," but whatever. First, this was 9 years ago; second, who really cares since its so minor! Anyway, they wanted me to sign a letter admitting to a "lack of candor" in order to resolve the mess. I ended up signing on advice of my boss (who assured me that the privacy act would keep it from being disclosed even in the case of me being nominated to some high muckety muck position confirmed by Congress) because the office wouldn't negotiate the language. I find it ridiculous that I had to sign a letter that was at least partially false in order to keep my job, but whatever ... stupid #@&^*! beaurocrats!

Nothing is ever easy ...


So, looks like the house will close as planned despite Heybrock's best efforts (you better believe that Remax will hear about how she was so difficult as soon as closing is done, I just wish that there was some association I could complain to as well!). Our new place in Arlington is ready June 1, which is 6 weeks too early, but I can't take having to find a place any more and this one works well in so many ways. It does mean that I have to find someone to room with me this summer as well as someone else to take over my old lease in Alexandria ... roommates are a bit upset, but I'm doing the best I can here! Also, true to form, we won't be able to save any money over the next month as planned to allow Sam to buy a laptop and whatever else he needs for school. That being said, at least somethings are settled and I'm eligible for a raise in 2 weeks, so maybe my team leader will get on the ball and turn the paperwork in on time. Stress, stress, stress. Just wish I could laze about the house with Sam and the four legged kids!

Who says the housing market is bad?


So, house goes on the market on Monday (April 23). We have 4 sets of people come through in 2 days. The first couple to view, gave us an offer two days later and we signed the paperwork on Sunday the 29th. The real estate agent, Mary Heybrock, is a terrible agent and almost screwed the deal, but it seems to be working out in the end despite her efforts.

The only problem in all of this is that the buyers want to close on May 31 (!) so poor Sam has to live with my parents for 6 weeks. I guess I should find somewhere up here for us to live too :P

Nov. 1st, 2006


So, yesterday I walk over to one of the assistants in my section to ask her to pull a file that a different attorney had asked me to get. She is on the phone, obviously a personal call, and stays facing the back of her cube (i.e. away from me) for the entire time I'm standing there. I, of course, am thinking about how rude she is for a) talking on a personal call when one of her bosses (technically) is standing right there and b) for not turning around and either putting up a finger to say "just a minute" or for stopping her call just to say "I'll be with you in a minute." She pretty much is just completely ignoring me.

Yesterday, I was just marveling at how rude she was. Today, I'm pissed. Here's why:

To:
From:
Sent: 11/1/06 10:03 a.m.

Becca, yesterday I was on a phone call and you stood just outside my cube for more than 6 minutes while I spoke with my son on the phone. You stood there all that time listening to my conversation, which was discourteous and impolite, regardless of the nature of the call or conversation.

In the future, when you need me for something and I'm on the phone, please refrain from standing by my cube listening to my conversation. You can probably hear when I'm off the phone from your office, and if not, I'll come see you when the phone call is over. I'm sure that whatever it is you want (like asking me to locate a file for you, which is what you wanted yesterday) can wait until I'm off the phone.

Thanks for your consideration.


Am I way off base here? Where does she get off sending an email to me and copying her "real" boss (one of the attorneys she works directly for)?

I probably shouldn't have responded, but I couldn't help myself. I just asked for her consideration in return ...

Another legal gem ...


State v. Fly (1998 NC Supreme Court case):

We have already concluded that the phrase "private parts" includes the external organs of sex and excretion. On the facts of this case, it is unnecessary for us to determine what, if any, other parts of the female or male anatomy may be included within the phrase "private parts," as used in N.C.G.S. § 14-190.9, in light of the legislature's expressed preference for an "expansive" interpretation. However, given the posture of this case, we think it wise to note our agreement with the conclusion of the majority below that buttocks are not private parts within the meaning of the statute. To hold that buttocks are private parts would make criminals of all North Carolinians who appear in public wearing "thong" or "g-string" bikinis or other such skimpy attire during our torrid summer months. Our beaches, lakes, and resort areas are often teeming with such scantily clad vacationers. We simply do not believe that our legislature sought to discourage a practice so commonly engaged in by so many of our people when it enacted N.C.G.S. § 14-190.9. To make such attire criminal by an overly expansive reading of the term "private parts" was not, we are convinced, the intent of our legislature. The difference, however, between defendant's conduct and someone wearing a bikini is that the former is a clear-cut violation of recognized boundaries of decency, which the statute was intended to address, whereas the latter is a matter of taste, which we do not believe our legislators intended to make criminal.

Another legal gem


McKILLOP v. ONSLOW COUNTY (2000 NC case):


On September 24, 1998 ... a detective with the Onslow County Sheriff's Department [Officer John], entered a business identified on an interior door as Amy's Playhouse.... Upon entering ... he was greeted by a female who introduced herself as "Amy". Officer John recognized the female to be [plaintiff]....
5. ... [Plaintiff] completely removed her bra.... She [further] demonstrated some of the tip enhancements by "talking dirty", and touching her bare breasts and sliding her hand inside her panties and massaging her vaginal area....
*57 6. ... She began rubbing her body against [Officer John] and ran her hands along his torso, arms, thighs and then started rubbing his genital area....
7. During the session, [plaintiff] exhibited a "Specified Anatomical Area" as defined under the Ordinance ..., namely her bare breasts.
8. On September 25, 1998, [Officer] John returned to Amy's Playhouse....

I'm sure he did!!

Latest Month

March 2011
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Teresa Jones