LOUISIANA JUDGE DENIES MARRIAGE LICENSE TO INTERRACIAL COUPLE

Not Good for Children?

Breaking news from AP that is unrelated to kids in flying balloons:

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

...

Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

Well, that was fun seeing what Louisiana was like in the 1950's. I'd like to go back to the 21st century now.

Anybody seen my time machine?


(Thanks to Mama Shih)

--Junichi

REAL TALK

If you're not reading Josh Levine's coverage of the R. Kelly trial, you need to be.

--O.W.

A HUGE DAY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Kate Kendell. Hero.

Today's unexpected California Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage in In re Marriage Cases is equally magnificent and monumental.

The impact is far more than symbolic. For starters, I imagine that today will be a record day for California couples becoming formally engaged.

As I think of all my friends who move a step closer to full equality as a result of the opinion, I stand at the edge of imagining what it might have been like in 1954 to hear about Brown v. Board.

By far, the most significant paragraph of the monstrous 172 page decision is this part of the majority opinion:

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion.

First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples.

Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.

Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.

Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise - now emphatically rejected by this state - that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

The second sentence above is a perfectly rational and reasonable conclusion. And yet, it almost sounds revolutionary, now that I've become accustomed to the right-wing bat-sh!t crazy talk about how committed gay couples will destroy the institution of marriage.

A few other observations on the decision:

• The importance of this opinion extends far beyond gay marriage. In deciding that the correct standard of review for sexual orientation discrimination cases is "strict scrutiny," the California Supreme Court will make it incredibly more difficult for any employer or government entity to enact any rules that deny the GLBT community any rights, fundamental or otherwise.

• Nonetheless, Chief Justice George took painstaking steps to ensure that every part of the opinion was carefully drafted to make clear the boundaries and preempt criticism. For example, he stated that no religion will be required to solemnize gay marriages. He also wrote that the Court's decision "does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against polygamy and [incest],” which is a sad but necessary response to the conservative cuckoos who argue that gay marriage will lead to, among other things, the legalization of sex with horses.

• My quick read of the opinion suggests that the only way this decision can be reversed is if there is a state ballot initiative amending the state constitution that says that "same-sex couples shall be denied the right to marry." The language would likely have to be more explicit than Prop. 22 in its intention to harm the LGBT community. In my opinion, such an initiative, assuming it gets on the ballot, would be rejected, albeit by a slim margin. Public opinion in California is clearly shifting toward recognizing gay marriage. Plus, there's a difference between voting for a pre-existing ban vs. voting to take away rights that gay couples will have in 30 days. Finally, even if such an initiative passes, there's a valid argument that it will still be considered invalid based on conflicting language in the state constitution.

• I'm a tad disappointed that the majority rejected the argument that the marriage laws at issue did not constitute gender discrimination. For me, if the right to marry a woman depends on whether you are a man or a woman, that is gender discrimination. But the Court rejected that as a semantic argument. Of course, none of this matters now that sexual orientation discrimination will be treated the same (in California) as race or gender discrimination.

• One of the dissents dismissed the majority's decision as "legal jujitsu." Justice Baxter, why must your insults involve Japanese arts? I resent that ethnic slur, your honor. Plus, jujitsu is kinda awesome.

• Interesting fact: three out of four of the Justices in the majority were appointed by a Republican governor.
  

I think a healthy amount of credit should go to SF Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose election I fiercely opposed when I lived in SF. I take back every bad thing I ever said about you, Mr. Mayor. You have my full respect.

Finally, to the homophobes currently in the Golden State, here's hoping you move to Nevada.

--Junichi

IN MEMORY OF MILDRED LOVING

another love that once dared not speak its name
I wanted to acknowledge the passing of Mildred Loving. In the late 1950s, Mildred - an African American - and her White husband - Richard - plead guilty to violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws and, as a condition of their plea bargain, agreed not to return to Virginia for 25 years. However, by 1963, Mildred decided to contest that ruling and the ACLU was able to take it up to the Supreme Court, where in 1967, Loving vs. Virginia struck down all laws prohibiting interracial marriage, thus removing one of the last major legacies of legalized segregation in America.

It's always been striking to me that within the lifetime of my parents (and really, only five years before I was born), states could actually outlaw interracial couplings. Today, such legislation seems so obviously pernicious, so a remnant of Jim Crow and America's legacy of racial hatred, that it's remarkable it took so long for it to be struck down (and not simply voted out by state legislatures).

