(Part 2) Best legal rules & procedures law books according to redditors

If the DNC is going to suspend Robert's rules and substitute a czar, there's not much we're going to be able to do about it. I don't think the DNC would try that at the national convention, so I'm not that worried about it. But make no mistake, naming Barney Frank, who openly opposes Bernie, to chair the Rules committee is the move they've made.

As someone else said, now would be a very good time to learn you some parliamentary procedure.

What about his book of rants publishing emails from his Seventh Circuit colleagues without their permission?

Try this. Click on the "Look Inside" link on the left and scroll down to "Hawkins v Masters Farm." The professor and the frequency of the class would depend on how far you'd have to read as a daily assignment.

Well i've also read a ton of books by people that think O.J. is innocent(and i've read all the ones that think he's guilty) like these(all of which i'd highly recommend):
https://www.amazon.com/J-Guilty-But-Not-Murder/dp/0970205805

https://www.amazon.com/J-Innocent-Can-Prove/dp/1616086203

https://www.amazon.com/Double-Crossed-Blood-Constitutional-Suppression-Perversion/dp/1881524884

https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Defeated-Victims-Simpson-American/dp/1434372227/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=OJ+justice+defeated&qid=1565219697&s=books&sr=1-1

https://www.amazon.com/Pursuit-Exhibit-Simpson-murder-trial/dp/1456313169

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Time-Investigation-Unsolved-Murders/dp/0028613406

https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Evidence-Prosecution-J-Simpson/dp/0688144136/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ZAGNY4RKECR5QVKZDM0B



https://www.amazon.com/Madam-Foreman-Armanda-Cooley-ebook/dp/B007EHCEZG/ref=sr_1_15?keywords=O.J.+simpson+trial+jury&qid=1565219443&s=books&sr=1-15

https://www.amazon.com/Solving-Simpson-Mystery-Christopher-Springer/dp/0964964961

https://www.amazon.com/Frame-Century-J-Neil-Schulman/dp/1584450606



Honestly the O.J. trial is where white rage towards minorities really became obvious as even liberals failed badly with how they covered the trial.


There's a few other good books about the case but they are VERY pricey:
https://www.amazon.com/If-Oj-Didnt-Shocking-Answers/dp/0964964910/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=If+O.J.+Didn%27t...%3A+The+Shocking+Answers+the+Trial+Did+Not+Give+You&qid=1565220016&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmr0

https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Oath-Conspiracy-Murder-Simpson/dp/1568250584/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=blood+oath+oj&qid=1565220057&s=books&sr=1-1

Szasz's "Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry: An Inquiry Into the Social Uses of Mental Health Practices" is a good read, too.

More info here, Fully Informed Jury Association: www.fija.org

This book gives a complete history of the issue:

Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine

(http://www.amazon.com/Jury-Nullification-Evolution-Clay-Conrad/dp/0890897026/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304054180&sr=8-1-spell)

I practice PI defense and found Winning at Deposition to be amazing: https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Deposition-Highest-Professional-Excellence/dp/0985027177. The only drawback is that PI defense is state law and this book, like most deposition guides, focuses on federal rules.

Be sure to read every rule in your jurisdiction concerning depositions. It won't take more than an hour, but the knowledge you learn is invaluable. I'm constantly amazed and embarrassed at how few attorneys do this.

I would also read as many deposition transcripts as possible. You'll quickly be able to pick up on the tricks and strategies that make depositions successful. Ask fellow attorneys at your firm for names of cases involving similar allegations to your current case. Each time you have to prepare to depose a certain type of witness (plaintiff, plaintiff's spouse/children, treating physician, voc rehab, economist, etc), read two or three depositions of similar witnesses from those cases. This will help you create your outline because you'll see that many of the same topics are covered in each dep.

Try to get your outlines finished a week before the depositions. Share them and discuss them with the supervising attorney(s) on the case. Ask for their feedback. They will be able to help refine the outlines and should offer pointed advice as to what information you should focus on during the deposition.

Finally, remember that everyone was a new attorney. You're going to be nervous and trip up and take longer to get where you want to go the first few times you take a deposition. Jerk attorneys will act annoyed and try to bully you. Ignore them.

Passing the bar was the hard part. Taking depositions is easy!

Good luck. You're gonna kick ass!

Hiya! Where have ya been?

Ok so if you normally like to tease him:

[The Comic Toolbox: How to Be Funny Even If You're Not] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1879505215/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_O2eVAb1688K79) and [Law School in a Box: All the Prestige for a Fraction of the Price] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594741468/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_m-eVAb9K1X382)

Or if you want to encourage him: Step by Step to Stand-Up Comedy and [The Tools of Argument: How the Best Lawyers Think, Argue, and Win] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1481246380/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_zbfVAb6E6NG1V) and you can write him encouraging notes inside the covers.

https://www.amazon.com/Acing-Civil-Procedure-Spencer/dp/1628100419

Recommended by users of this sub. I purchased it and I'm using it now, its helpful.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2017 Edition

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1942842104



Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with Selected Statutes, Cases, and Other Materials 2017 Supplement (Supplements)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1454882638

And Ford didn't change after that.
http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Highways-Adam-L-Penenberg/dp/1938757017

damn, you got a good deal on old stock!

https://smile.amazon.com/Heller-Case-Gun-Rights-Affirmed/dp/188963221X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1501279515&sr=8-1&keywords=the+heller+case+gun+rights+affirmed

https://www.amazon.com/Procedure-Concepts-Insights-Samuel-Issacharoff/dp/1683287061

This was a great and short supplement for me

Drafting Patents for Litigation and Licensing has lots of great information. It's quite pricey, but gives lots of great insight.

