|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Coast Guard Discussions Coast Guard Auxiliary I GOT INTO LAW SCHOOL!!! first step to becomeing a JAG|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
Hi all,
Just wanted to share that I got a provisional acceptence to law school. My goal is to practice military law, and this is the first step. Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, it's time to rush around and figger out how I'm going to payfor all this as my summer program starts June 1st. What opertunities will the Auxiliary hold for me after I graduate? I've already talked to the active duty side an there is a place for me there (as a civilan JAG) or, who knows if the rules will change by the time I graduate (There are already a blind Army CAPT, and SSGT on active duty,, but what does the Auxiliary offer? Will there be a chance to put my professional skills to work there as well? Semper Paratus, and be a Guardian AUX Dittman |
||
|
|
Member |
Congratulations! Now stand by for the Lawyer Jokes.
 |
|||
|
We have met the enemy and he is us. Pogo |
First congrats, I know what this means to you.
Second, when you say "professional skills" in relation to the Aux do you mean a paid position or volunteer? The Aux lawyers are the DC-L (Department Chief-Legal) at National and the DSO-LP (District Staff Officer- Legal/Parlimentarian) at District. All of them are volunteer. There is no official legal positon below the district in the Aux. From a discussion years ago with a DC-L, the national work is mainly contracts and admiralty law. That is a far cry from the military law you would be specializing in. DSO-LPs appear mostly to deal with contracts. The DC-L and the DSO-LPs usually serve as the Parlmentarians at the meetings held at the respective levels. Those are also volunteer activities. |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Congrats, Robert
and 73s  ...gjd |
|||
|
|
Member |
Congrats.
you could always work as a civilian lawyer in the USCG and see if they'll let you wear your AUX uniform while doing so..(but it would'nt actually be an AUX mission, so that might be a problem...) Better yet, if the army has an AD capt, then it's time for the AD USCG to have one, too. Blind lawyers are plentiful, and it's obvious you could do the job in spite of sight. And the blind army capt would be precedent. If any one could pull it off, it's obviously gonna be you...  Congrats, again. That is just so cool... |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
KB;
BZ! I'll toss an idea for you here - Members are constantly in the need of legal assitance for multiple reasons. If you are looking to use your soon to be acquired talent, and willing to continue on the volunteer side, that would be awesome for the members in your vicinity. You'll always find someone that needs a hand with simple things like Powers of Attorney, landlord disputes, simple disolutions of marriage, etc. Having someone like you available, would take a huge weight off of a lot of Coasties shoulders, enabling them to concentrate on their duties. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Congrats! Where did you get in? I'm starting at George Washington in the fall.
I would absolutely LOVE to go JAG, but I'm coming to grips with the fact that my wife simply is never going to have any part of me joining any branch either active duty or reserve (can't start as reserve in JAG anyway except for Army)... So my plan is to serve through the Aux! I've learned that the Aux has a legal assistance program for active duty members whereby attorneys, after submitting their qualifications, can volunteer for orders to provide pro bono services such as estate planning, landlord/tenant disputes, wills, divorces, presentations on legal matters, etc. for CG personnel. That sounds to me like a great way to serve. The parliamentarian and admiralty law duties that FL mentioned interest me greatly as well (I've served as parliamentarian for student congress events for years, and I plan to take admiralty law as a "fun" elective though my bread and butter will be patent law when I graduate). |
|||
|
|
Member |
Robert,
Those two US Army members you reference were IN THE ARMY before they were injured. You can't join the military as there are medical and physical requirements that preclude you. The suggestions that you may serve as a civilian are valid ones and you may want to look into them. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Hi all,
All good ideas. Yes, I have also learned about the legal assistance program, and will continue y Auxiliary service through this program. BTDT, yes, I am aware they were but the fact they are authorized to remain opens the issue up to the question. If they can remain on active duty, then the door can and should be opened up for those who can do the job dispite they may have a condision that would dq them up to this point. You can bet I will b arguing the point every chance I get. But, even if I never go activ duty, (as I would be happy with reserves), a civilan JAG wol be fine. I'm not going to throw away three long years just because the excetion rules haven't changed. Besides, maye I cn spend some time as a civilan JAG and then coss over, who knows. I never dreamed I would get to do the things 've been priviliged to do up to this point. Anyway, have to run,I have a BLS class, and I'm writting this on my cell phone so sorry for te typeos. Semper Paratus, and be a Guardian. AUX Dittman P.S. STMary's Law School PPS I'll clean this message up when i get home. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Robert,