Of course, the irony is that while some things have changed - viva Tony Parker and Eva Longoria - some things have not. The difference now isn't that gay marriage bans are less pernicious, less a remnant of hate and fear. No, the difference is that these aren't anachronistic laws left over from bygone eras but rather, the product of contemporary political mobilization. It's all the more shameful. It's also notable that Loving, we stopped giving interviews in recent years, did make a public statement last year, in support of the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

--O.W.

JOE HORN: NEIGHBOR OF THE YEAR?

Do not rob these people or their neighbors

In the town of Pasadena, Texas, Joe Horn saw two men -- Miguel Dejesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30 -- break into his neighbor’s house. Horn called 911 and eventually stated that he intended to shoot the men, despite the dispatch operator's attempt to dissuade him from doing so.

Horn went outside and fatally shot the two men.

You can listen to the eerie 911 call by watching this clip:

While there is no evidence (yet) of racial motivations, the protests have quickly divided along color lines. Dejesus and Ortiz, the deceased, are black and, from what I can tell from photos, Horn appears to be white.

As you can see from the photo of the protest/counter-protest below, white men with confederate flag tattoos confronted and attempted to drown out Black Panther Party leader Quanell X and a group of largely black protesters. Some national reactions have also veered in similar directions, with Horn supporters praising him for taking on "hoodlums."

Quanell X believes Horn should be charged with murder. Horn's supporters are praising him as the neighbor of the year.

There's obviously a big moral debate over whether Horn was right to shoot the two alleged burglars. There's also the legal question of whether Horn would be protected from civil and criminal action by claiming self-defense. I'm going to leave those aside from now.

Here's the real kicker: According to my basic legal research of Texas criminal laws, there would be absolutely no criminal case against Horn ... had the burglary taken place at night.

(Thanks to Kristen for pointing out that the shooting took place at 2 pm.)

Here are the relevant passages of the Texas Penal Code:

§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

*

§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Horn clearly saw two men taking property from his neighbor. He believed deadly force was necessary to prevent them from fleeing after immediately committing burglary. He didn't have other means to stop them. Depending on his relationship with the neighbor, he probably can successfully claim that he had the duty to protect his neighbor's property.

Thus, Horn was legally justified in fatally shooting the next-door burglars except for the fact that the alleged crime took place in the middle of the day. Had the alleged crime and shooting taken place several hours later, there would be no debate as to Horn's legal innocence.

In my opinion, that's the craziest part of this whole story.

It seems that those who are outraged at Horn should really be angry at the Texas legislature for empowering Horn (and future neighbors) to serve as judge, jury, and executioner.

--Junichi

HOW TO TURN FAKE BOAR TUSKS AND A STUPID PRACTICAL JOKE INTO A MILLION DOLLARS

Where one oral surgeon gets his dental implants

This is a wild story about a prankster dentist who goofed on his pot-bellied pig-loving dental assistant and the eight years of litigation that followed.

Dr. Robert Woo, an oral surgeon in Olympia, Washington, agreed to replace two of his assistant's teeth with implants. However, while his assistant was sedated, Woo put fake boar tusks in her mouth, as a practical joke, before finishing the procedure. He took the tusks out before she woke up from the anesthesia.

The assistant, Tina Alberts, didn't know what happened. But photos of her with the boar tusks lodged in her mouth eventually made their way around the office. When she saw the photos, she flipped out, quit, and sued Woo up his wazoo.

(Note to self: Sue Woo up his wazoo would make a great tongue-twister.)

So who ultimately profited as a result of this practical joke gone bad? And who lost money?

The candidates:

A. Tina Alberts, the dental assistant
B. Dr. Woo, the practical joker
C. The patients of other dentists

The correct answer is after the jump ...


CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING...



Winners: A and B. Losers: C.

Dr. Woo's insurance company, the Fireman's Fund, refused to defend the claim, so Woo settled with Alberts for $250,000. Woo then turned around and sued the insurer. A jury sided with Woo, ordering the insurer to pay $750,000 + the $250,000 settlement. The state court of appeals reversed. Finally, just yesterday, the Washington Supreme Court reinstated the jury award and also granted attorney's fees.

To recap, as a result of this prank in which no physical injuries resulted, Tina Alberts won $250,000.

Dr. Woo won $750,000.

And all the other dentists will soon pay more in premiums, which will eventually be passed on to all their patients.

Think this was a miscarriage of justice? If you read the opinion, the law was clearly not on the insurance company's side.

