Contacting Firm as a OL (old) / Personal JX (new topic) Forum

[patrickd139]

I know what I am looking for now actually...After you read 10-11 cases on out-of-state defendant jurisdiction you pretty much memorize the central jurisdiction determination rule that they are all repeating over and over again.

Swing and a miss...
--ImageRemoved--



Edited for image.

[rando]

300 pages from several textbooks. I am not taking notes (very good memory), but am looking up terms, e.g. interlocutory, etc. and I have a twinkle of what many legal terms mean, as I have Associates Degree in Paralegal Studies - took Civ Pro, Legal Writing 1 and 2, Contracts 1 and 2, Torts, Evidence, etc. It is probab;y not the same level of rigor as a T30 law school (or so they say?!), but definitely a good base. Teachers at community college were all lawyers and they modelled their classes and exams after law school a lot. I actually ended up getting award for highest grade in several classes and overall 4.0 in my degree. It might mean that I will get 2.5 GPA in law school, but I will try my hardest, as usual, and we will see....

Fuuulaaaame

[APHill]

Great, well good luck to you too. If it does not work for a success for law school I really dont care as I eat that stuff up with or without ls.

[rando]

Great, well good luck to you too. If it does not work for a success for law school I really dont care as I eat that stuff up with or without ls.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this.

[AtticusFinch]

Is OP's tar a toilet or is that the law school he plans on attending?

[APHill]

Great, well good luck to you too. If it does not work for a success for law school I really dont care as I eat that stuff up with or without ls.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this.

Where am I going with this - well it has been told on this forum that I like to waste time. For somebody who graduated from a rigorous private college with 3.94 (full-time) while working 50 hours a week to pay tution - I guess I will take it that I like to waste time. I guess many of you have hobbies like golf, watching TV, whatever. Certainly none of these hobbies are a waste of time.

Well, my hobby is reading law textbooks, like my hobby used to be reading accounting textbooks. But I guess it is more of a time waste than watching Real Housewives or American Idol. Either way, it is what excites me and maybe it will help me succeed in school like it did before. If not - well in the end of the day it is an enjoyable hobby, so there are no regrets as hobbies generally are not supposed to help you make a ton of money.

[APHill]

Is OP's tar a toilet or is that the law school he plans on attending?

lol, that is actually toilet at the law school I plan on attending - they spent all the money on sabbatical payments so restrooms are disgusting. No, not UM, I am just joking.

[theskippa10]

You do know ol' redshirt was a terrible corps commander right? OK divisionally, but anything beyond that bad. Much like Burnside in that regard

[rando]

Great, well good luck to you too. If it does not work for a success for law school I really dont care as I eat that stuff up with or without ls.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this.

Where am I going with this - well it has been told on this forum that I like to waste time. For somebody who graduated from a rigorous private college with 3.94 (full-time) while working 50 hours a week to pay tution - I guess I will take it that I like to waste time. I guess many of you have hobbies like golf, watching TV, whatever. Certainly none of these hobbies are a waste of time.

Well, my hobby is reading law textbooks, like my hobby used to be reading accounting textbooks. But I guess it is more of a time waste than watching Real Housewives or American Idol. Either way, it is what excites me and maybe it will help me succeed in school like it did before. If not - well in the end of the day it is an enjoyable hobby, so there are no regrets as hobbies generally are not supposed to help you make a ton of money.

Your posts are just bizarre. I don't think you like to waste time, I just think you are confused and naive. For instance, you mentioned that your paralegal studies give you the necessary background to know what is going on. What? Who says that? Your posts are full of spelling mistakes. You actually have to mention that you went to a "rigorous" "private" "full-time" college. Uhh... Ok. Join the club. All of us.
And because I don't understand what you are talking about, my hobbies include watching American Idol and Real Housewives. I actually don't own a TV, but that is neither here nor there.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[APHill]

In paralegal studies you study federal rules of civil procedure. You do the same in law school. Certainly rigor in ls will be higher.
However, you deal with and are tested on the similar terms and rules. So for example (making sure you understand it is an example, you are not a part of this situation) if you taking intro to calc, and then calc 1 after that, calc 1 will probably be easier than if you did not take an intro class, right. I expect the same relationship to maintain with civ pro taken in college and civ pro taken in law school - the latter will probably be easier with a civ pro class already taken.