Enjoy school. Those members, and any who enlist, must attend Basic, OBLC, and other programs. These all require medical fitness. Same thing for Reserves, and no, your aux attendence at REBI does not qualify you for a Reservist slot, nor would you be able to attend ROCI or OCS. You need to concentrate on school first, all others second. The Paper Chase is a hard grind. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Ship mates,
I just completed my last final and will find out if I am matriculated for the fall class in the morning. I thought you should know. BTDT, did you go to law school? Just wondering if you know anything directly about how hard this is? What I have learned is that when you feel you can't push yourself any farther, you can still go on. through this program, I have been exposed to con law, torts, property, contracts, civ pro, and some crim as well as some moot court. It's crazy how you can brief cases, learn lecture, and read over 827 pages in four weeks. The final I took was three hours, and the one last after noon was also three hours. Testing is wayy different as well. As an example, you get seven pages of a fact pattern, then you have to look at the facts and use the law to gain your goal, or apply what you know of the law to answer the question. you may be working a contracts issue with one plaintiff and defendant, and the same two people are crossed claimed against a third party while counter suing each other. Let allone if they are the appellant in a case concerning a ruleing from a lower court... and as crazy as it may seem, that is pritty much the games we were playing. The experience can be expressed in this quote. "Professor Kingsfield (John Houseman, in the opening credits of each first-season episode of The Paper Chase): The study of law is something new and unfamiliar to most of you -- unlike any other schooling you've ever known before. You teach yourselves the law, but I train your minds. You come in here with a skull full of mush, and, if you survive, you leave thinking like a lawyer." Dear God is that ever true, and this is only the indoc course. Your opinion doesn't matter, it is what the law says, and don't think it is "black" and "white", the law, and world is grey. But, all things considering, am having a ball! Semper Paratus and be a Guardian. AUX Dittman |
|||
|
New Member |
I totally agree here. If we are going to be treated like active duty, then we should have to meet the same fitness standards as them and no exceptions just because we are disabled.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
The exceptions are not because of disability. Professional programs in the AD are different programs with different requirements. As an example, an enlistee to be an infantryman must be under a certain age, (which keeps rising..) whereas an old country doctor (who wont be running, jumping and ducking, and etc) is allowed to be inducted at much older ages. (which also keeps rising..)
|
|||
|
Member |
It's a VERY long road. "The Law" didn't start coming together into a cohesive body of knowledge for me until 2-3 weeks AFTER I finished law school and started studying for the bar exam. DO NOT over-extend yourself during law school. Law school is a very daunting process. You MUST learn what works for you with regard to studying and you have to focus on your grades at first. As you get more and more comfortable with the process of "thinking like a lawyer", your class prep time will get faster and faster. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Hello all,
As some of you are practicing attorneys, and I thought at least one other person is currently attending law school, I thought I would provide this update. Things are well, and the finals are approaching faster than I thought. I feel I am ready though as everything seems to be interrelated so things I learn in torts (wrongs against the person), and contracts or property seem to fit together. As an example of just how messed up my thinking has gotten, this is my idea of fun… Have you seen “It’s the great Pumpkin Charley Brown”? Well this is my argument (warning this will seem a little crazy). Facts: Ms. Lucy Van pelt made an offer to Mr. Charley Brown to kick a football. Mr. Brown refused. Ms. Van pelt again made the offer saying “I’ll hold it steady.” Mr. Brown again refused. Ms. Van pelt offered a third time and then produced a writing which testified that she wouldn’t “pull it away.” Mr. Brown then accepted Ms. Van pelt’s offer by performance. Ms. Van pelt pulled the football away causing Mr. Brown to fall on his back. Ms. Van pelt then stated “Funny thing about this document, it was never notarized.” Issue: Whether Mr. Brown has a legal cause of action against Ms. Van pelt for damages. Rules: A contract is an exchange agreement between at least two parties containing at least one promis that is enforceable by law. The exchange agreement must make up an offer, acceptance, and consideration. The offer is made when there is a manifestation to lead one party to understand that their assent is invited, and will conclude it. The acceptance