(Part 3) Top products from r/law

That was fun to watch, but it's better to read.

The departures from historical accuracy taken by the producers of this program and their infusion of corny crap (like the slow clap after Cicero's address) were very distracting to me.

But the general story and the focus on Cui Bono? was well preserved.

This is a very good book to read, especially if you're involved in criminal law. Pro Ruscio Amerino shows a young, ambitious, politically minded lawyer treading a very fine line between the powers that be, justice, and his ambition to join the powers that be. He spends a great deal of time driving a wedge between Chrysogonous and Sulla before dragging Chrysogonous' name through the mud.

His rhetorical style should not be copied, as it was designed and delivered for an audience and a world that hasn't existed for 2,000 years, but there are some things that simply never change. His work can be highly instructive for those of us engaged in public speaking of the advocate's kind.

Just finished a law degree in England, so I can give you the resources I used. Webb and Akkouh's book on trusts is relatively short and quite a good introduction. Parker and Mellow's book goes into more detail, but is older, so a bit outdated in parts. I never used Virgo's book but it was recommended to me by quite a few people. If you want the "authoritative" textbook then you'll probably want Megarry and Wade, but it's rather dense and may be too much for your purposes.

There have been a few pretty influential trusts cases in the past couple of years (including a rather important one overturning 120 years of law just this morning!) so you won't just be able to rely on any of these books absolutely, but I assume you're familiar with this if you're doing a masters.

>different aspects of medieval law (the use of Roman law, customary law, feudal law, etc.) primarily in England, France, and/or the HRE from roughly the 11th century up to the Renaissance

Do you have any idea just how massive a subject this is? You're describing four distinct legal systems over a period of five centuries. And yes, I do mean four: England, France, the HRE, and the Roman Catholic Church, which maintained its own legal system in parallel to those maintained by civil authorities of various stripes. Though arguably more than four, as there are discontinuities in the political situations in those jurisdictions over time (e.g., the Norman Conquest in AD 1066 resulted in significant, long-lasting changes to the legal system in England).

And really, while the HRE certainly had its own legal system, the HRE itself was made up of hundreds of individual political units, each of which maintained their own legal systems. As far as that goes, if you think about the relationship between individual US states and the US federal government, you're kind of in the right ballpark, but relationship was not nearly so close, and the diversity between legal systems across various HRE jurisdictions was far more significant than exists under the US system of federalism. The Holy Roman Emperor (and the imperial government generally) exerted far less direct control over most of its constituent polities than the US federal government does over US state and local governments.

All of which to say. . . it depends on the level of detail you're looking for. Your post sounds fairly granular on both the jurisdictional and source-of-law levels. IF you want that, I highly doubt you're going to find a single book that covers more than one legal system for any length of time. But there are definitely books that attempt to trace the macro-level development of Western European legal systems, sometimes reaching back as far as the classical period in Greece. Here's one. This one seems to focus more on France and England, but there's mention of Germanic legal systems in the TOC. Here's another. From the TOC, the period you're interested in is covered in basically one chapter. Probably some good information in there, but there just can't be all that much detail.

See what I mean?

This is pretty much a synopsis of Guerilla Tactics for Getting the Legal Job of Your Dreams by Kimm Alayne Walton.

Great book, and you have to agree with the proactive approach. Nice post, OP.

Law 101 by Jay Feinman is pretty good.

Making Our Democracy Work by Justice Breyer is a pretty good overview of constitutional law.

This should be right up your alley. I read it in high school and found it really interesting. It's nice because each chapter covers a different case, and all the events leading up to each, so it's extremely digestible.

I found Berry's Effective Appellate Advocacy to be helpful.

I read a few - none were worth it in my opinion except for 1L of a ride - it covers everything and is extremely witty and humorous - keeps things light but gives you a few tips to look out for. I found every chapter to be true at least in part.

What Law School Doesn't Teach You: But You Really Need to Know is a little old and it's not so much about skills but I think it's a good book.

