Closing Argument

As law school commencement draws nearer, I have found myself attempting to justify attending.  For what? We get our pieces of paper shipped to us.  For recognition?  I don’t want it nor do I really care for group recognition anyway; if everyone is getting recognized, my “accomplishment" cannot be THAT special.  By no means do I wish to devalue my classmates' sense of accomplishment; however, I am entitled to my feelings.  I knew I could do it and I did.  I’ve hardly made the world a better place, and I certainly have left with more questions than answers.  Honestly, this is just another ceremony during which I’ll end up playing Words With Friends (hit me up: mpindo3). 

However, when I think about what really matters to me, this IS an accomplishment.  This is an accomplishment for everyone.  Even if you may have only shared a kind word or offered encouragement, this is for you.  This is for my father, whose sacrifices have afforded me opportunities he never could have never imagined.  To a man born in public housing in a small farming town in Italy.  A man who had to leave his country to avoid the army, a man who had to live in a Boston basement with no electricity or hot water just to sniff "freedom," this is his accomplishment.  For my nana, the strongest woman I know, who had to raise my mother and my uncle (two of the most amazing people I know and love) by herself, this is her accomplishment.  For my mother, because I know my sharp tongue and quick wit doesn't come from the guy who gives us the punchline before he finishes the joke.  To my brother, who will certainly need a (copyright) lawyer sometime in the future, this is his accomplishment.  To my family and friends who have been with me every step of the way, this is your accomplishment.

This is not my accomplishment, for I could not have gotten through law school without all of you and your love, because that’s what’s really real.  If I never see another case book, court room, or even an episode of Law & Order again, it wouldn’t matter.  Because I have you guys.

As for me, I do not feel accomplished, nor do I wish to be celebrated as such. This is for y’all. This isn’t for me.  You will KNOW when I feel accomplished, because you will FEEL what I have done.  When it’s over, if the world is a better place because of me, then and only then, will I feel accomplished.  I love you all and I thank you from the bottom of my heart, for I know with you, I will continue to thrive as a friend, a brother, a son, a man, and, above all, a human being.  Because that’s what’s real.  I love you.

MP

Audible Adderall: "Requiem in D Minor"

Up your study game.  Mo money, Mo zart.
Put this on your mix during finals and increase productivity 600%.
You're welcome.

 P.S. This isn't your mom's music, she prefers that D Major.

Criminal Brocedure: Woman accused of orally raping man inside his house??

Arbroath:   Rebecca Helen Elder, 39, of Parkside, appeared in the District Court this morning.  She pleaded not guilty to one count of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, and one count of rape. Prosecution documents, filed with the court, allege both offences took place at a suburban location between September 20 and September 23 last year. At trial, prosecutors will allege Elder broke into a house while its male occupant - who cannot be named - was lawfully on the premises.  They will further allege she broke in with the intention of committing a further offence of rape.  Finally, prosecutors will allege Elder raped the man by performing an act of oral sex without his consent.


CARBROZO, C.J. (Majority Opinion, 9-0)
How is this even possible? BJs are like dog sniffs, they don't require consent. Just sit back and let it happen cuz you aren't getting your money back.  Oh, it was free... even better.  Case dismissed.

BRONNAN, J. (Concurring)
The majority reasoning dismisses blowies as not a forceable act.  I, too, believe that the case should be tossed; however, the majority is overlooking the possible interpretation of this decision by the public.  Guy on girl: bad; girl on guy: okay?  Is this the social agenda we want to promote.

brO'CONNOR, J. (Concurring, Dissenting with BRONNAN's concurrence)
I also agree with the majority outcome.  I would like to contest Bronnan's opinion.  I would LOVE this social agenda.  Please, any female reading this,  you are hereby encouraged to surprise men with beejs.  Also, by looking at the perp, we can determine as a matter of fact she is at least a 3, probably a 5 or 6 (see Chick Rating Scale, attached).  FRCB Rule 301(c)(1) (BJs, The After) suggests that a bro should not be ashamed of fellatio received from a female who is above a 3 on the aforementioned scale.  For that reason, and the majority's, this case should be dismissed and the party pressing charges should be submitted to tests for potentially contracting the gay.