according to both the common law, and the UCC (although the UCC will not apply as there is no sale of goods), is that when a term of acceptance is not specified, the offer may be accepted in any reasonable manor. The consideration must meet a two prong test. There must be an exchange or forbearance, and that exchange must be bargained for. The statute of frauds applies to contracts for the sale of land, Goods being sold for an amount of more than $500, and contracts that cannot be executed in one year. A battery is the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive contact with plaintiff’s person. Application: When Ms. Van pelt made the offer to Mr. Brown, her words of “please” “I’ll hold it steady” and the producing of the signed document would lead a reasonable person objectively to understand that an offer is being made. Mr. Brown accepted the offer by performance, and the consideration is the agreement that if Mr. Brown kicks the football, Ms. Van pelt will not pull it away. The enjoyment of Mr. Brown of kicking the football, and in the case of Ms. Van pelt, the fun she will have of pulling the ball away. As we have offer, acceptance, and consideration, as well as the other required elements, Ms. Van pelt and Mr. Brown have a contract which could be legally enforceable. Ms. Van pelt pulled the ball away failing her duty of the contract thus Mr. Brown could have a cause of action for breach of contract. Addressing the claim of Ms. Van pelt that the document is not valid as “it was never notarized”, It could be argued that as this contract is not covered by the statute of frauds, there was no requirement for a writing and this claim has no provitive value. Mr. Brown may also have a tort claime against Ms. Van pelt for battery as she intentionally pulled the ball away causing Mr. Brown to fall upon his back. The damages Mr. Brown could expect depends upon which cause of action he brings, and which the court awards. For his breach of contract claimed, he could only expect to have the right to kick the football unimpeded. For the battery claimed he may be able to show physical damages, but if no physical damages are sustained perhaps punitive damages for her conduct. Perhaps he could also have a separate claimed for over forty years of intentional infliction of emotional distress, but this is the hardest of the torts to prove. Conclusion: Mr. Brown has a cause of action against Ms. Van pelt for breach of contract, as well as tort claims. See, I'll never be the same... Semper Paratus, AUX Dittman |
|||
|
New Member |
Where I'm from, Ms. Van Pelt would have gotten her ass kicked. Street justice trumps all.
What did Shakespeare say about lawyers? |
|||
|
|
Member |
Good Grief! The dumb s*** has fallen for that for years. He has proximate cause to believe that Ms. Van Pelt will merely fail to execute the stated bailment again. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
One problem with your answer is that a promise to abstain from illegal behavior cannot serve as consideration. Since Ms. Van Pelt pulling the ball away leads to tort claims, it can be argued she already had the obligation not to pull the ball away and injure Mr. Brown; therefore her promise is not consideration. Took my Contracts midterm last week  |
|||
|
|
Member |
Hmmm, True, but that is assuming that her promis was not to commit the battery. I argue that her promis was to "hold it steady", and the writing (not required for the contract) was just extra only stating that she promised not to pull it away. Maybe I should have written that better, but you make an excilent point.
Because she failed to hold it steady she breached on that point. As for the bailment, I hadn't thought about that side of it... Hmmm is there a bailment I guess it would be an interest in the ball only for the time he was kicking it, but other than that I can not see a bailment. True he has wanted to kick the football for years, but the law will not protect you from entering into a contract that is stupid. We can also consider that Mr. Brown honestly and reasonabley believes the contract would be completed, so given these arguments I still think he has a breach of contract claime. Maybe that shakes the tort claimes as perhaps aposing counsel will argue he assumed the risk, or that it is in keeping with the rules of the game, but I don't think it will work as the torts restatement 3rd says that when your conduct is outside the rules of the game, you will be held liable for your torts. At the case at bar, Ms. Van Pelt's conduct such as pulling away the football causing another to fall, is clearly outside the rules of "kick the football game." or maybe I can argue that her conduct is outside the general custem related to that child's game. Mid term what's that? We only have a final. This is fun. How is your torts and property and civ pro going?? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I love torts, mostly because I have an awesome professor. He's actually on CNN and MSNBC occasionally as a guest expert. He's very energetic in his lectures.
Civ pro is one of the most boring things I've ever studied, and I was a Physics major. Not taking property yet, since I'm part time. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Coast Guard Discussions Coast Guard Auxiliary I GOT INTO LAW SCHOOL!!! first step to becomeing a JAG
