From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Cal Penal Code 12401/Time constraints on law review types.
Followup-To: misc.legal
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:17:11 GMT

You know, I've gotten into some flame wars in my day, but when ataylor
and I are on the same side, you know something's wrong...

I've set followups to misc.legal.

(Summary for those on misc.legal: DC claims on talk.rape that one can
get around the laws prohibiting the use or carry of chemical irritants
by the use of WD-40, and then lying to police, and, if necessary, on
the witness stand.  Leaving aside the questionable efficacy of WD-40
for self-defense purposes, Andy Freeman pointed out that California
statutes that prohibit the use of tear gas are equally applicable to
WD-40.  DC (1) denied this and (2) flamed the layperson for not having
appropriate legal training.  DC never referred to the statute or any
case law in his "refutation," and somewhere along the way, the debate
got silly as both sides refused to cite to the statute (which later
posts clearly reveal that DC hasn't read). Two other people, including
myself, backed up Andy's interpretation, having found the statute
with little effort.  DC has taken it upon himself to claim that
his unnamed law school has taught him better than the University
of Chicago taught me, that I'm a poor excuse for a lawyer, and other
abusive and misspelled flames at myself and others.  I'm bringing
it to misc.legal to (1) get it out of talk.rape, where it clearly
no longer belongs, and (2) have a few other net.lawyers try to talk
some sense into this right-wing version of Ed Nilges.) 

(Oh, incidentally, the statutes in question, in case you don't want
to spend the extra two minutes in a Major Legal Database looking for
it, are California Penal Code $12401 et seq.)

In article <1992Aug28.123612.9748@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>YOU are the one who is wrong. Re-read it, and this time check out the
>annotations. (Didn't they teach you that in Legal Research and Writing?)

I've read the annotations, the corresponding case law.  There's not
a single case that supports your interpretation of this statute that
you haven't read.

>>>Use your brain first year! [racist stereotype of rap concert deleted]
>> 
>> [...](And I used my brain first year.  That's why I'm on law review.)
>
>OH! A law review person! One of those people who would rather stick to the
>ivory tower instead of sulgging it out where the action takes place--the
>courtroom. No wonder you can't apply a law, you are to busy debating how many
>supreme court justices can dance on a fundimental right.

You appear to have very little conception of how much law review helps
you get to where the action takes place.  I'm almost surely going to
be on a Federal Court of Appeals clerking two years from now, and my
membership on law review gives me, with a little luck, an outside shot 
at a Supreme Court clerkship and/or a spot in the Solicitor 
General's office.  I can't imagine a better place for the action.  
I also can breathe a little easier during job interviews.

>> Which leads me to believe that you haven't read the
>> statute, and, as with the issue of self-defense within the home, or the
>> applicability of Rule 401 to California state courts, you are making this
>> up as you go along.  (And you don't know how long it took me to find the
>> statute.  I said "under 15 minutes," so you have no way of knowing whether
>> you can find it in less time.)
>
>Sure it would find it. Go into Cal and do a COMPLETE search scanning all
>databases. (Only an idiot would search just the staute database when looking
>for a statute--Christ. Hardcopy is quicker than that!)

Eck, there's something for your .sig file -- "Only an idiot would search
just the statute database when looking for a statute."

>As for not being able to apply 401 to state courts as they have enacted it, IF

I don't particularly care about Rule 401.  It was obnoxious of you to tell
someone that they can't do a certain line of cross-examination because of
Rule 401 when (1) you're not in a federal court, and (2) by changing a
couple of questions the entire line of CX would be valid.  The only purpose
for naming the rule by number instead of by concept is to try to intimidate
someone (a sin which I am occasionally guilty of, admittedly, but at least
I get the number right.)

>...	a hot shit law review person like you should easily 
>tear it to shreads. I'm not even moot court. I'm not someone special like you.
>I'm just a working stiff from poor parents in the middle of my class.

Well, I'm just a working stiff from poor parents who gives a damn about
trying to do as well as I can in the classes that I'm taking to prepare
me for the career that'll occupy the rest of my life.  

Why do you find your mediocrity in your class something to brag about?

>I will not guarantee you'll achieve your goal, but I do guarantee one of us
>WILL be had for breakfast.

Such aggression, tsk, tsk.  (ObIrrelevancy: I'd lay 5-1 odds this guy was a
fratboy in undergrad.)

>> Given that there's only one California law (and that you can't tell
>> the difference between Ataylor and Andy Freeman) that's remotely applicable,
>> I find that hard to believe.  Why is it that you, who haven't read the
>> statute, are right and those of us who have read the statute and the
>> case law and the annotations, are wrong?
>
>Because you haven't read the annotations. You haven't read the case law.
>You might have some kind of staute--maybe.

Such mind-reading ability!  Why law for you, DC?  You should use the
mind-reading to go into the stock market or something.  You have no
clue what I've read.

>Unlike everyone else here, I know your resources and time constraints. You are
>engaging in debate which is costing you the one thing a law student, ESPECIALLY
>a Law Review hot shot, does not have--time. You jump onto the computer, and
>type out these messages. (tick-tick-tick) To have read the annotations and case
>law would have taken HOURS, and you could never be sure to have them all.

Sorry.  Took me fifteen minutes.  And I don't report to law review for
another couple of weeks.

>(tick-tick-tick-gone) If you had what you claim, you could end this very quickly
>by doing the same thing I have done in the past, posting the cites and saying
>"Kiss my ass, you are wrong!". 

I've yet to see you be right.  (Correction: next paragraph, see phrase
"arrogant jerk")

>Your 'assertions' might fool most people, but you and I face the same problems
>with work and school and finding employment and trying to socialize and not
>near enough sleep in a day that is not 24 hours long anymore. I know you are
>lying when you say you have read the case law already, because no one who knows
>about budgeting their time well enough to make it into second year would pump
>THAT much time into arguing with someone over a computer without at least the 
>satisfaction of proving an arrogant jerk (me) wrong.

Well, luckily, there's just very little case law on the subject, I'm good
at finding things quickly, and I read and type fast.  There are three,
maybe four cases.  And none of them support you.  It's a really broad
statute (ask Terry about the California law prohibiting gerbils sometime),
without room for exceptions -- in fact, the exceptions are very clearly
spelled out in 12403.7.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood