so there’s this Missouri case on alimony modification, right? It’s called Richardson v. Richardson.

So essentially, the exhusband in this situation got screwed over by his own hand because he insisted on a non-modification clause in the alimony part of the divorce decree. Basically, that means nobody’s allowed to change it, ever. You can’t change it for material circumstances, NOTHING. 

BUT HE GOT SCREWED OVER, RIGHT, BECAUSE HIS EXWIFE WAS FUCKING BALLER

WHAT DID SHE DO? 

SHE FUCKING HIRED HIT MEN AND THIEVES TO STEAL SHIT FROM HIS HOUSE AND KILL HIM.

I SHIT YOU NOT OMFG. 

and you know what?

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI WAS LIKE “whelp, sorry dude”

like literally it does not get sassier than this opinion.

“A non-modification provision can cut both ways. No one can know which party will need more or deserve less as time passes.”

“unconscionability relative to contract law…is addressed at the time of inception or creation of the contract, NOT THEREAFTER.” 

“…Joseph argues that Ida has waived her right to maintenance by attempting to have him killed because she knew that killing him would cut off maintenance obligation. Killing Joseph might have resulted in the termination of Ida’s ability to collect maintenance, but her alleged acts do not establish a clear and unequivocal attempt to relinquish her contractual right to maintenance so long as Joseph is living.” 

Essentially, dude tried to argue that with fraud cases where you murder a person to get their will, it’s considered null and void.

But like nope nope nope the Court was like “sorry man” 

None of these cases are analogue to the present case. In each of the above, the death of the victim was a PRECONDITION TO THE KILER RECEIVING THE BENEFIT. Here, Ida was alreayd entitled to maintenance.  Because Joseph’s death would result in Ida no longer seeking maintenance, Ida would not profit in this regard if Joseph were murdered.  This i s a different question than if Ida would be entitled to claim death benefits from an insurance policy or otherwise.” 

And then the exhusband was desperately like “DON’T CONDONE THIS, THIS WILL ENCOURAGE MURDER AND SHIT”

And legit the court was like “This state’s criminal and tort laws already do that.” 

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

Conclusion: if you get divorced in Missouri, and you get alimony, and your ex is a right asshole-ish motherfucker, you can hire a hitman to ATTEMPT TO KILL HIM and also steal his shit

…and you’ll still get your alimony.

12b6:

Follower submission - If the SCOTUS Justices Were Characters in Harry Potter

3. JUSTICE GINSBURG IS MINERVA MCGONAGALL


Oh my GOD they’re adorable

Look at Justice Ginsburg. Just look at her:

“We have neither desire, need, nor right to know most of Judge Roberts’s views on most imaginable subjects.”
 —RBG
Now look at this excellent picture of Professor Minerva McGonagall:

“Do what you have to do. I’ll secure the castle.”
—MM

Now look at this picture Justice Ginsburg wearing McGonagall’s signature pointy hat:

This is the face of magical feminist justice 

so a couple of days ago I was in the law school building with my my section bestie (we had all the same classes together 1L year) and we were in the elevator and ran into our property teacher from like two semesters ago.

And like bear in mind we didn’t think she would recognize us because quite frankly it was such a large class but whatevs, she did because she’s a fucking mcgonagall, eyes fucking everywhere s2g.

And she was all like “hello ladies, how are you doing?”

And we were all like eyes front, at attention, “Hi professor, doing well, you?”

She was like “yeah, fine. Exams treating you ok?”

And right when we were about to answer she pulls this shit on us. “So…Rule against perpetuities?” with a fucking OVER THE EYEGLASSES STARE WTF. 

And oh my god I have never been so fucking terrified in an elevator in my life and I’ve been in an elevator with frat boys after chili fest let me tell you.

And like my friend and I were just silent.

So what do I say?

WHAT DO I COME UP WITH TO SAY?

DO I SAY ANYTHING OF VALUE? 

NO.

FUCKING HELL NO.

…I motherfucking blurted out, “DOWNTON ABBEY????!” AT THE TOP OF MY SQUEAKY VOICE.

a;sldkfja;sldkfja;sldfj. 

but she laughed so it’s cool.

But yeah: 2 years of law school, and the best I can come with is “downton abbey.”

I’m going to be honest, I see all this shit about “omfg these college professors are awesome” and I think “welp, they’ve got nothing on my professors”

Like legit I once had an English Professor (the Class was Epic Poetry and Romance) describe some characters in the Illiad as “the Red Shirts.” 

I once had an astronomy teacher who was trying to demonstrate jet propulsion and he propelled himself (he was like 6’5, fucking huge) across the front of the room on a rolling chair using a fire extinguisher.

