Life of a Law Student

The Art of the Law School Transfer

Neil — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:05:33 +0000

As many of you know, I transferred law schools after my 1L year. Many law students consider transferring after their 1L year, generally to move to a higher ranked school.

I transferred because I was marrying someone out of state (and dropping a little in the law school rankings), so I didn’t have the same academic pressure. Unfortunately, that transfer process did not go smoothly for me.

Thankfully, a LoaLS listener has written a comprehensive guide on transferring, appropriately entitled The Art of the Law School Transfer. I provided my narrative as an epilogue, and the book is now available! The author was kind enough to send me a review copy.

Here’s my official “review” of The Art of the Law School Transfer: “Any law student that isn’t 100% satisfied with their current school should invest the time and money to read this book. Well-written, practical, and comprehensive, The Art of the Law School Transfer walks you through the entire tightrope that is transferring: from whether you should consider transferring to how to succeed at your new school.”

You can buy The Art of the Law School Transfer via Amazon.com

- Neil

A Plea to New Law Students

Rob Wiltbank — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:32:57 +0000

Among other things, I am Firearms Instructor.

When I tell people this, it’s usually a 50/50 split as to whether their eyes are filled with fear or interest. Minds have been conditioned by the media and social biases that “Guns are bad.” When I counsel students at the college where I work who are starting their education in legal studies, I ask them a few questions (this works a bit better during an election year):

1) Do you think guns should be banned?
2) The guy who held the sign “You’re a Liar” in the front row of an Obama/Bush rally — should he have been escorted out?
3) Should a person be allowed to wear their pants low so you can see their boxers?
4) Are DUI checkpoints a good idea?

Each of these issues deals with specific individual freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, some of which have been compromised, but all of which usually (8 times out of 10) solicit an expected knee-jerk response from the person I’m asking. So, here is my plea to you — the incoming 1L class:

Wait. When you’re asked a question such as the one above, bite your tongue and prevent yourself from giving the “right” answer… The “right” answer being common sense. Instead, take a few moments and think, not just about the rights of the people and public safety, but of the rights of the individual. Remember that “the people” are comprised of individuals and each of us has inalienable rights — remember your Con Law case studies… Once you’ve taken everything into account, then give the “correct” answer.

Express. When you have a spirited debate, pot shots are bound to happen, but I beg that, while you should debate and defend your position with zeal, that you do so as civily as possible. Resorting to foul language can instantly destroy any credibility you may have built and you will most certainly loose any respect gained by your opponent.

Love. Our Constitution is a wonderfully glorious thing — it laid the foundations for our individual freedoms and our way of living. If, at this very moment, you believe that jump-out squads and curfews are good for public safety; if you believe someone who says, “Fuck” in public should be cited with disorderly conduct; if you think that police should be allowed to require you to show them your ID at will… I beg of you to learn all of the reasons to hate these ideas and love your Constitution and freedoms it provides you. Research the case history and learn WHY obvious criminals are let go because an officer illegally siezed a weapon and cherrish that. Understand that the laws that let suspects off on “technicalities” aren’t just there for them, but that every single day they protect people like you.

Once you’ve done this, if you still believe your previous notions were correct then, by all means, return to them. You’ll go back, not only with an appreciation for the other side, but you’ll be better able to defend your position because you will understand your opponent and their line of reasoning.

Good luck on your Fall semester, my friends… keep up with your reading and remember to challenge your mind every single day.

LoaLS #1 on Online Schools Blog Choice

Rob Wiltbank — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:41:31 +0000

I found out this morning that Life of a Law Student is the top choice over at OnlineSchools.Org on their list of 100 Best Blogs for Law School Students.

“Law school is an arduous ordeal few are prepared to undertake. In recent years, the proliferation of technology has made it easier for students to get study tips, career advice or anything else they may need. Blogs have been especially useful for sharing information between people. Whether you’re already in law school or are thinking about applying check out the 100 best blogs for law school students.”

Head on over to their Blog Post and check out their article!

Fixing Podcasts

Rob Wiltbank — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:54:56 +0000

Greetings, folks!

So, in the course of migration from Podango, several of our podcasts had become corrupted. I have begun restoring the process from DVD backup, though it will take a while. Criminal Law has been fixed as well as Property Law — the others will need to be manually edited since our automated process for assembling the episode together with the intro and outro is gone.

I appreciate your patience!

Feed Woes Update

Rob Wiltbank — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:59:17 +0000

It pays to be a programmer sometimes.

I just finished writing a script to migrate our database so the podcasts, which previously pointed to the Podango feed, now point to a valid source location. You can now listen to our podcasts through the website or you can subscribe to the various classes at our feedpage — you can click the iTunes Subscribe button and it will add that feed to the list of your podcasts using iTunes as your podcatcher. You can find our feed list here: http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/podcast-feeds/

NOTE: Subscribing through the iTunes Store will still be problematic as we have to speak with iTunes support to make that change for us and those types of requests usually take some time to process. So, we’d greatly appreciate it if you could pass along the word about the update.

Oh, and Happy New Year folks.