That said, it was hard to disagree with Justice Johnson's dissent, in which he stated that the "majority decision rewards Dr. Woo's obnoxious behavior and allows him to profit handsomely, receiving a total of $750,000, triple the damages paid to the real victim of his intentional offensive and likely tortious conduct."

--Junichi

THE ROBERTS SUPREME COURT

Reading through this week's Supreme Court opinions is harder than I thought

I've never been so horrified and disappointed to be proven right.

In just one term, the new Supreme Court has gutted decades of progressive-friendly precedent and made it clear that George W. Bush's longest-lasting legacy may be the appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito.

Tossing away any notion of stare decisis like a used condom, the new conservative majority -- Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy -- have brazenly flexed their new power by weakening crucial parts of even sacred opinions like Brown v. Board of Education. Just this week, they've delivered major victories to big business, decimated the speech rights of youth, and weakened taxpayers' rights to sue the government.

Justice Kennedy's reluctance to give Chief Justice Roberts a blank check is the only thing preventing the federalists and originalists from completely controlling the judicial branch and making the Death Star operational.

I'm still reading today's 185-page opinion in Parents v. Seattle in which the High Court struck down high school assignment policies in Seattle and Louisville that sought to integrate city schools by using race as a factor to diversify schools in relatively-segregated neighborhoods.

After skimming through it, the opinion doesn't seem to totally decimate every affirmative action policy or overrule the Court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the use of race in law school admissions.

However, the opinion boldly trumpets the conservatives' "color-blind Constitution" ideology, which right-wing racists have been praying for the Supreme Court to adopt in order to disembowel major accomplishments of the modern civil rights movement.

I'll update this over the next few days as I digest everything and have my head reattached to my neck.

--Junichi

HOW A JUDGE WHO LOST HIS PANTS AND HIS SUIT STILL ENDS UP CLEANING OUT THE CHUNGS

A waist of epic proportions

By now, you've heard the news that the D.C. judge dismissed Judge Roy Pearson's frivolous $54 million lawsuit against the Chungs and their dry cleaning business.

But Pearson wasn't caught with his pants down.

In fact, as of now, the Chungs are the losers.

Why? Pearson didn't pay for a lawyer; he represented himself. He didn't lose much money, except for some minor court costs that the court ordered him to pay.

On the other hand, the Chungs could end up declaring bankruptcy. Unless the presiding judge makes Pearson pay for their legal expenses, they will have sunk about $100,000 into paying for representation.

That bill will only balloon if Pearson appeals, which he has threatened to do.

In other words, if Pearson's goal was to thrust the Chungs into financial ruin, he has prevailed.

Unfortunately, the presiding judge in this case won't decide this matter of legal fees until the appeals process is completed, which could take over a year. Moreover, even if Pearson is ordered to compensate the Chungs for their attorneys' fees, there's the issue of whether he is solvent.

(Side note: If Pearson is ordered to pay the Chungs' legal fees, this will not be a first for him. In Pearson's divorce proceedings, a Virgina judge said he created "unnecessary litigation" and ordered him to pay his wife's $12,000 legal fees.)

Regardless of what happens, here's hoping that Sponge-Roy-Square-Pants doesn't inspire other rich, litigious plaintiffs to bankrupt family businesses out of irrational vendettas.

*

You can help the Chungs by contributing to the Custom Cleaners Defense Fund.

*

On the bright side, this news did come with some horrible -- and by horrible, I mean excellent -- puns:

• NY Daily News: "Pressed wrong suit"
• Reuters: "Judge presses $54 million suit for lost pants"
• WaPo: "Pants Verdict: Judge Stuffs The Pants Man"
• NY Post: "He's Left Pant-ing"
• Seattle Times: "Plaintiff won’t pocket $54 million after losing lawsuit over pants"

--Junichi

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - JUNE EDITION

One lawsuit away from bankruptcy

• Heard about Roy Pearson, the Washington, D.C. administrative law judge, who is suing his local dry cleaners for $67 million for losing his trousers? The family-run business owners -- Jin Chung, Soo Chung (see above), and their son, Ki Chung -- offered $12,000 (!) to settle the case, but Judge Pearson, the judicial branch's royal douchebag, refused anything short of $67 million. Despite nationwide mockery, Pearson insists on going to court, only lowering his damages estimate to $54 million. The trial begins tomorrow, as the Chungs slowly lose their life savings to defend themselves against these frivolous charges. Support the Chungs by contributing to the Custom Cleaners Defense Fund. (With thanks to AngryAsianMan.)