Know Your Rights: The Fifth

CARBROZO, C.B. -- What we have here is a textbook case of drinking a fifth, then pleading the fifth.  While the Supreme Team doesn't endorse drinking and driving, we are fans of the Constitution.  When cops push the limit of implied authority, it is in the best interest of society for bros to push back in a respectful and, more importantly, constitutional manner.  That being said, this bro must have been on his way to a party because there is no way any reasonable bro acting in concord with FRCB is: a) coherent/conscious, and b) operating a motor vehicle after exercising his right to join a party.

Know Your Law: Assault and Battery

Assault. Assault. Assault...
Battery.

The Friend Zone: Frustration of Purpose?

"The Friend Zone" is the bane of any bro's potential Friends With Benefits ("FWB") contract.  Sometimes, trying to be too smooth and slow playing your hand has devastating results, as evidenced by "Friend Zone" relegation.  Brocedural experts have attempted to tackle the question resulting from the recurring debacle: "Does relegation to the 'Friend Zone' frustrate a Friends With Benefits contract, entitling the afflicted bro to termination, or does it form an entirely new 'Straight Best Friend' contract?"

Note 1: Just as rhyme and reason are discarded when dealing with females, the notions of offer and acceptance are extremely blurry and thus set aside for analysis (see "No Means Yes" Clause).

Note 2: Before untangling the issue at hand, we must note that a standard FWB contract is governed by MOB Article 2 ("To be governed by the MOB, all that is required is that one or both parties is DTF...")

When constructing a valid Friends With Benefits contract, it is important to evaluate each party's capacity for formation (see FRCB 69: "Grass On Field, Play Ball").  Secondly, it is vital to determine whether the desired party to contract is a “reasonably prude(nt) person”.  Finally and most importantly, it is necessary that the subjective intents of the parties are the same.  As Carbrozo eloquently puts it, a "meeting of the minds usually equals a meeting of the genitals".

Despite strikingly similar spellings, "friend zone" and "end zone" have entirely different meanings.  If you manage to end up in the latter, you have scored; while if you find yourself in the prior, you will probably never score.

Know Your Rights: Police Blotter

Fennelly "got his pump on at the gym", literally.

Full Story Here - Police said an Iowa City man was witnessed masturbating in the workout room at the Scanlon Gym earlier this month.  Nine days later, when Fennelly was taken into custody, police discovered a small plastic baggie containing marijuana in his sock.  Fennelly has been charged with indecent exposure, a serious misdemeanor; and possession of marijuana - second offense, a misdemeanor.

Carbrozo -- I love a party, but Donald Fennelly's liberal interpretation of gym brocedure and brocedural morals offends even the chillest reasonable person.  There is nothing necessary or proper about this dude's gym etiquette.  These actions are clearly a violation of FRCB 1 (Act Like You Been There Before).  Everyone's phone has a camera or take a mental snapshot, bro.  I don't care if your spank bank is full, if she's so insane that you can't wait to get home it's called a locker room.

Fennelly cited Prosser's editorial on the "Rock Out With your Cock Out" rights as a defense for his transgression.  However, after carefully reviewing the history of that doctrine, the Supreme Team has decided that those rights were established on behalf of bros "indulging in mead".  Gyms are clearly an improper venue for the actions taken by Fennelly, and thus he shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The brocedural lesson here is that the internet is free... pursue all the happiness you want with your door closed, curtains drawn, and your keyboard at a safe, but reachable distance.

Brotocol Overview: The Wingman

Remember, John Stockton went to the HOF for assists.