Of Feeds and Technical Difficulties

Rob Wiltbank — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:22:26 +0000

Greetings, folks…

As of December 31st, 2008, our primary feed provider, Podango, decided to reorganize and switch from a free-based service to a fee-based service. In true internet fashion, they gave everyone about a weeks notice to switch everything over and forward their RSS feeds. Being in and out of the hospital after Christmas, needless to say I had zero time to accomplish this, so we’ll be having a period of maintenance ourselves while we switch all of our podcasts from podango feeds to another feed service or host the feed ourselves.

I want to stress that no content has been lost — we have all of our episodes, so we’re golden there… please just bear with us as we go through this period of reorganization.

It’s Time For Finals!

Rob Wiltbank — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:53:18 +0000

It’s time for finals and, in the spirit of reviewing, Fitz found this great video on YouTube. Enjoy!

The Constution, Bill of Rights and Bankrupcy Procedures

Rob Wiltbank — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:14:25 +0000

Fitz, over at The Law Pod, has updated his iPod Touch and iPhone resource with the Constitution and the Amendments along with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Interestingly, you can browse to the pages directly on your PC or Macintosh, but only with Safari (Apple’s browser) or Google’s “Chrome”, but only because it used Apple’s toolkit to develop it, so those two browsers support iPhone and iPod Touch formatted pages and features.

Thanks for the update, Fitz!

Federal Rules

Rob Wiltbank — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:44:28 +0000

Fitz, over at The Law Pod, has a great resource for your iPhone or your iPod Touch.

Law Pod’s web applications can be quickly and easily installed on your iPhone or iPod Touch by following the directions on the law pod home page. The Law Pod currently features the following web applications:

- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Federal Rules of Evidence

Upcoming Law Pod web applications include:
- Model Penal Code
- U.S. Constitution + Amendments
- Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
- And Many More!

The Law Pod is a perfect companion for lawyers and law students.

You can find more information at Apple’s Website or, again, at The Law Pod. Thanks, Fitz!

News and Views #23: New Feeds And Nominations

Rob Wiltbank — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:05:23 +0000

In this episode, we let you know that our two new feeds are both finally up — Introduction to Criminal Justice is a 100-level Criminal Justice course for Delaware Tech and Criminal Judiciary is a 200-level Criminal Justice course at Delaware Tech. Both feeds should be up on iTunes shortly; however, in the mean time, you can subscribe to the feed through iTunes by going to our Feeds back and clicking on the iTunes icon next to the feed name.

Also, nominations for the 2008 Podcast Awards has begun! Please visit http://www.podcastawards.com/ and, under the Education topic, please nominate us! Part of the criteria for selection is the number of nominations received… You only need to nominate once and the period ends soon, so please lend us a hand with this!

Criminal Judiciary #2: Law and Crime

Rob Wiltbank — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:36:54 +0000

In this episode of Criminal Judiciary, we get a brief overview of the history of our law and its English roots. Common law, civil law and criminal law and basic legal concepts are explained and we learn the different between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “beyond a preponderance of the evidence.”

Just a reminder that in a couple of days, nominations for the 2008 Podcast Awards will be opening, we hope we can count on you to drop up a nomination for the Best Educational Podcast!

In Our Thoughts…

Rob Wiltbank — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:25:10 +0000

I just wanted to take a brief moment to recognize the 7th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center towers on September 11th, 2001. The injured and those who were lost and their survivors are in my thoughts today.

Intro to Criminal Justice #1: Justice and Public Safety

Rob Wiltbank — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:58:34 +0000

Benjamin Franklin was once quoted as saying, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” There’s a balance that must be struck between maintaing individual rights while balancing them against the interest of public safety. In this, our innaugural episode of Introduction to Criminal Justice, we’ll be discussing the basic concepts of criminal justice and the judicial process.

I would like to remind our listeners that this podcast is part of our new undergraduate content — it is a 100 level course for the Criminal Justice program at Delaware Tech. We hope you enjoy our new shows! When you’re done listening, we ask that you stop by our website at http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/ and check us out. On September 15th, we’re asking all of our listeners to click on the Podcast Awards banner on our website and nominate us for the Best Education Podcast… With close to 450 episodes, we feel we’ve earned it and hope that you do, too!

News and Views #22: New Feeds and Podcast Awards!

Rob Wiltbank — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:09:58 +0000

This is a quick podcast to tell you about a couple of new feeds we have no for the Fall and to request your help!

To begin with, Episode 1 of our Criminal Judiciary podcast is up and available! By tomorrow, I’m hoping to have up the first episode of the Introduction to Criminal Justice podcast — listen to the podcast for details on what they cover.

Lastly, our call for help…

Come September 15th, nominations will open for Podcast Awards.com Listener’s Choice Award. For 2008, Life of a Law Student will be seeking nomination for the Best Podcast in the area of Education so, come mid-September, we ask that all of our listeners go to http://podcastawards.com/ and give us a nomination. 40% of the decision on whether or not a podcast will be nominated is on the number of nominations, so we’ll be dropping reminders as we get closer to the date!

Can we count on you? Drop us a comment here and let us know!

