![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elwen#490127:
You have bizarre dreams about the Supreme Court devising some crazy standard about asylum and sanity, where admitting (?) [something] more than 70% is a yes, less than 10% is a no, and in between is a fuzzy grey standard. Also, Scalia is involved in some way. And you can't really remember any more than that when you wake up, even though it made a whole lot of sense in your dream, and even once you realize it's a dream, it leaves you feeling unsettled and as if you're forgetting something really important for the rest of the day.
#85720:
To avoid outlining, you check Facebook, see that one of your friends has joined the "You Might Be In Law School If..." group, start reading the description, get to the item "You know and understand the complicated epistemological and metaphysical differences between a conspirator and an accomplice." and suddenly realize that you don't know the difference between a conspirator and an accomplice anymore! (Though it immediately makes you think of the not-very-helpful definition of coconspirator you put down in your Evidence outline just hours ago.) And then you feel the urge to look up the answer, so you don't have to go back to dealing with hearsay rules.
But I guess the hearsay rules are calling to me after all... *sigh*
You have bizarre dreams about the Supreme Court devising some crazy standard about asylum and sanity, where admitting (?) [something] more than 70% is a yes, less than 10% is a no, and in between is a fuzzy grey standard. Also, Scalia is involved in some way. And you can't really remember any more than that when you wake up, even though it made a whole lot of sense in your dream, and even once you realize it's a dream, it leaves you feeling unsettled and as if you're forgetting something really important for the rest of the day.
#85720:
To avoid outlining, you check Facebook, see that one of your friends has joined the "You Might Be In Law School If..." group, start reading the description, get to the item "You know and understand the complicated epistemological and metaphysical differences between a conspirator and an accomplice." and suddenly realize that you don't know the difference between a conspirator and an accomplice anymore! (Though it immediately makes you think of the not-very-helpful definition of coconspirator you put down in your Evidence outline just hours ago.) And then you feel the urge to look up the answer, so you don't have to go back to dealing with hearsay rules.
But I guess the hearsay rules are calling to me after all... *sigh*
no subject
Date: 2008-04-29 11:28 am (UTC)