• The U.S. military needs -- and has long needed -- Arabic translators. Badly. Important messages went untranslated on Sept. 10, 2001 that might have prevented the attacks on Sept. 11. But in compliance with our indefensible national don't-ask-don't-tell policy, our military has now discharged over 58 badly-needed Arabic-speaking translators simply because of their sexual orientation. Stephen Benjamin is one of them; he wrote an op-ed for the NYTimes that should be igniting massive protests in Washington, D.C. Apparently, our country's homophobia trumps our need for national security.

In brighter legal news:

• Remember Genarlow Wilson, who was sentenced to a decade in prison for receiving consensual oral sex from a female 15-year-old high school sophomore while he was a 17-year-old senior? A Georgia state judge has finally voided the sentence against him and removed him from sexual predator status. Let's hope the state AG doesn't appeal. Update: the state AG appealed and Genarlow is still in prison. (Hat tip to J. Lo.)

• Also, in a victory for those who believe in enforcing the U.S. Constitution, the conservative Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Bush administration can't detain an immigrant labeled an "enemy combatant" without charging him. The panel held that the Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri -- who has been held in solitary confindement in a Navy brig for four years -- of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.
  
  

--Junichi

CAN'T TEACH A DEAD DOG NEW TRICKS

I am not a crook

Since I teach at a law school, I read up on cases that pose pressing legal issues, like this one, which addresses the long-unanswered question of whether a man can be convicted for having sex with a dead dog, even though state law does not explicitly say that it's illegal to have sex with a dead dog.

For the laymen who don't know fancy legal terminology, the defense counsel's legal position is known as the "Law Does Not Explicitly Say That It's Illegal to Have Sex with a Dead Dog" defense.

(This tactic is often mistaken with the obscure but powerful Chewbacca defense.)

While we await a verdict, let us scrutinize the above screen capture from the Bay City Times and observe how the Defendant looks a lot like Vice President Dick Cheney.

--Junichi

WHAT TO READ: MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE EDITION

Georgia Inmate No. 1187055

Here are three stories of individuals who don't deserve to be behind bars:

• ESPN's online magazine profiles the outrageous/incensing tale of Genarlow Wilson, a high school honor student, football star, and homecoming king from Georgia, who is now serving a 10-year sentence for receiving consensual oral sex from a female 15-year-old high school sophomore while he was a 17-year-old senior. Everybody and their mother agrees that that the act was consensual, and that the girl initiated it. Yet, Wilson was convicted under an antiquated Georgia law that makes it a felony for teenagers less than three years apart to have oral sex, even though it's only a misdemeanor for the same kids to have vaginal intercourse. That nonsensical law has since been revised, but the new legislation doesn't apply retroactively to Wilson, who has spent almost two years in prison now. The NY Times is one of many that have called for his release, but he still remains in jail. You can find out more and sign a petition here.

Credit: Darius M.

• Julie Amero, a 40-year-old substitute teacher, is now facing a whopping 40 year prison sentence for exposing her seventh grade class to pornographic images. She alleges that she is the victim of a software virus that caused her computer to shoot out a swarm of pop-up ads with explicit images that Ralph, from The Simpsons, would describe as "Everybody's hugging." The facts seem to support her version of the story. According to this AP article, the DA claims that Amero intentionally clicked onto some pornographic websites. As anyone who has visited porn sites knows, however, a deliberate visit to one website may still lead to a viral infestation in the form of a pornucopia slide show that can't be stopped without unplugging the computer. That's what my friends tell me, anyway.

• Here's yet another story of how high school students' self-incriminating posts on MySpace have led to their criminal arrests. Only this time, six 14- and 15-year-old girls in Tennessee have been charged with homicide conspiracy after their principal merely found a list with 300 names along with a message by one student that said, "Let's kill everyone on the list." In light of Columbine and its progeny, I don't blame officials for taking threats seriously. But what makes this arrest ridiculous is that the list included Tom Cruise, Oprah Winfrey and the Energizer bunny. Please.
  

--Junichi

STUDYING FOR THE BAR EXAM

Make your mark dark.

Since I have a few friends who are currently stressing while preparing for the bar exam, I thought now would be a good time to share my own test-taking horror story, which I will repeat here for your reading pleasure.

In the summer of 1999, when I first started studying for the California State Bar Exam, I vowed to do everything possible to pass this exam on my first attempt. I told myself that my next exam would be a prostate exam.

As I soon realized, however, preparing for the bar exam is a thousand times more painful than a prostate exam, even if your inflamed urethra glands were inherited from Strom Thurmond.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING...