Criminal Judiciary #1: House v. Bell

Rob Wiltbank — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:14:56 +0000

With a new semester comes new courses; with new courses comes new content! Criminal Judiciary is a 200-level undergraduate course offered at Delaware Tech as part of their Criminal Justice program — the course will cover the history, traditions and philosophies of our system of justice in addition to covering many landmark cases and court procedure.

In this episode we give a brief overview of the course, the Shareef Cousin’s murder trial which we’ll be following throughout this course and, finally, cover the procedural history behind House v. Bell.

House v. Bell (Case)

House v. Bell (SCOTUS Decision)

I Don’t Know What I’ll Do This Summer

Rob Wiltbank — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:09:08 +0000

Steve Luther is a law student who’s trying to find the right summer job — the pressures of deciding whether to follow his conscious or his wallet ultimately throw his life into turmoil, so he does what any of us would do… he turns it into a four minute work of fiction he made to try to win a contest.

A little humor to lighten up your day. Thanks to Richard for passing this along!

You can vote for them here: http://errgh.com/HelpSteve/Vote/

News and Views #21: D.C. v. Heller

Rob Wiltbank — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:12:40 +0000

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No other sentence has been the root of so much contention, confusion and controversy when it comes to the Bill of Rights. In this episode, we’ll be reviewing D.C. v. Heller, the landmark supreme court case that has defined the Second Amendment as an individual right.

D.C. v. Heller (2008)
Oral Argument Transcript (PDF)
SCOTUS Decision (PDF)

News and Views #20: Introducing Rob Wiltbank

Rob Wiltbank — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:52:46 +0000

Rob Wiltbank will be taking up the mantle as Project Lead for Life of a Law Student. As an established IT industry professional and a Criminal Justice as Pre-Law student, Rob will be adding undergrad content as he continues to push forward to expand the project.

Website Software Updated

Rob Wiltbank — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:50:31 +0000

I’ve updated the site to the latest version of the software available by WordPress — if you come across any oddities or issues, please let me know! Additionally, I’ve gotten my introduction recorded and will be publishing that podcast very soon, so keep an eye out on the News and Views feed.

Getting Back on Track… An Update.

Rob Wiltbank — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:55:15 +0000

Greetings, folks.

I’m looking to get things back on track, albeit in baby steps. My name is Rob Wiltbank and I’ll be lending a hand to Neil for the foreseeable future with Life of a Law Student. Between law school, some personal commitments and, of course, being a good husband, it’s going to be difficult for him to have as active of a role as he’s had in the past.

So, a little about myself… By day, I’m a web and database application developer at Delaware Technical & Community College. By night, I’m an Adjunct Faculty member for our Computer Science department. You may be asking yourself, “How does that qualify you to take over LoaLS?” And the short answer is, “It doesn’t. Not really… well, kinda sorta.” Perhaps more explanation is in order.

On the back-end of things, I’ll be able to maintain the site and keep the code current — the day to day operation of web applications is right up my alley. Additionally, I’ve done professional audio production in the past, so creating quality podcasts will also be a fairly simple task, which comes to the big issue… What’s my legal experience?!

Glad you asked! In addition to my family and those pesky day and night jobs, I’ve also made it a goal in my life to earn my J.D.. So, working for a college, I get fairly sweet deals on tuitions (read: free) at my institution and at the University of Delaware. So, I’m currently in a connected program between these two educational facilities to obtain my A.A.S./B.A. in Criminal Justice as a Pre-Law Major before going off to Widener University’s School of Law, so I will be producing podcasts on the material that will be covered in my course of study.

So, in the meantime, we’ll be doing a bit of house cleaning and re-organizing to get everything up to date — hopefully, you won’t notice much of a change. Once the Fall semester begins, I’ll look at posting a podcast introduction and follow it up with what’s being covered.

If you have any suggestions for updates, content or changes, please leave a comment and we’ll make a list to see what’s workable.

Plan for this Semester

Neil — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:06:51 +0000

I know many of you are getting tired of seeing new blog posts but no new content.

I understand. It’s killing me that I haven’t had the opportunity to add much to the site in some time.

Unfortunately, I see now that my 18 credit hour schedule is not going to be as friendly as I had initially thought. The internships are taking up a significant amount of time, and the reading for three of my classes is much longer (and in one case, much more technical), than I’ve previously had. I’m not complaining by any measure, but more time is being taken up than I expected.

And let’s not forget that I’m still married, and I need to be spending some time with my wife. (I made a sacred vow to her, not to this site :).)

What does all of this mean for LoaLS?

It means that updates this semester are going to be sporadic at best. My substantive classes have to get first priority (which paid off with 3 A+’s, 2 A’s and a Moot Court championship last semester). I also need to ensure that I’m spending time with my wife.

So is LoaLS dead?

Not at all. I’ll put up what I can this semester and over the summer. Next year I will only have to take 12 credit hours each semester (although 1 hour of that may be Moot Court board). That will help me clear out the backlog and potentially start bringing in new content from other sources. Additionally, I hope that my grades and resume will enable me to get a job nailed down by early in the fall, so I don’t have to spend a significant number of hours job-hunting.