Rule of Proof:

1. Name all the interests and notice the contingent or executory interests
   
   
2. Name all the lives in being
   
   
3. Give birth to afterborns or widows
   
   
   
4. Kill all the lives in being
   
   
5. Add 21 years
   
   
6. Is there ANY possibility of remote vesting? If yes, the clause is VOID ab initio, at the creation of the clause.
   
   
   Example: Jee v. Audley:
   Grant: A to wife for life, then to M and the issue of her body, but if M's issue fails, then to the daughters of J and E then living.
   It is possible that Mary's issue will not fail until much more than 21 years after all persons living at the time of the will have died. Therefore, the "But If" portion is void and the grant reads: A to wife for life, then to M and the issue of her body
   
   It's hard to convey with one example. If you have the time, this workbook by Raymond Coletta takes you through everything you need to know about estates and future interests including RAP with 100+ examples. You can go through the entire thing and a couple of days and by then end you'll have everything mastered or at least close to it. As a bonus, his use of character names from South Park in his hypos makes things a little less dry.
   
   Edit: combined posts

More like 2 weeks.

https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Special-Counsel-Collusion-ebook/dp/B07P67QXGN/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=mueller+report&qid=1555428409&s=gateway&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Washington-Post-ebook/dp/B07PB76691/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=mueller+report&qid=1555428464&s=gateway&sr=8-2

My jurisprudence professor recommended The End of Lawyers?: Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services by Richard Susskind

>Shall I cite the FBI agent that said that to me? Didn't ask for his name.

I was talking about the statute text, not the FBI quote. For example, something like:

>(a) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hillcrest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.

>(b) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subsection (a) of this section, subject to W.S. 31-5-203(b), the limits specified in this subsection or established as otherwise authorized shall be maximum lawful speeds and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of maximum limits...

Wyoming Statute available here.

>But I will take odds on gamble you yourself have committed a felony at some point. I'll take 10:1 against on any american out there.

OK, but this is not the issue at hand. Maybe that comes from the laws being too broad. Maybe it comes from too many laws. Maybe too many things are felonies. Assuming we agree that it really is a problem that everyone commits felonies that they don't even know about, we can still disagree on the solution to the problem.

If you want to learn, read some of the links I gave you. Those are free. Also consider getting a textbook like this. You can't learn this stuff from some Reddit posts. To get to the level of discussion that you seem to want to have you will need to spend some time learning about the basic fundamentals, just as I would need to go learn some basic physics and engineering fundamentals before I tried to have a deep discussion on shipbuilding.

Bryan Garner's Redbook helps me to not sound like an idiot.

Matthew Butterick's Typography for Lawyers helps me to not look like one.

The Redbook sits on my desk, Typography for Lawyers is never far away.

There is a political movement to resurrect Lochner. E.g., George Will, David Bernstein, etc.

That said, it's to the right of Ted Cruz.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X/

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010/

https://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-Over-Right-America/dp/0393345831

https://www.amazon.com/Living-Guns-Liberals-Second-Amendment/dp/1610391691/

https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Second-Amendment-Documentary-Commentaries/dp/0962366439

https://www.amazon.com/Armed-America-Remarkable-Became-American/dp/1595552847

https://www.amazon.com/Keep-Bear-Arms-Origins-Anglo-American/dp/0674893077

https://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns-Firearms-Control-Institutions/dp/0202305694

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X

Our class got this book during orientation.

Also consider Scalia's Making Your Case, which also includes sections on oral argument.

Why stop at the blue book, have you ever heard of a court that didn't rely on the black book for a definition?

See my post below, it costs tens of millions more to execute someone than to keep them alive. As for whether or not solitary or death is more humane, I'm sure if we posed that question to him he'd choose solitary. As for your last question, the point isn't whether he deserves to be treated humanely, it's whether we as a society are the type to execute human beings. The vast vast majority of the civilized world has chosen not to, but America (mostly the South, i.e., Texas and Georgia) continues to.

If you or anybody else is actually interested in this topic, you should read Scott Turow's Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty. He was appointed by the then governor of Illinois to determine what to do about Illinois' death penalty, and spends the book going through all the justifications and costs of the death penalty (costs, morality, victim's families, etc.). He begins the book and his research pro-death penalty and ends up recommending that the state abolish it.