A bro is bound by FRCB Rule 8-D (Guiding of the Cock) to make a good faith effort to wing "if he himself has a girlfriend or a 'guaranteed party to intercourse' locked down" for the night.  Failure to comply with brocedure may result in sanctions with varying severity depending on: 1) the hotness of the chick lost, and 2) the chance she would have let your bro beat.  Sanctions may range from a shaken beer to the affected bro telling the selfish bro's girlfriend he was flirting and dancing with other chicks.  When weighing the severity of punishment, it is also important to consider the affected bro's game and whether or not she was in his league.  Further insight to what is proper adherence to brotocol is best demonstrated in the Restatements.

Restatement (2nd) §143: Good Faith and Fair Dealings While Winging

Fact: Chicks dig marine mammals.

Illustration A.
Bro w/ GF: Man, Dave is such an awesome dude. Did you hear what he's doing after he graduates?
Chick: No, what?
BwGF: He is combining his marine biology and sociology degrees to tutor retarded dolphins.

BwGF has made a good faith effort to get his bro laid.

Sometimes, being blunt is bad.

   Illustration B.
   Bro w/ GF: Hey, you should fuck Dave.
   Chick: What?!
   BwGF: Pardon me. Would you please fuck Dave?

   BwGF has not made a good faith effort, and in fact has
   made things    unnecessarily awkward.

   Comment c.  A good faith effort may not always be
   necessary.  A lack of interference is the controlling
   purpose of the statute (i.e. FRCB 8-D(3): Cockblocking).

Comment f.  Similar to proper notice of service, any attempt to wing a fellow bro must be "reasonably calculated to achieve success".

Special Thanks to Brocedural Advocates: D. Umbert and J. Adamsky.

Know Your Brocedure: Applying Theory

Unfortunately bro, it's not your complaint that's short and simple.

Carbrozo was confronted by a homeless person.
The panhandler told him, "I am homeless and haven't eaten in two days."

Dismissed.  Failure to state a claim.

A Bro Should Know: Eggshell Skull Rule

I told you not to make the FB invite public.

Conservative brocedural advocates have lobbied for years to limit or erase entirely the doctrine of the eggshell skull.  In case you don't know, it essentially makes it cool to be a Franny Fragile because it advocates that one should "take the plaintiff as you find them".

Carbrozo has gone on record multiple times reaffirming that a bro has a superseding duty at all times to not be a bitch.  "The Eggshell Skull rule is an abomination to all the Rules of Brocedure stand for.  When was it okay to be a bitch?  Did Bronnan put you up to this? A bro should be allowed to vindicate himself of all responsibility to another bro while operating in the normal limits of brocedure (see Sorry For Partying defense).  Some people just can't handle Vegas."

Brosner echoes Carbrozo's sentiment, yet clarifies the utility of the doctrine: "...[T]he Eggshell Skull rule was put in place to protect two beer queers and unsuspecting chicks from suffering unjustly from bro antics."  Yet Brosner digresses into an unforeseeable patriotic tirade, extremely critical of the English common law system we adopted.  "The purpose of the Eggshell Skull rule is to make Humpty Dumpty whole again.  The king couldn't do that... IN AMERICA WE CAN!"  America indeed.

No Fun November: Doctrine or Legal Fiction?

Every time I catch a glance of my Supreme Court Justice's swimsuit calendar, I am reminded that we are now fully entrenched in No Fun November.  We all know what everyone says, but the only thing that matters is the brocedural decision on whether No Fun November is enforceable doctrine or merely legal fiction.  Luckily for us, the Supreme Team granted this issue certiorari.

In re No Fun November
69 Bro. 2d 623 (2011)

CARBROZO, J.  The notion of No Fun November is an oft debated topic in law schools everywhere.  This national law school practice has been brought to our attention for deliberation and clarification.  We shall analyze the issue on its merits, while keeping in mind and attempting to conform with the fundamentals of Civil Brocedure.  The rule at issue would be FRCB 19: Failure to Join a Party.  Is is to be held that the requirements to join parties are to be waived during the month of November?  In this court's opinion, no.