Is it clear enough or do you need a diagram? As for spell mistakes - i type fast and am not gonna proofread a silly ls board post, and if i did, i would be wasting time big time.

[bceagles182]

[APHill]

You do know ol' redshirt was a terrible corps commander right? OK divisionally, but anything beyond that bad. Much like Burnside in that regard

He was too impetuous and made many mistakes, particularly at Gettisburg, but he still remains one of the best generals on either side of the controversy.

[hannibalhamlin61]

I want to know which University has the slogan "rigorous, private, full-time college" ? I'm not sure it has properly prepared you for a "rigorous, private, full-time law school".

[APHill]

it is not a slogan, it is a description. where you saw me state it was a slogan, I am not sure. Full-time is a description of my attendance pattern while maintaining a 50 hour a week work schedule. Emphasis is on that I was able to successfully do both. If I do not spell it out, you guys do not get it, do you?

[webbylu87]

TLS is a cruel, cruel place. TLS is pretty much just like a group of middle school girls. Cut one another down whenever possible.

With that said, I would suggest the OP quit while he's ahead and stop defending himself as TLSers are relentless. If you legitimately like reading the books, then hey, more power to you. Whether or not it'll be worthwhile for you academically is debatable. It's not how I'd spend my free time and I don't see it being beneficial personally.

As far as contacting firms, my first inclination would be to say that contacting them to let them know you're interested in working for them in the future, like it has been said, would be fruitless. However, I don't believe contacting them for more information on their firm is a bad idea if you're legitimately interested. Just don't ask anything you can't find on their website or elsewhere. And don't expect them to remember you in the future. This is just one 0L's thoughts.

Also, don't feel like you need to defend yourself to a bunch of internet strangers. You are who you are and you like what you like. Everyone else can just suck it.

[APHill]

Fair enough- I wanted to close this thread a long time ago.

[weee]

My only issue is that you are contacting firms as an OL and not as a 0L

You are clearly Terry Tate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzToNo7A-94

[rando]

If you studied personal JX at all you'd know this statement:

I know what I am looking for now actually...After you read 10-11 cases on out-of-state defendant jurisdiction you pretty much memorize the central jurisdiction determination rule that they are all repeating over and over again.

was false. The Supreme Court hasn't even come up with an all-inclusive, completely coherent rule on personal JX. So, for the sake of my coming final, I am actually interested to know what the damn rule is for "out of state defendant jurisdiction."

Holy shiz i thought that statement was referring to subjet matter jur. shows how much you'd want me as your prof. grading exams. As for central jur. determination. That is just not anything we learned at my TTTT

[APHill]

I am talking about suing non-resident defendant.

General jurisdisction - defendant must have consistent and systematic contacts with the state. Action does not have to be based on defendant's contacts with the state.
Special jurisdiction - 1. defendant must purposefully avail himself of the forum 2. the action must be based on defendant's actions related to the forum 3. exercising jurisdiction over the defendant must be fair

False?

[theskippa10]

honestly, corps commanders i can think of off the top of my head better than hill

Longstreet Jackson, Hancock, Reynolds, Slocum, Sedwick, Bull Sumner, Warren, Thomas,

Hill had problems in Gettysburg, Wilderness, Spotsylvania, pretty much every major campaign after he became a corps commander. he was in over his head

[merichard87]

You guys are nucking futs and I would be honored to sit in a classroom next to any of you. HA! And to you Mr. "I like to read textbooks" guy. Read your freaking textbooks and stop responding to a bunch of future lawyers who will continue this all day. That is all.