So sorry if things go / remain silent. The silence won’t last forever :).

- Neil

Vote for Law Student Run JURIST in Webbys

Josh — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:46:32 +0000

Hi LoaLS Readers,

I am a 1L at the University of Pittsburgh, and avid LoaLS reader.Â Â As I told Neil in my e-mail, the resources he has have been extremely helpful to me in my first year.Â Neil is letting me post here about the 2008 Webby Awards and JURIST, the site I write for.Â JURIST was nominated this year for a Webby in the law category.

As a Webby Award nominee, JURIST is also eligible to win a People’s Voice Award. I am writing here to ask you to vote for JURIST. JURIST is up against the ABA Journal, a Goliath to JURIST’s David.Â However, with help from the law student online community like LoaLS readers, I believe JURIST can win the award.

Voting on Webby nominees is open to the public from April 8th to May 1st. To vote for JURIST, go to the “People’s Voice” voting site by clicking here. Register (you may need to scroll down), get the activation code that will be sent to your e-mail account, then log in to the People’s Voice site, click on the “Website” grouping, scroll down to “Society” and vote in the Law category. The process takes just a couple of minutes. It’s easy.

Headquartered at Pitt Law, JURIST is powered by a team of some 45 law student reporters, editors and web developers led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts who volunteer their time and talent to the project, working with leading legal experts from around the world to provide up-to-the minute legal news, primary source research and analysis as an educational service to the public and the legal community.

Please feel free to e-mail me with any questions: josh at joshcamson dot com.

Thanks to Neil for letting me post here!!

Josh Camson

Why the Site (Still) Isn’t Fully Working

Neil — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:38:52 +0000

The company that runs the back-end CMS I use (Podango) is still experiencing problems. They transitioned servers last night, and now I’m unable to log in to my control panel to manage audio and troubleshoot the problems with the recently uploaded audio.

I have sent them an email, and hope to get this resolved shortly.

Unfortunately, time I spend fixing the site is not time I can spend recording. This is getting quite frustrating…

- Neil

Update: Podango has fixed things are their end, and hopefully this weekend I’ll be able to start recording and posting new content.

Update: Technical Glitches and Episode Backlog

Neil — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:29:09 +0000

Hey all,

So last semester is over, and a new semester is about to begin. You may have noticed a few episodes up, but they are taking time to get up (and often don’t work if you go to listen to them).

Here’s what’s going on. The back-end Content Management System I use was taken over by another organization. Since that hand-over, technical problems have begun occurring. The CMS team sent out an email apologizing to the entire user base regarding these problems, but they have not yet all been resolved.

These technical problems slowed me down quite a bit over winter break, when I hoped to clear out the episode backlog. I’ve also been slowed down because I’m recording Copyright Law first. (It’s not that I don’t understand the material, the opposite in fact. I’m being much more careful and re-recording episodes if I’m not completely satisfied with them.) I’ve also been busy over Winter Break with coaching our school’s national trademark Moot Court team.

I anticipate this semester to be a bit easier than last semester. First, I’m taking a few less credit hours. Second, five of those hours are internships (ie no reading, recording, or exams). Third, I don’t have the writing credit hours that I did last semester. Finally, I don’t have a Saturday class, as that drains the life out of you.

So that’s where we’re at. I’m going to keep troubleshooting these back-end problems, and try to get Copyright Law recorded in the near future. As always, feel free to contact me with questions.

- Neil

Copyright Law #4: Fixation

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:48:18 +0000

Copyright applies upon tangible fixation. In this episode, we will examine what is meant by “fixation,” including the question of whether a copy of a work in RAM is tangibly fixed.

Note: Due to temporary technical issues, this episode lacks an intro and outro (they will be provided shortly).

Copyright Law #3: Introduction to Copyright III

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:48:02 +0000

Copyright in the United States is affected by both the Federal Constitution, and international law such as the Berne Convention. Additionally, international law is often used to justify increases in rights for the sake of “harmonization.” We conclude this last introductory episode by briefly comparing and contrasting several areas of the law that are often lumped together as “intellectual property.”

Note: Due to temporary technical issues, this episode lacks an intro and outro (they will be provided shortly).

Copyright Law #2: Introduction to Copyright II

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:47:47 +0000

Copyright applies to a wide variety of works, even types of expression that are newly created (and not explicitly referenced in the copyright act). However, some items of “intellectual creation” are outside of copyright, such as ideas or works of the federal government. We conclude this episode by exploring how to analyze a given situation, to determine whether copyright prevents a new use.

Note: Due to temporary technical issues, this episode lacks an intro and outro (they will be provided shortly).

Copyright Law #1: Introduction to Copyright I

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:47:26 +0000

In this, the first episode of Copyright Law, we begin a high-level overview of what copyright is. Almost everyone is a copyright holder, with specific exclusive rights over their original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium. We close this episode with a look at three views of the justification for copyright.

Note: Due to temporary technical issues, this episode lacks an intro and outro (they will be provided shortly).