I once had a psychology 101 professor show up to class on halloween dressed as fucking trelawny (male professor, btw), and said, “well, “crazy” is sort of a subjective label. Like me, dressed like this, teaching a class, some might call it “craaaaazy.” But it’s also Halloween, so given that context, it’s not so bad. Maybe.” THIS WAS A LECTURE CLASS OF 300 KIDS.

my undergrad advisor was a poetry professor. On the last day of class my sophomore year, he took us all to a local pub, bought us several rounds of beer (PITCHERS OF SHOCKTOP, NO LESS), then proceeded to toast each and every single one of us, as per our poetry style. And nobody dared card any of us. 

I also once had a contracts law professor who was doing a case that involved a drunken professor contracted to write out law books, under the condition that the professor would abstain from alcohol. So the professor was relaying the case to us…while drinking from a bottle of jack daniels whiskey. I shit you not. 

There was also the time I had a musicology professor who was buddies with the performance art ensemble director who let us come in to the middle of class do to an impromptu surrealistic performance involving a base drum, an improvised tenor operatic solo about donkeys, and a tambourine. 

yeah, I my schools are AWESOME. 

THIS IS LAW SCHOOL

BECAUSE LITERALLY IT IS ABOUT HALF THE SIZE OF MY NOTES OK SO LIKE THERE WILL BE NO JUDGING, THERE HAS BEEN CONDENSING.

BUT I MEAN IT MIGHT GET TO THE POINT WHERE I OUTLINE MY OUTLINE

things have literally gotten to the point where I cannot study until 11pm to 5pm because I just don’t feel threatened enough.

LAW SCHOOL HAS MADE ME IMMUNE TO PRESSURE.

I AM SERIOUS IT IS THAT BAD. 

like for real this one case called Bond v. US involved this DEA agent who boarded a bus in texas for a routine check on the border for papers, right?

And like literally this agent crossed the line into illegal search because like he was “squeezing and probing” the bags in the overhead and like felt a brick of meth and like THEN asked for defendant’s consent to search which is like a huge no-no

But literally I am looking through my notes on this shit and FOR REAL the big issue is “WAS THE SQUEEZING THE START OF THE SEARCH OR WAS UNZIPPING IT”

and literally the justice go FUCKING ON FOREVER on “normal manipulation by passengers versus squeezing and probing done by the agent”

“manipulation of the bag is less intrusive”

;klsdfja;lsdkfj;alksdfj fucking really

when ppl ask me about the 4th amendment and warrantless searches I am probably just going to have to say “well did they squeeze or probe?” 

instead of working on my final paper for my “non fiction writing for lawyers” class I think I’ll just sit here and watch a couple episodes of veronica mars while manically playing spider solitaire on my mac because my ADD drugs kicked in but I really don’t want to write anything

• 5th was to prevent people from coercing statements out of people, like torture
• which people don’t do anymore, so before court said 5th amendment right during custody isn’t necessary
• when the Court looks to police manuals
• Found out that police were still using really squicky interrogation techniques 

LISTEN UP KIDDIES THERE IS SOME COOL INFORMATION ON POLICE PAT DOWNS HERE BUT ALSO AWKWARD HILARITY THAT ENSUES. SHIT YOU SHOULD KNOW IS ITALICIZED OK? 

so like the other day we had this guest speaker in my Constitutional Criminal Procedure class and he was super cool, talking about training police officers on constitutional law (he had some legal background and was like police chief or something, either way, it was super educational and highlighted a lot of problems with police training nowadays etc.)

And like he was talking about like reasonable suspicion and shit. Like, essentially, a police officer can stop and ask you to identify yourself for any reason or no reason at all. But they can’t detain you after that unless they have reasonable belief that you have just committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. And then they can’t like pat you down unless they have probable cause to believe that you have weaponry on you and could harm them. And THEN it’s like, they can’t reach into your pockets or whatver, it’s just a surface pat down. BUT if DURING THE SURFACE PATDOWN they feel something that, in their experience as police officers, feels like contraband (drugs, etc.) then they can ask you to empty your pockets and show them the stuff.

So like this dude was all like “well training, I mean, how much time do you have to train officers, to recognize that. Like, in what form do street drugs come in? How are they packaged.”

and the class is like “let us stew here in our white privileged yacht club silence.”

and he’s like “come on, doesn’t anybody know? Anybody spent time in the criminal court.”

And the guy who asked the question is like, “I dunno…bricks?” 

silence.

And the PD lecturer guy is like “no….not really….” 

Finally, without thinking (and bear in mind i am sitting in the front row, right in front of him), I say, “well, baggies. Or like pill bottles. but mainly ziplock baggies. it depends on how much you got though. But generally dealers separate in baggies. “

and the PD lecturer just goes with it for a little while like, “yeah, baggies, or boxes, or bottles. so you gotta like put them in somebody’s pants and blindfold and let them feel.”  which is awkward as hell already. 

AND THE EX PD LECTURER IS ALL LIKE, “YOU KNOW ENTIRELY TOO MUCH YOU MIGHT WANT TO REMAIN SILENT NOW.”