The best teacher is an experienced patent attorney, though.

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Trial-Advocacy-Analysis-Practice/dp/160156127X

Borrow this from your LS library.

I used these barcharts to frame my outlines for contracts, torts, and civpro. The charts logically flow from one topic to the next. Also, the Barbri videos for civpro in the 1L mastery package are worth the ~$80 (plus some areas have barbri lectures).
https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Procedure-Quickstudy-Inc-BarCharts/dp/157222956X

I am no lawyer so I am not really able to go to details of the problem. I would suggest you reading "The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System" by Benjamin H. Barton

https://www.amazon.com/Lawyer-Judge-Bias-American-Legal-System/dp/110761614X

>Virtually all American judges are former lawyers. This book argues that these lawyer-judges instinctively favor the legal profession in their decisions and that this bias has far-reaching and deleterious effects on American law. There are many reasons for this bias, some obvious and some subtle. Fundamentally, it occurs because - regardless of political affiliation, race, or gender - every American judge shares a single characteristic: a career as a lawyer. This shared background results in the lawyer-judge bias. The book begins with a theoretical explanation of why judges naturally favor the interests of the legal profession and follows with case law examples from diverse areas, including legal ethics, criminal procedure, constitutional law, torts, evidence, and the business of law. The book closes with a case study of the Enron fiasco, an argument that the lawyer-judge bias has contributed to the overweening complexity of American law, and suggests some possible solutions.

> Oh it wasn't close to Jalikattu on a political/social/emotional scale, but it was absolutely brutal. My point is mainly that when people want to do this kind of stuff, they'll find a way. With regulation, there's at least a pull towards doing things the legal way at the very least due to risk of punishment.

I asked this question because, on Jan 15, Sec 144 IPC was imposed at all the usual places where Jallikattu takes place. I would still like to know what were the ceremonies because, if it is large enough, the police will have no problem stopping them.

> I mean as long as we're altering culture, we might as well also change the culture of these kinds of bodies that have a large impact on actual human lives.

Just think of cricket or a football match, how many times the rules are broken even with cameras and officials. The problems compound themselves when it comes to Jalliakttu because the people who enter the sport with their bull are sometimes bigshots it is not so simple to directly confront them when they "charge up their bulls" and the loser is always the bull.

> However, such injuries should be able to be minimized to the extent that I wouldn't think it to be a serious concern (probably another point we're going to fundamentally disagree on).

yes, this we do disagree on.

> Because the government is equally if not moreso incompetent than the previously mentioned regulatory bodies.

I'll never be the one who to call the government competent but social welfare in TN is tremendously good (relatively). This book gave so many insights on how well some programs worked to stop female foeticide through the 'Golden Cradle' scheme and a number of other programs. Gives me some hope because there is so much good will to protect the indigenous species right now that if there is political will behind it, I think it will succeed.

The govt. program, which already exists in Thanjavur, is not perfect but it won't end up harming the bulls but that is not the case in Jallikattu. That's why I think it is the obvious solution.

> I think the threat of a fine/jail is a much better motivator than some moral argument I can make.

Yes, but the bull will always be the loser.

Zamindars are landlords/rich farmers in a village. Thaluk or a Thaluka is a constituency of a few villages.

Great American Trials - I had fun reading this one!

You can choose to believe whatever you want. The law is systematically in favored of white. But this act was definitely racially motivated; racial profiling happens in a subconscious level, as substantiated by Zimmerman's following of Martin. The fact that Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious has a lot more to do with merely the clothes he was wearing. Don't be naive.

>Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. ...
Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

How about this for facts about the law? Blacks are a lot more (4-7 times) to be stopped and searched and convicted of crimes

[How about the fact that Blacks Who Stand Their Ground Often Imprisoned?] (http://newamericamedia.org/2013/07/blacks-who-stand-their-ground-often-imprisoned.php)

A funny thing about the law system in the U.S. (and elsewhere of course) is that people who have the privilege of being favored under the law system either think that it works perfectly or do not have enough experience to know that it is flawed; however those who have been disadvantaged by the institution know how bad it is.

Patricia Ewick and Susan Sibley wrote an amazing book called "In Litigation: Do the "Haves" Still Come Out Ahead?" where they identify the three categories of 1. Before the Law. 2. With the Law and 3. Up Against the Law, highlighting the problems of the law and court system in the U.S.

Some exerpts

It is a white privilege to be able to buy into the narrative that it was justified for Zimmerman to follow Martin. And reddit, mostly consisting of white males, age 18-25, would jump at the chances to relentlessly defend Zimmerman as if this incident has nothing to do with his responsbilities.