Fundamentals of Copyright #11: Non-Copyright Concerns

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:47:09 +0000

Copyright is not the only law you have to be aware of when considering whether or not to use a work. Patents, trademarks, trade secrets, contracts, and other issues may provide an additional “layer of protection” beyond just copyright.

Fundamentals of Copyright #10: Other Limitations and Exceptions

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:46:36 +0000

Fair Use is not the only limitation or exception to the exclusive rights of copyright. In this episode, Prof. Crews walks through several other limitations and exceptions.

Fundamentals of Copyright #9: Fair Use IV

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:46:20 +0000

In this final episode on Fair Use, Prof. Crews reviews and wraps up Fair Use. Additionally, Prof. Crews discusses hard and fast “guidelines” that are often promulgated in the fields of education and libraries.

Fundamentals of Copyright #8: Fair Use III

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:46:03 +0000

Fair Use provides guidelines, but very few hard and fast rules. As an example, sometimes using large amounts of a copyrighted work (perhaps even all of the copyrighted work) will qualify as a Fair Use, while sometimes using only a small amount of a copyrighted work will not qualify as Fair Use. As several cases show, the key is that all four of the factors must be considered.

Fundamentals of Copyright #7: Fair Use II

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:45:44 +0000

In this second episode of Fair Use, Prof. Crews examines two actual court cases applying Fair Use. The first case concerns photocopying by Kinko’s, and the second case concerns 2 Live Crew’s parody of the song “Pretty Woman.”

Fundamentals of Copyright #6: Fair Use I

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:45:25 +0000

The “exclusive rights” of copyright aren’t exactly exclusive. There are numerous exceptions and limitations to these rights, with Fair Use being the most important of these. In this first episode on Fair Use, Prof. Crews examines the four statutory factors of Fair Use.

Fundamentals of Copyright #5: The Five Exclusive Rights and Moral Rights

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:45:05 +0000

The core of copyright revolves around the five exclusive rights. These rights include the right of reproduction, distribution, public display, public performance, and the creation of derivative works. The concept of “moral rights” are also discussed.

Fundamentals of Copyright #4: Duration of Copyright II

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:44:49 +0000

The duration of a copyright is treated slightly differently if the work is a “work made for hire.” In this episode, Prof. Crews defines “work made for hire,” and looks at the specific issues regarding these works.

Fundamentals of Copyright #3: Duration of Copyright I

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:44:33 +0000

Copyright lasts for a very long time. For works created after 1977, the term of copyright is life of the author plus seventy years. However, previous copyright acts had different rules, and those rules will affect the duration of pre-1978 works. Prof. Crews also mentions joint authorship.

Fundamentals of Copyright #2: Basic Mantra and Some Exceptions

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:43:36 +0000

In this episode, Prof. Crews looks at the basic mantra of copyright: copyright applies instantly and automatically to original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Some of the exceptions to copyright are examined, such as facts, ideas, and works of the federal government being outside of copyright.

Fundamentals of Copyright #1: High-Level Overview of Copyright

Neil — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:42:59 +0000

In this, the first episode of Fundamentals of Copyright, Prof. Kenneth Crews gives a high-level overview of copyright law. Essentially, the law gives specific rights to the holder of a copyright and then carves out certain exceptions. Copyright is granted automatically to a wide range of works, and lasts for a very long time.

Technical Problems

Neil — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:26:22 +0000

It’s been brought to my attention that audio is unavailable at the moment. This is a problem with our external host. I am looking into it, and hope for things to be resolved shortly.

In the meantime, you might want to check http://lifeofalawstudent.com/bulkaudio/. It’s not as pretty, but all of the episodes are available there.

- Neil

Update: All appears to be back to normal now.

Canadian Immigration and Refugee Law #5: Constitutional Review

Neil — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:17:03 +0000

In this podcast we will consider the issue of constitutional review, specifically whether section 7 of the charter is violated by deportation.

Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v Chiarelli (1992)
Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002)

Canadian Immigration and Refugee Law #4: National Status

Neil — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:15:09 +0000

In this podcast, we will consider the different types of status that may be held by an individual in Canada - Citizen, Permanent Resident, and Foreign National. We will begin a preliminary examination of the effect a different status can make on one’s rights, which shall be expanded upon throughout the course.

Chen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001)
Langer v Canada(Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1995)
Romans v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001)

Canadian Immigration and Refugee Law #3: Sovereignty and Open Boarders, Part 2

Neil — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:53:31 +0000

This episode is a continuation of the discussion of open boarders from the previous podcast. We will focus on the writings of Catherine Dauvergne and Donald Galloway.

Canadian Immigration and Refugee Law #2: Sovereignty and Open Boarders

Neil — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:51:30 +0000

In this podcast, we will consider some of the theories of state sovereignty and the arguments for and against open boarders. This topic will span two podcasts. The first will focus on the writings of Carens and Walzer.

Canadian Immigration and Refugee Law #1: Introduction

Neil — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:35:22 +0000

This is the first podcast in Canadian Immigration and refugee law. We begin by considering the historical evolution of immigration within Canada and then turn to some early immigration cases to consider the role that racism played in the immigration process.