    The indisputible facts are as follows:
          1) The month of November, the eleventh (11th) month of the year, directly precedes
          December, the twelfth (12th) and final month of the year.
          2) The month of December is home to the bane of a law student's existence, finals.
          3) Final exams are usually written analysis of hypothetical cases.
          4) Final exams require some knowledge of the subject and extensive preparation.

Unfortunately, you have to use all the letters in law exams.

     These exams fall outside the scope of the established FRCBs regarding test taking (i.e. Rule 88: Proper "Christmas Tree"-ing & Scantron Etiquette).  Furthermore, the brocedural staple regarding test taking (Rule 88 (b): The answer is C) is not applicable in the least to the issue at hand.  We must stress that actions of outlining and reviewing material are paramount to a law students success when undertaking the endeavor of a law school exam.

     Likewise, a bro is charged by privity of contract to perform to the best of their abilities in law school.  This relationship exists with the law school, whoever is footing the bill for law school, and with the student himself.  Not trying one's best is also in direct conflict with FRCB 283: Go Hard or Go Home.

     However, all bros have a higher duty to themselves and to the bromunnity at large.  It shall be noted that we all stress the importance of preparation and studying when addressing finals, but No Fun November is a drastic call for change in the habits of law school bros.  To strictly enforce such a doctrine would be to clip the wings of a bro's spirit.  In my opinion, undertaking in responsible amounts of raging would do wonders for a bro's morale and relaxation levels during what will be an surely stressful period of examinations.

You shouldn't be.

     Social ramifications of the waiving of the requirement to join parties would be grave.  If a bro were to abstain from normal brocedure for an entire month, the effects would be troubling for the economy and the community as a whole.  Neighborhood liquor stores would be overstocked with crappy beer, leaving no room on shelves for the craft beers with high profit margins.  Fast food and delivery chinese food services would lose a majority of their nocturnal sales.  Bar bouncers would have no one to kick out, making their nights less exciting and their work stories exponentially less interesting.  We can not let the community suffer because of a silly notion that there is no time for work and play.

     These events are not mutually exclusive.  I often will rely on non-legal sources as well for inspiration when considering extremely challenging issues.  The court's belief regarding the issue can be summarized most succinctly by the words of novelist and mentally/emotionally disturbed bro Stephen King's The Shining, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull b[ro]...".

----

BRONNAN, J., dissenting.  One should always put studying before partying.  Those events are clearly mutually exclusive.  You can't study whilst you rage, its physically impossible.  In wake of that fact, I must respectfully dissent with Carbrozo.

Brosner, on the decision: "It is evident that while most legal practice lends itself in support of the notion of strict observance of No Fun November, Carbrozo relies mostly on policy reasons and outside-the-box thinking when coming to a decision on the matter.  He comes to the conclusion that the benefits to society and the duties bros have to the brommunity at large outweigh the bitchmade tactics of staying in and studying seven nights a week.  Naturally, Bronnan felt the urge to insert his two sense and did so by arguing a strictly contrarian point with no real rhyme or reason to support his opinion."

William Prosser: Bro or Foe?

Prosser seems to enjoy outlining and rule extraction more than day drinking and corn hole. This dude is a serious square, but his ability to synthesize and simplify tort law makes him a valuable commodity to legal brofessionals and scholars. A master of analogies, Prosser never met a situation he couldn't boil down to A, B and C.

Prosser is on the record as stating: "If the authority exists to discharge a professor because he will not sign this oath on demand, then it exists to fire him because he will not sign an oath that he is not a Catholic, not a Mason, not a consumer of beer...there is no place to stop."  While his ability to identify parallels and draft analogous situations appears to be on point, his negative outlook on beer consumption affirms the notion that he is a total lame.

What does the brommunity at large think? Let me know.