Pop a Squat
In the early days of property, I remember Professor P*terson struggling to explain the social benefits of adverse possession. I personally found it very difficult to comprehend of any situation in which some douche bag tresspassor should have legal title over the true owner. This morning, however, I found the closest argument against my position here.
After reading this article, and having spent a fair amount of time in areas with huge numbers of not just vacant buildings, but severely damaged, clearly abandoned buildings, I started to wonder if adverse possession may serve some useful purpose in today's non-agrarian society.
Then I remembered that I hate poor people, and realized that no, no it doesn't.
After reading this article, and having spent a fair amount of time in areas with huge numbers of not just vacant buildings, but severely damaged, clearly abandoned buildings, I started to wonder if adverse possession may serve some useful purpose in today's non-agrarian society.
Then I remembered that I hate poor people, and realized that no, no it doesn't.
posted by Slam Master A at 8:26 AM
22 Comments:
Busted.
I KNEW SMA reads the New York Times.
No one cares about this.
Someone needs to post about the 1L asshole who didn't get her way at BLF and then got a legal and shit on everyone. News flash- The best way to get a job is probably not to alienate every single person in the two classes above you in one act.
whereas I hope N&B doesn't descend into character assassination
"and then got a legal"
What does that even mean?
I hate when people get a legal and shit on everyone. I mean I can tolerate the shitting, but what is with all the legal getting??
Details? What happened at BLF? Why was the 1L upset?
Let's not publicly shame someone over one (egregious) mistake.
let's not act like a complete and total asshole to our peers who gave way too much of their time and energy to planning an awesome event (by the way - props to them - they seriously worked their asses off and deserve some recognition) that benefits all of us. i like that idea better.
6:06,
You are 100% right. Her actions were way out of line.
But let's not further mar a spectacular event by making it about one person's poor judgment and childish behavior.
No, no. I think we should pursue this. Having myself been subjected to a witch hunt on this blog, I can attest that it does nothing but strengthen one's character.
I'm serious. And I'm still not Trustafarian.
Now let's get a god damn story.
http://boaltalk.blogspot.com/2007/04/alexander-dumbass.html
It's less character assassination and more character suicide.
It looks like the anons adversely possessed your post.
Hahahaha, amazing McTwo, amazing.
But back to the adverse possessors' topic...what did the misbehavin lady at BLF do? Let's not tease everyone!
Yeah, I was sober solely so I could remember all that stuff, and I must have missed it. What a waste!
The second Dan changed his name to Dan #2?! I am TOUCHED. Thanks, man. The bond we Dans share is stronger than blood.
Milhouse: Is this the untimely end of Milhouse?
Milhouse 2: But Milhouse is my name!
Milhouse: But I thought I was the only one!
Milhouse 2: [shakes head] A pain I know all too well.
Milhouse: So this is what it feels like...when doves cry.
The first thing they should teach you in law school is that even if you're legally correct, if winning would cost you more than losing or never litigating (in terms of your reputation) it is probably better to let the matter drop.
Seriously, what happened at BLF????
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
I just want you on my side in case there is a "Dan quota" implemented. There are 19 of us at Berkeley Law (according to the facebook). Certainly, we will have a winnowing at some point.
Post a Comment
<< Home