Union Colliery Co v Bryden (1899)
Quong Wing v the King (1914)
Canada v Singh
re Munshi Singh (1914)
Mack v Canada (AG) (2002)

Janet Dench, “A Hundred Years of Imm to Canada 1900-1999: A Chronology focusing on refugees and discrimination” (2000). (Online, http://www.web.net/~ccr/history.html)

We’re Not Dead Yet!

Neil — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:52:52 +0000

Hey everyone.

Just an FYI: I have not forgotten about or abandoned LoaLS. The transition back to law school has required significantly more time than I had expected. I also had to spend a great deal earlier this semester writing an appellate brief for Moot Court.

I have fall break coming up, and I am hopeful that I can begin recording new episodes.

- Neil

Canadian Constitutional Law #37 - Remedies and Reform

Erin — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:48:03 +0000

In this podcast we will discuss remedies within the constitution, and the process of constitutional reform within Canada. This is the final podcast in Canadian Constitutional Law.

Schachter v Canada (1992)

Vriend v Alta (1998)

Canadian Constituional Law #36 - Aboriginal Rights

Erin — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:42:24 +0000

In the second-last podcast for the course, we move outside the Charter and consider the constitutional entrenchment of aboriginal rights in sec 35 of the Constitution Act 1982. Even though these rights are entrenched outside of the Charter, we will see how jurisprudence has imposed limits upon aboriginal rights in a style very similar to the section 1 analysis normally performed on charter rights.

St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888)

Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1973)

Guerin v. The Queen (1984)

R. v. Sparrow, (1990)

R. v. Van der Peet, (1996)

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997)

Canadian Consitutional Law #35: Language Rights

Erin — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:41:56 +0000

Language rights are very important in Canada as a result of the historical French-English tension. However, sections 91 and 92 do not assign administration of language-related issues to a specific level of government, so it is treated as an ancilliary sphere over which both levels of government have some control. Language is not a ground listed in section 15, although it may be analogous. The most important provisions relating to language in the constitution are in s133 (the right to use either official language in court and in parliament) and in the Charter between ss16 and 23, the latter being the right to minority language education.

Devine v AG Qc (1988)

AG Manitoba v forest (1979)

Mercure v AG Saskatchewan (1988)

R. v Paquette (1988)

Mahe v Alberta (1990)

Ford v Quebec (AG) (1988)

Canadian Constitutional Law #34: Economic and Social Rights

Erin — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:41:42 +0000

Why does the Charter focus on legal and politcal rights, to the exclusion of economic and social rights? What does this absence mean for Canadian citizens? Could economic and social rights be read into the charter under an existing section? That’s what Gosselin tries to do in Gosselin v Quebec, without success. In this podcast we shall study the supreme court’s judgement, focusing on the dissenting opinion that Canada should include an economic right to basic subsistance under sec 7.

Gosselin v Quebec (2002)

Canadian Constitutional Law #33: Equality Rights

Erin — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:00:11 +0000

In this podcast we will be discussing section 15 of the charter, equality rights. It is important to understand the difference between formal equality (American model) and substantive equality (Canadian model). We will consider the case of Law v Canada, which contains a very thorough analysis of equality rights by Iacobucci J.
Regina v Drybones (1970)

AG Canada v Lavell (1974)

Bliss v Canada (1979)

Law v Canada (1999)

Canadian Constitutional Law #32: Section 7 continued, Assisted Suicide

Erin — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:30:07 +0000

Continuing on with our look at section 7 rights, we will now consider the case of Rodriguez v BC (AG). A woman with Lou Gehrig’s disease seeks a declaration that she may legally seek doctor-assisted suicide when her condition deteriorates to the point that she wishes to end her life. Can the right to choose the manner of one’s death be a constitutionally protected right under security of the person?

Rodriguez v BC (AG) (1993)

Canadian Constitutional Law #31: Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person

Erin — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:09:29 +0000

Moving on to section 7 of the Charter, the first and broadest of the legal rights (ss7-14), we consider life, liberty, and security of the person. This is often used in a criminal law setting, but the cases we looked at in class were more unique. In this podcast, we consider the meaning of fundamental justice in the Motor Vehicle reference, then we look at the Morgentaler case in detail. In Morgentaler, the court found the existing abortion laws to violate security of the person without ever deciding whether women have the right to an abortion under the charter (only Wilson J expressly dealt with the substantive aspect of this issue). Next podcast we will continue section 7 rights with Rodriguez v BC.

Lochner v New York (1905)

Reference re sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code

Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (BC) (1985)

R v Morgentaler (1988)

Canadian Constitutional Law #30: Hate Speech

Erin — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:22:12 +0000

Is hate speech a form of expression? Can it earn the same Charter protection as dissident political speech? In this podcast, we will discuss hate speech, focusing mainly on R v Keegstra. We will briefly compare the Canadian and American conceptions of hate speech. Unlike in the USA, Canadian courts have held hate speech to be an inherently harmful activity analogous to a verbal assault, which is not deserving of the same protection as other forms of expression. This view is not unanimous, and we will look at McLachlin Jâ€™s dissent in Keegstra and Taylor as an alternative view of hate speech not accepted by the supreme court.

