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.

Behind the Bro: Justice Bronnan

Known for his outspoken brogressive views, Justice Bronnan is the dude who snaked into your circle of friends, but no one really remembers how or why he is there.  While maintaining a steady stream of dissents, Bronnan does not manage to contribute solutions to most problems, but merely directs attention to them.

Who invited this guy?

Bronnan has a knack for habitually stating the obvious and contrary position for reasons unbeknownst to the brommunity at large.  Carbrozo has been known to tool on Bronnan both on and off the record.

Rule 2: Bros Before Hoes?

For the visual learners.

The FRCB states: "One bro shall guide the cock of another bro, unless they are sworn enemies. Blocking of the cock is a punishable offense regulated by sanctions (see General Sanctions)... [A] bro who has had had his cock blocked may hold this over the offending bro's head for a period of no greater than one year or until the next time the broffender plays wingman and gets the assist."

However, if one reads the supplement to the rules (Prosser on Brocedure), the rule "bros before hoes" actually was written after the drafter had gotten his d wet. So in actuality bros before hoes only applies to bros who like bros (its okay if your into that sort of thing) and dudes who have already smashed that day.  Without reading the reason behind the rules, you miss these sorts of things.

Behind the Bro: Richard Brosner

Richard Brosner is a name you should know.  This dude practically wrote the Federal Rules of Civil Brocedure and the Restatements that preceded them singlehandedly.  He cites Justice Carbrozo and William Prosser as his two biggest influences.  Undeniably important, Brosner offers a conservative and elemental approach to Brocedure, and is regarded as a leading authority on the subject.  His most influential work, Brosner on Brocedure offers what he describes as "a pragmatic, yet practical apbroach to the dense and often tricky rules" associated with bro-dom.

Legend has it: Brosner uses his un-ironic brostache to detect shifts in doctrinal reasoning, as well as for balance while performing one-armed keg stands.

Limitations on Sanctions

Note the excessive force.

I was going over some standard brotocol earlier today and I was confronted with the issue of appropriate sanctions.  While doing some research, I found an interesting excerpt from Brosner on Brocedure regarding the common bro sanction formally known as the "sack tap" (or nut check, sorry for the legalese):

"A) Ethics and Effectiveness: While the ethics of the sack tap are a hot button issue among Brocedure scholars, it is undoubtedly one of the more effective methods in deterring undesirable behavior.  With that being said, the sack tap, by its nature, is a potentially dangerous maneuver and if not done properly could result in permanent damage and/or your fellow bro.

B) Appropriateness of Action: When performing a sack tap, said sacktapper must 1) not use excessive force and, 2) receive an unimpeded path to the sack.  The general rule of Two for Flinching applies. Note that no retaliation is allowed for, unless excessive force or gayness is present while sanctioning."

This Just In: Brofficial Statement From High Council

Snitches may get stitches, but you are probably going to hell.

From the Fratican--It has come to our attention that the action swirling around Penn State debacle has come to a head within the last 24 hours, capped by the firing of Joe Paterno's walking skeleton.  The High Court would like to issue a public statement condemning whatever went on over there.  Besides obvious clashes with Brocedure, the High Court believes that the actions of all involved are in direct violation with human ethics (a far lower standard than those of Bros).

That is not the point of this decree (we excuse the High Court for their propensity to get off topic).  The brofficial word from the Fratican is that the phrase "Bro Paterno" now is no longer an acceptable form of salutation in the bro community.  It should be viewed as a term implying disrespect towards the bro addressed. 

However, it should be noted that "no Sandusky" has been added to the list of acceptable, while sometimes in bad taste, synonyms available for use under the "Pause" Doctrine.

Rule 62: Sack Up Dude... It's Over

She left you dude... it's over. Mind if I hit?

Brosner on Brocedure notes that "an allocation of time for grieving will be made depending on various factors (hotness, time dated...), however any bro willfully extending his time of wallowing and self pity will be subject to incremental sanctions". Fed. R. Civ. Bro. 1st. Initially, said bro is called a bitch.  If bro continues with bitchmade actions, bros stop chilling with bro in question for debbie downer reasons (see Johnny Raincloud Rule).  "A bro may be allowed to write break up poetry under no normal circumstances".   It should be noted that exclusions to previous rule are limited by those explicit in this document - 1) drunkeness and 2) whether or not you get paid to do it (See Drake Paradox).

Carbrozo Affirms.

The Honorable Justice Carbrozo

Carbrozo simply sees the world differently from behind his tinted bro shades.  Most of his opinions were made with a half-buzz on with proximate cause being crushing 'stones every time a counsel uses the word "duty".