what will a judge want to know?
- WARN act
- see jan 27 class notes
what will a judge not need to know?
- summary judgement motions
- waiver of defense
organizational form
- again, see jan 27 class notes: what courts have considered under the subj and obj parts
- organization won't be as the court requested, because that doesn't make sense for the way the *rule* works
- see p. 342 for ideas for roadmaps/signposts:
"there are three factors a court considers"
"there are two elements to the test"
"there are five factors..."
in determining whether 18 US s.2339B requires specific or general intent, the courts first look to the plain language of the stattue. if the plain language of the statute is ambiguous or would produce an absurd result, the courts then look at the statute's legislative history, the policies underlying the statute, and how other jurisdictions have interpreted the statute.
the roadmap is laid out by the "if --> then" language
the signposts are laid out by the overarching concepts/areas of exploration
what makes a sentence strong?
1. keeping the subject and verb close.
2. keeping the verb a status verb (looked, reversed, considered vs. is, has, was)
3. put old info in the beginning and new info at the end of a sentence (to link like a chain)
4. varied sentence length in a paragraph.
5. using the actor as the subject of the sentences.
6. parallelism
effective example of combination of active, passive and parallelism
"this court (active voice) does not believe this burden is that great in the typical case. often such an intent will be easily inferred (combination of parallelism and passive voice). for example, a jury could infer a specific intent (combination of parallelism and active voice) to further the illegal activities of a FTO when a defendant knowingly provides weapons, explosives, or lethal substances to an organization that he knows is a FTO because of the nature of the support...."
remember there's a word limit. so - how do we go about getting rid of surplus words?
see p. 346 for word limit revision
sentence 1
a. "the initial focus of statutory analysis is the plain meaning of the language of the statute itself." (17 words, 'focus' is weak subject, active voice but weak construction because not a status verb, 'statute itself' is an unnecessary intensifier)
b. "in analyzing a statute, the courts look first at the plain meaning of the statute's language." (16 words, but now 'courts' is a stronger subject, still active voice and 'look' is a status verb)
sentence 2
a. "as written, the plain meaning of 18 USC s.2339B does not require the gov't to demonstrate that a defendant possessed the mens rea of specific intent to support illegal terrorist acts." (31 words, 'mens rea' has a kind of legalese effect that doesn't convey information, nominalization of the verb 'intent' by saying "possessed the intention",
b. "in the present case, 18 USC s.2339B does not require the gov't to prove that a defendant intended to support illegal terrorist acts." (23 words, replaced 'to demonstrate' with prove, which is a better word because it is a precise word choice, )
sentence 3
a. "instead, the defendant violates the statute only if he or she "knowingly provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization" with the "knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization" or that the organization engages in terrorist activities."
b. "instead, the gov't need only prove that the defendant "knowingly provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organiation with the "knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization" or that the organization engages in terrorist activities." (engages parallelism to the argument in explaining what the gov't must prove instead of focusing on the defendant's actions)
sentence 4
a. "the language does not state a requirement that the defendant must intend for the material support to contribute directly to a criminal terrorist act by the FTO."
b. deleted (is superfluous to the content of the revised version)
see conciseness beginning p.657
proofreading
see p.347
1. incorrect use of apostrophes.
2. dangling modifiers.
3. misplaced modifiers.
4. pronouns that don't agree with the noun.
5. lack of parallelism for items in a list.
6. comma splices
7. typos that result from relying on spell check.
8. overuse of "clearly"
9. incorrect or missing pinpoint citations!
10. incorrect or misusing citation signals
suggestion for parallelism practice -- line up the parts of the argument!
1. the trial court concluded that the agreement was
not only fair economically
but also procedurally fair
change to not only economically fair
but also procedurally fair
2. mr. park claims that the trial court's actions resulted in a property distribution that was
neither fair
nor was it equitable
change to neither fair
nor equitable
3. the jury is not to consider this evidence as
either proof of negligence
or as an admission of negligence on the part of the city
change to either proof of negligence
or an admission of negligence
4. heller did not object to the use of medical records evidence at
either the board hearing
or during the trial de novo
change to at either the board hearing
or at the trial de novo
memo
construction example
b. op purpose
courts have recognized that "shared purpose" is vague but that it must mean more than just shared business. cited case. in cited case, the employer operated several coal mines **should have explained how business was operated, and operated independently at each site**. etc. according to some courts, op purpose "may imply that non-contiguous sites have same op purpose"
citing bankruptcy cases
see rule 10.2.1(a)
roeder v. united steelworkers (in re old electralloy corp.), 162 B.R. 121 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.)
n.b. - see union names rule at 10.2.5
abbreviations review
D. Ct. 2004 --> D. Conn. 2004
see table T10
E.D.Mo. 1996 --> E.D. Mo. 1996
why? need a space between D and Mo
D.C. Cal. 1993 --> C.D. Cal. 1993
see table T6, or any other table on court names
why? there are multiple district courts in CA and the geographical initial modifies the district court, not the other way around
3rd Cir. 1996 --> 3d Cir. 1991
Bkrp. S.D.N.Y. 2001 --> Bankr. S.D.N.Y 2001
Bankr.D. Conn. 1994 --> Bankr. D. Conn. 1994
352 F.Supp. 1292 --> 352 F. Supp. 1292
15 F. 2nd 332 --> 15 F.2d 332
spacing rule is R6.1(a) on p. 72
circuit courts = F., F.2d, F.3d (must have Cir. for circuit in court name)
district courts = F. Supp., F. Supp. 2d (must have D for district in court name)
finally,
don't get confused about the good faith exception in the faltering company exception
don't make the mistake of quoting editorial content as a use of authority
counsel - not council, or use lawyer/attorney
No comments:
Post a Comment