R v Keegstra (1990)

Taylor v Canadian Human Rights Commission (1990)

Collin v Smith (1978) (American Case, for comparison only)

RAV v City of St Paul, Minnesota (1992) (American Case, for comparison only)

Ross v New Brunswick School District No 15 (1996)

Saskatchewan (HR commission) v Bell (1991)

Canadian Constitutional Law #29: Freedom of Expression

Erin — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:19:15 +0000

What constitutes expression? Does it have to be speech, or can it include actions such as picketing? What restrictions on expression are justified? In our second podcast on fundamental freedoms, we will consider the importance given to free expression in our constitution (sec 2(b)). In keeping with a pre-Charter view that expression is necessary for a healthy democracy (see episode 22), the supreme court has traditionally given expression a very broad interpretation. In the next podcast, we will consider how the primacy placed on the value of expression changes in cases of hate speech.

R v Keegstra (1990)

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd (1986, SC)

BCGEU v British Columbia (AG 1988)

UFCW local 1518 v Kmart Canada ltd

RWDSU local 558 v Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (west) ltd (2002)

Ford v Qc (1988)

Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG) (1989)

R Moon, â€œThe Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression,â€ 2000

Canadian Constitutional Law #28: Freedom of Religion

Erin — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:11:50 +0000

Can you take your kirpan to school? Not even if it’s in a box under your clothes? These are the questions of section 2(a), freedom of religion. We’ll talk about the evolution of the concept of freedom of religion and look at two cases as examples. First up is Big M Drug Mart, one of the first freedom of religion cases. Then we look at Multani, a case in the media recently about Kirpans in school. If you’re following the current discussions on reasonable accomodation, this is a classic example of how the courts try to respond to situations where seemingly neutral rules impact one group more than another.

Multani v. Commission Scolaire Margueriteâ€‘Bourgeoys, (2006)
R v Big M Drug Mart (1985)
Lordâ€™s Day Act 1970

Canadian Constitutional Law #27: Section 33, Notwithstanding Clause

Erin — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:51:57 +0000

Section 33 of the Charter allows sections 2 and 7-15 to be overridden if parliament or a provincial legislature expressly declare that a law shall operate notwithstanding the charter. This section is almost never invoked by the government because of the political repercussions, but it was considered by the supreme court in Ford v Quebec. We then return to section 1 analysis with a case about economic crisis, and whether that can qualify as a pressing reason to limit rights.

Ford v Quebec (AG), (1988)
Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., (2004)

Canadian Constitutional Law # 26: Section 1 Analysis

Erin — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:44:21 +0000

If you listen to only one Canadian Constitutional Law podcast, it should be this one. Or maybe number 5, since that had both the landmark persons case and the concept of the constitution as a living tree. Well, let’s say if you listen to only two, this should be the second.

We discuss sec 1 analysis, which is used in virtually every charter challenge once it has been established that a right exists and is being infringed. Section 1 allows the government to limit a right if they can demonstrate the limit is: prescribed by law, reasonable, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. R v. Oakes is the early charter case that established a clear test to determine whether the section 1 criteria have meet met, and this test is still used today with very few adjustments. As I promised, I am posting a little map of how a charter challenge works from my notes to make the big picture more clear:

Is there a violation of a right?
Is the violation a reasonable limit under sec 1?

The limit is prescribed by law?
Demonstrably justified in a free/demo society?

i. Purpose is related to concerns which are pressing and substantial

ii. Means used to achieve objective are not disproportionate

1. Rational connection

2. Minimal impairment

3. Balance btwn both competing interests of society and the individual AND balance btwn the benefits of the legislation and the harm caused by it (Dagenais v CBC)

NOTE - In this podcast I originally said I would discuss both section 1 and section 33, but the latter was made into a separate podcast due to length. We will discuss the notwithstanding clause in episode 27.

Osborne v Canada (Treasury Board), (1991)
R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, (1992)
R v Oakes, (1986)
Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG), (1989)
Irwin Toy ltd v Quebec (AG), (1989)
Thompson Newspapers Co v Canada, (1998)
RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), (1995)
R v Lucas, (1998)

Canadian Constitutional Law #25: Application of the Charter and Charter Standing

Erin — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:44:07 +0000

Whose behaviour is bound by the Charter? Sec 32 tells us it applies to government (as opposed to private actors), but in practice this is more difficult to define than it would seem. We will look at a series of cases which define the limits of the Charter’s application. Over time, a body of case law has been built up which places some quasi-governmental entities under Charter jurisdiction (for example, municipalities) while other entities (universities, hospitals, the CBC) are usually not considered to by part of government. However, even a non-governmental entity may be subject to the Charter in certain situations if it executes a government function.

Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union Local 580 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd., (1986)
Shelley v Kraemer, (1948)
New York Times v Sullivan, (1964)
McKinney v University of Guelph, (1990)
Godbout v Longueuil, (1997)
Eldridge v British Columbia, (1997)
Vriend v Alberta, (1998)
Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto, (1995)

Canadian Constitutional Law #24: Judicial Review in Light of the Charter

Erin — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 07:08:54 +0000

In this short episode we will discuss the viewpoints of several authors on the issue of judicial review and its role in a democracy. We will consider the writings of W. Bogart, A. Petter, P. Monahan, and Hogg and Bushell, then look at a quick excerpt from Vriend v Alberta.