The arduous three-day exercise in torture that is the California Bar Exam requires remembering every irrelevant rule you could imagine. The only thing rivaling this herculean task of inconsequence would be trying to memorize the Daly City phone book.

It's hard to describe how singularly awful the experience of studying for it was. Every night, I felt like the black Madonna with the elephant dung at the Brooklyn Museum of Art on Christian Coalition night.

In order for me to store countless bits of information in my brain, I had to throw out a lot of other things in my head: high school memories, ATM pin codes, siblings' names, Public Enemy lyrics, the importance of deodorant.

I spent most of my days memorizing random mnemonic devices. For example, in order to memorize the six covenants of title ...

• Cov. of Seisin
• Cov. of Right to convey
• Cov. against Encumbrances
• Cov. for Quiet enjoyment
• Cov. of Warranty
• Cov. for Further assurances

... I used the first letter of each covenant (S-R-E-Q-W-F) to make a sentence: Smokey Robinson Enjoys Quarreling With Fabio.

So for an entire summer, I walked around babbling nonsense like Smokey Robinson Enjoys Quarreling With Fabio. It's amazing I didn't get locked up in a mental institution.

Today, I don't remember anything about any of the six covenants of title but I still remember that Smokey Robinson enjoys quarreling with Fabio.

As I prepared to jump through this ridiculous hoop of a quasi-standardized test, it became clear to me that the only reason the Bar Exam exists is to prevent people like your Uncle Bocephus - deranged, alcoholic, gun-toting, abusive and lifelong Pat Robertson supporter - from being able to practice law. It doesn't actually test useful knowledge of the law, nor does it assess your judgment, your determination, or your creativity as a potential attorney.

Back to the specifics of my bar exam ... I decided to choose the option of typing my exam. So did I use a laptop? No. Computers of any kind were banned. We were only allowed manual or basic electronic typewriters. I think I was one of the last groups to not have the option of taking the exam on computers. (Am I dating myself?)

I had to prepare for any number of topics to appear on the test. The bar course lecturers warned that the examiners might induce massive fecal discharge by testing the rarely-tested (and rarely-studied) topics, but I didn't believe it.

As my luck would have it, the exam required us to write a memo on the archaic and convoluted "Rule Against Perpetuity," which, of course, converted the convention center where I took the exam into a giant colostomy bag.

To make matters worse, and speaking of enemas, I ended up sitting right next to the quintessential Uncle Bocephus, who conveniently developed, in time for the exam, a wheezing cough and a nose more congested than Highway 101 at rush hour. To harmonize with his clogged nasal snorts, he used a 1970's typewriter with an extremely loud bell that rang after he finished each line.

To top it off, on the second day, the instant after the proctor instructed examinees to "break the seal" of the test booklet, my test-taking neighbor passed a deadly and pungent gas, leading me to wonder whether he understood the meaning of the phrase "break the seal."

Call me immature but I couldn't focus for 15 minutes. I had on ear plugs, which heightened my sense of smell, which explains why I was laughing and gagging at the same time. I thought about putting the ear plugs in my nose, but then I risked hearing his colorectal outbursts.

Throughout the exam, I also had a hard time focusing because the proctors seemed to be imported through time travel from the 1970s. Given their anal retentiveness, I pondered whether the word "proctor" is a combination of the two Latin roots - "proctology" and "sphincter."

Worst of all, because I hadn't practiced much on my electronic typewriter, I failed to estimate how long it took to print out stuff. For my corporations question, I failed to print a substantial portion - three whole pages - of my essay in time. I miscalculated my remaining time, due to my inability to tell the minute hand from the hour hand.

When the proctor grabbed my papers, I immediately cried, curled into a fetal position, and dropped a deuce in my pants, which nobody noticed since everyone was still suffering back from when Uncle Bocephus broke the seal.

Do people fail? Yes. Uncle Bocephus failed. Former California Governor Pete "Meritocracy" Wilson failed three times. In fact, for the 2000 exam, only 51% passed the California Bar - the lowest rate since 1983.

Unfortunately, some of my smartest classmates also ended up not passing - they were the unlucky ones who got stuck with tough graders. In fact, my Dean from Stanford Law School -- Kathleen Sullivan, the smartest woman I know -- didn't pass.

My results? I passed, but barely.

The experience was so onerous that I will probably never move to another state to practice law since I don't want to study for another state bar exam.

By the way, weeks after I became licensed to practice law in California, I had my first in-court argument before a judge. I represented myself in a hearing to contest the $140 charge when my car was illegally towed.

I lost.

--Junichi