Saturday, July 29, 2006

My background in the sciences is really paying off

I will spare you the details of why I'm looking forward to the end of the summer, but I should acknowledge that I'm not totally wasting my time or anything. I'm learning a lot, including how to sneak things like this into motions I'm writing.

(Background: The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to make a good-faith effort to negotiate any discovery conflicts before moving the court for either a protective order or an order to compel discovery. In this particular case we had been served with requests for production, and had responded that the documentation was not within our possession, custody, or control, but that we would supply it as soon as it became available from the appropriate party. Without bothering to call us for an explanation, the opposing party moved to compel. This is part of my response.)

Moreover, the Motion should be denied because Plaintiff is not required to produce documents which are outside its possession, custody, or control. See Oh. R. Civ. P. 34(A) ("Any party may serve . . . a request to produce . . . documents . . . that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request is served."). Plaintiff is also unable to produce said documents because in addition to being bound by the laws of the State of Ohio, Plaintiff is further bound by the law of conservation of matter, and cannot conjure documents out of nothingness. See Wikipedia, Law of conservation of matter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_conservation_of_matter (last visited July 28, 2006). In deference to the laws of nature, Plaintiff will provide the documentation as soon as it is physically able to do so.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Countdown

Typically I'm not one for countdowns, as I think when you focus on getting through to a particular point in time you often do so to the exclusion of other important things--after all, we only have something like 25,000 days on this mortal coil, right?

But . . .

We're looking at 17 days, max, left at this job. So there's that.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Fun with footnotes

Alright, maybe I'll blog a little more. But before long you may find me on a new blog or two, with a few extra people to lighten the load and provide you with the brilliant commentary you love so dearly.

I'm brushing up my law review paper before it goes to through the publication process, and this may be one of my last chances to add any footnotes. I am proposing adding the following, but am open to suggestions:

Well-established canons of jurisprudence—such as the Ashwander Rules [178]—require courts to avoid deciding constitutional issues when a case can be disposed of on non-constitutional grounds. [179]

[178]. . . . .

[179]. Commentators often refer to this refusal to decide constitutional questions as a "punt," meaning that the Court shirked its duties by taking what is perceived as the easy way out. See, e.g, Linda S. Mullenix, Another Easy Case, Some More Bad Law: Carnival Cruise Lines and Contractual Personal Jurisdiction, 27 Tex. Int'l L.J. 323, 339 n.91 (1992). The author objects to the use of the term "punt" as a pejorative. In football, the punt is an important tool for improving field position and preventing the opponent from scoring. Henceforth, the author proposes to use the term "icing." In hockey, icing occurs when a team clears the puck from its defensive end across three lines, including the opposing goal line. Play is stopped, and the puck is returned to the end from which it came for a face-off in front of the goal. See NHL Rulebook 123-24 (2005-06 ed.), available at http://www.nhlofficials.com/images/Rules085-176.pdf (last visited July 19, 2006). This situation is much more like a court taking the easy way out than a punt in that it only delays the inevitable—before long, the puck/issue is back in front of the goal/court for another face-off/trial.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

By the way

Thinking about not blogging anymore. (And no, this is not any sort of plea for attention.) I mean, Tre has already flown the coop, if you hadn't noticed. I'm sort of just hanging around here for no good reason. Seems something of a shame to disappoint our loyal reader though.

Step 1: recognizing that you have a problem

It is official. Despite my protestations and insistence to the contrary, I am addicted to coffee. I have been awake for six hours, and yet I cannot clear the cobwebs from my brain because I haven't had my morning joe. This is a problem.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

More news from The City

A friend writes:
So, this happy little incident occurred at the subway station where I catch the train pretty much every day, not two blocks from my apartment. Although it's hard to pick out my favorite part, I think I have to go with the fact that the suspect was "possibly carrying a teddy bear." Have you ever read a more surreal sentence? Did the teddy bear tell him to do it, laughing maniacally like Chucky? How was he even carrying it if he was "wielding a saw in each hand?" Just a little taste of NYC.
I am speechless. I am without speech.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

On the World Cup

An email:

France 1-0 Portugal! It's too bad Germany lost or we could stage the Final as a WWII reenactment -- Germany could jump out to like a 4-0 lead in the first half and the French would give up like the cheese-eating surrender monkeys we all know and love. Then the American team would volunteer to play the second half, whoop some serious flarkin ass, win 5-4, beat japan for good measure, and go on to be the world's only soccer power. Then, 50 years later, we would get sniped by a group of rogue soccer players from no discernable nation, we'd elect an Idiot coach, perhaps Bill Parcells, and would engage the rogue soccer players in games that didn't resemble the soccer of yesteryear at all. The French would refuse to help, yet would claim that they won the '06 Cup outright, and we'd still make fun of them.

And the reply:
Well done. But your forget that in the meantime we would have an intense soccer rivalry with Russia where we would refuse to ever play them while designing increasingly sophisticated cleats, balls, and shinguards which we would spend half of our GDP on. The American squad would come in as a sub for the French squad who themselves were subbing for a Vietnamese squard in a match against another bunch of Vietnamese who were using a Russian playbook. That would be a scoreless game. After a few more years of refusing to play the Russians, during which time an Afghanistan soccer team using surplus US jerseys beat a farm-league team from Russia in a pick-up game. In the end we would declare ourselves the winners of the Russia US soccer rivalry. At that point we would all agree that perhaps we have too many soccer balls and make Russia decommission theirs while trying to keep north Korea from developing goal-scoring technologies.