Vriend v Alberta, (1998)
R v Morgentaler, (1988)
R v Oakes, (1986)

Constitutional Law (Samuel) #2: Mootness

Samuel — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:49:51 +0000

In Samuel Berbano’s second of a series of podcasts on justiciability doctrines, we’ll analyze the question of Mootness as it relates to Federal Article III courts.Â These courts are bound to take only cases which commentators call a “case or controversy” requirement.Â This requirement exists to preserve the integrity of the adversarial system.

The second doctrine addressed is mootness.Â An issue that Federal courts declare moot is not justiciable and cannot be decided.Â An issue becomes moot when, in the course of litigation, events transpire which deprive one or both parties of a stake in the case.Â Similar to playing the card game of Poker, one can’t hope to play a hand if (1) they don’t have money in the pot and a personal stake in the outcome and (2) they’ve folded their hand and don’t want to keep playing.

The DeFunis case shows how an issue can become moot in the course of litigation.Â Roe, our second case, shows a case that would normally be considered moot, but falls under one of the four exceptions to the mootness doctrine:

1) “Continuing Harm to Plaintiff”

2) “Voluntary Cessation”

3) “Capable of Repetition, But Evading Review”

4) Class Action Lawsuits

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Canadian Constitutional Law #23: Approaches to Charter Interpretation

Erin — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:13:11 +0000

Well, it’s February and we made it to the Charter (if I only I could make it to spring break…) In this podcast we’ll talk about the advent of the Charter and some approaches the court has developed for its interpretation. Interpreting a constitutional document is different from regular statute interpretation, so Dickson J and Wilson J have taken on the task of inventing terms for the work they do, which we shall then memorize and repeat on exams. Good times.

Hunter v Southam (1984)
R v. Big M Drug Mart (1985)
Reference re sec 92(2) of Motor Vehicles Act (1985)
R v Therens (1985)
R v Keegstra (1990)
Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta) (1987)
Edmonton Journal v Alberta (AG) (1989)

Canadian Constitutional Law #22: Implied (and Real) Bill of Rights

Erin — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:12:46 +0000

Were there any protections in place for our rights before the Charter?

In this podcast we first look at the “implied bill of rights”, a concept drawn from a series of pre-Charter cases that seem to hint at the idea that there may be a sphere of fundamental freedoms needed for a democracy which is beyond the reach of the provincial (and perhaps federal) government. Then we will look at the Drybones case and discuss why the Canadian Bill of Rights was ineffectual. Next podcast we will begin on the Charter.

Reference re Alberta Statutes (1938)
Boucher v the King (1951)
Saumur v City of Qc (1953)
Switzman v Elbling (1957)
AG Canada v Dupond (1978)
Ontario Public Service Employeesâ€™ Union v AG Ontario (1987)
Canadian Bill of Rights (1960)
R v. Drybones (1970)
Curr v R (1972)
Winnipeg School Division 1 v Craton (1985)
Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
Canada v Lavell (1974)
Bliss v AG Canada (1979)

Canadian Constitutional Law #21:Racism in the Law, Pre-Charter Era

Erin — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:12:21 +0000

In this podcast we will look at three cases as examples of how racism in the law was dealt with before the charter entrenchment of rights. Without a constitutional document protecting rights, we see that the court could only strike racist legislation on the basis of division of powers. Both the JCPC and the Supreme Court explicitly state that it is not the place of the court to evaluate the wisdom or morality of discrimination in the law, their only role is to evaluate the constitutionality of the law. Predictably, this doesn’t do a lot to allow Japanese citizens in Vancouver to vote, or Chinese citizens in Saskatchewan to employ white waitresses.

Union Colliery Co v Bryden (1899)
Coal Mines Regulation Act
Cunningham v Tomey Homma (1903)
Female Employment Act (1912)
Quong Wing v the King (1914)

Canadian Constitutional Law #20: International Economic Obligations

Erin — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:11:56 +0000

In this podcast we discuss some of Canada’s international economic agreements, and how they are impacted by division of power issues regarding the economy. We will look at some ways in which the constitution is “amended” in practice - that is, the methods that may be employed to achieve a distribution of power between the two levels of government that is not strictly what one would expect from sections 91 and 92.

Hunt v T & N Plc. (1993)
Lovelace v Ontario (2000)
Hospital insurance and Diagnostic Services Act (1957)
Medical Care Act (1966)
Canada Health Act (1984)
Canada Assistance Plan 1966 (CAP)
Unemployment Insurance Reference (AG Canada v AG Ontario) (The Unemployment and Social Insurance Act) (1937)
AG Canada v. AG Ontario (Labour Conventions) (1937)
Winterhaven Stables v Canada (1989)
Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (BC) (1991)
Coughlin v Ontario Highway Transport Board (1968)