Oh my goodness, I have another unintelligible quote from class reading - Deferred Compensation this time:

"Contributions to an employees' trust made by an employer during a taxable year of the employer which ends with or within a taxable year of the trust for which the trust is not exempt from tax under section 501(a) shall be included in the gross income of the employee in accordance with section 83 (relating to property transferred in connection with performance of services), except that the value of the employee's interest in the trust shall be substituted for fair market value of the property for purposes of applying such section."

Yeah.  And this is the reading for the first day of this class.  What have I gotten myself into?  I don't even know what section 501 or section 83 are, and they weren't assigned, and we don't talk about them the first day.  This should be an interesting semester. 

I got called on the first day in my Tort class, and it was nightmarish.  Just ask Steven - he can attest.  It's like my voice stopped working, and I stopped talking before it sounded like I ought to.  Oh well.  Not sure what to do about that.  Just try to act inconspicuous, I guess. 

I think this moot court thing is going to help my public speaking abilities.  Either that, or it'll kill me.  I'm not sure which yet.

Here's wishing a great day to all!

1.  I love to scrapbook, but the only enjoyment I gain from my scrapbooks is when other people look through them.

2.  I am filled with a ridulous amount of joy when I peer into the cage of the cutest little rat faced creature I've ever seen and I do this on average 50 times per day.

3.  I love home-cooked meals but hate to cook.

4.  I visit Westlake Hardware Store for one purpose - to stock up on their red vine licorice - I swear it's the best I've ever tasted.  I have five bags of it right now.

5.  I go to the movies - first, for the nachoes, second, for the movie (third as a reason to eat the red vine licorice from Westlake I snuck in to the theater).

Unfortunately, I only know two people techology savvy enough to know what a xanga or web blog is, and they've both already made their lists.  I do love playing tag, though - I haven't played it in years.

Sorry Steven - I've no one to tag.  But thanks for tagging me!  It was fun.

Ah, the question of the day, once again from Civil Procedure:

" Is the outlawry, according to State law, of a claim created by the States a matter of "substantive rights" to be respected by a federal court when that court's jurisdiction is dependent on the fact that there is a State-created right, or is such statute of "a mere remedial character," which a federal court may disregard?"

Care of Mr. Justice Frankfurter of the Supreme Court in 1945. 

And the answer is.... who the *^%$@ knows?  And - is outlawry really a word? 

Ah, the joys of Civ Pro II.  I might throw a party once that final is over.

Crim Pro Excerpt:

"There is no doubt about the answer that proponents of question-first give to this question about the effectiveness of warnings given only after successful interrogation, and we think their answer is correct." 

What answer?  Huh? 

Anyway.  I hope that paragraph is not indicative of the direction my day is headed.  At least I didn't cause myself to look like a battered wife today (yesterday I smacked my cheek/eye into a drawer just before leaving home at 6:15 AM). 

FYI - I'll be out of town starting Thursday night, and I'll arrive back home on Tuesday.  Pam - dinner's Tuesday instead of Wednesday next week.  But I'll hopefully see you tonight for dinner this week. 

Have a great day, all. 

Steph

Civ Pro II:

"The specific purpose of the complete diversity rule explains both why we have not adopted Gibbs' expansive interpretive approach to this aspect of the jurisdictional statute and why Gibbs does not undermine the complete diversity rule.  In order for a federal court to invoke supplemental jurisdiction under Gibbs, it must first have original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the action.  Incomplete diversity destroys original jurisdiction with respect to all claims, so there is nothing to which supplemental jurisdiction can adhere."

Ugh.

How about:  "Rejecting that argument, the Court held, 'on the question of removal, we have not to consider more than whether there was a real intention to get a joint judgment, and whether there was a colorable ground for it...as the record stood when the removal was denied.  If there is a joint liability, he has an absolute right to enforce it, whatever the reason that makes him with to assert the right.  Hence, the fact that the company is rich and Barrett is poor does not affect the case.'" 

Uh, yeah, I see how they got to that...Not.

Crappy crappy day.  I can't wait till 3:30.