[APHill]

I am talking about suing non-resident defendant.

General jurisdisction - defendant must have consistent and systematic contacts with the state. Action does not have to be based on defendant's contacts with the state.
Special jurisdiction - 1. defendant must purposefully avail himself of the forum 2. the action must be based on defendant's actions related to the forum 3. exercising jurisdiction over the defendant must be fair
False?

First, don't forget presence in the state, even if it is the first time. You are in the state, you get served, bam—Court has personal JX. (Small exceptions apply)
General: Mainly correct. Pretty easy.
Specific JX: There must be minimum contacts, the suit must arise from those contacts, and asserting the jurisdiction must be reasonable.
To meet minimum contacts, you must personally avail yourself of the forum in such a way that it would be foreseeable for you to be haled into that jurisdiction to defend suit. Two ways here you could determine if it was foreseeable, either through the stream of commerce doctrine (aware product is going to get to forum and injury results there), or a stream of commerce plus doctrine (stream of commerce elements, plus that you targeted the forum). The Stream of commerce plus is empirically the majority, but it's JX dependent.
Suit must arise from the contacts: Pretty easy stuff... but remember, can arise simply by function of law.
Reasonableness: Asking whether the exercise of JX is reasonable... Must weigh factors such as, the burden on the ∆, the interest of the forum state, the interest of ∏ in obtaining relief, the orderly and efficient resolution of controversies/administration of the law, and the shared substantive policies of the states in the nation.

thats what i am talking about

[rando]

I am talking about suing non-resident defendant.

General jurisdisction - defendant must have consistent and systematic contacts with the state. Action does not have to be based on defendant's contacts with the state.
Special jurisdiction - 1. defendant must purposefully avail himself of the forum 2. the action must be based on defendant's actions related to the forum 3. exercising jurisdiction over the defendant must be fair
False?

First, don't forget presence in the state, even if it is the first time. You are in the state, you get served, bam—Court has personal JX. (Small exceptions apply)
General: Mainly correct. Pretty easy.
Specific JX: There must be minimum contacts, the suit must arise from those contacts, and asserting the jurisdiction must be reasonable.
To meet minimum contacts, you must personally avail yourself of the forum in such a way that it would be foreseeable for you to be haled into that jurisdiction to defend suit. Two ways here you could determine if it was foreseeable, either through the stream of commerce doctrine (aware product is going to get to forum and injury results there), or a stream of commerce plus doctrine (stream of commerce elements, plus that you targeted the forum). The Stream of commerce plus is empirically the majority, but it's JX dependent.
Suit must arise from the contacts: Pretty easy stuff... but remember, can arise simply by function of law.
Reasonableness: Asking whether the exercise of JX is reasonable... Must weigh factors such as, the burden on the ∆, the interest of the forum state, the interest of ∏ in obtaining relief, the orderly and efficient resolution of controversies/administration of the law, and the shared substantive policies of the states in the nation.

thats what i am talking about

Obvi. hope you are taking notes.

[rando]

Obvi. hope you are taking notes.
God I hope he isn't. I covered that shit a month and half ago. That's probably only vaguely correct and without any of the real nuance.
And to APHILL.... If you think what you said and what I said are tautological, I've proved my point.

I didn't even read it. I was just hoping APHill would come back and say something about his photographic memory

[APHill]

By the way for the reasonableness you forgot purposeful interjection and alternative forum...There are seven, remember that. It was a good review though, thank you. What I meant was - there is International Shoe vs. WA and a couple of other cases and pretty much everyone is going back to those cases and citing them for new decisions, so after a while you get the gist of the Shoe pretty well.

Of course there are different school of thought, take stream of commerce minus which they adopted at Wisconsin, but you cant deny there are general jusridfiction guidelines, which would be what I would test on as a professor, since if there are no rules the question is exactly what you are learning in law school . Thinking like a lawyer, I know, but apart from that.