CHARLES HOPKINS
Volume 1, Issue 12 (Originally Published 21 May 2016) I spoke to a friend recently and he told me about his new study technique. He’s created an mp3 file that he’s put on his iPhone, whereby for 25 minutes, nothing but a ticking noise sounds, and then at the 25th minute a piercing alarm bell rings. At this point he takes a five minute break, and then recommences the 25 minute cycle. That’s where his anecdote ended, but I imagine that after doing this for a period of some hours, he retreats to somewhere private to kick puppies. This is not normal behaviour! I blame it on week 12. In the final week of semester, the cohort loses it. I have a test to evaluate whether a colleague of yours is in fact crazy. First, ask them this question: “why did the cow get the job?” They then respond “why?” To which you deliver the punchline: “because she was outstanding in her field.” If the person laughs for more than 4 seconds, he or she is clinically insane. Exams seem to be the primary cause. The closer we get to final assessment, the more unhinged the student body becomes. It’s like Gotham City when the Joker pushes the citizenry to their limit, except we don’t have a Batman! Unless Arlen Duke is actually a crime-fighting billionaire... That would explain why he’s so awesome... But I think the reason the sense of madness is so pronounced is that each cohort is grappling with profound issues issues other than exams; we’re trying to figure out if Kristin Stewart can effectively navigate her way from Twilight fame to celebrity legitimacy. Then you’ve got first years especially rattled with their first law exams; which they should be because the exams will be f***ed. Second years are stressing about clerkships: either not getting them, or if they’re not applying, they’re stressing about not applying. And third years are awaiting job offers. Imagine if you didn’t get one; I would probably kill myself. On second thoughts: everyone should be freaking out! Here’s what I advise. First years: buy Ritalin. Second years: screen grab Facebook photos of your competitors and make RSVP profiles of them wanting strange things, like a partner who likes hairless cats and weird sex things... like... I don’t know... sex standing up. And third years: you should start an illicit affair with senior employees at your work of choice, so if you get declined, you can blackmail them. Please note I don’t know if these things are moral or not because I haven’t taken Legal Ethics yet. By the way, I acknowledge that I’ve one-eightied this week; I’m saying that ‘losing it’ is an appropriate course of action. Perhaps that’s evidence that I’m also losing it? Or perhaps Charles only wrote the first half this article, but now Eddie, his evil imaginary twin has metaphorically killed him and written the second half? Hahahahaahahahahah that’s ridiculous! I’m Charles! I’M CHARLES! Charles Hopkins may or may not return to write for De Minimis next semester; it will depend if Larundel Mental Hospital has internet access.
0 Comments
BRONWEN EWENS
Volume 1, Issue 12 (Originally Published 21 May 2016) A big fan of De Minimis, Associate Professor Jeremy Gans, who teaches Criminal Law and Procedure, and Evidence and Proof in the Melbourne JD, readily agreed to an interview in his light-filled office. Jeremy was first drawn to the law by television. “As a kid, I loved Rumpole of the Bailey. In high school, I was keen on debating and that seemed to have a natural connection to the law,” explains Jeremy. “When I did my LLB, which I combined with a BSc in theoretical physics at the ANU, my favourite subject was Constitutional Law. The lecturer, Gary Rumble, really inspired me. He set high standards and was suitably cynical about judges’ motivations. Ultimately though, criminal law seemed more relevant to real life.” His least favourite subject was defamation, which in those days was “boring, old-fashioned and immune to policy issues.” Jeremy went on to do a Master’s degree in Criminology at the University of Toronto, and a PhD at UNSW, where his thesis concerned child sexual abuse. With this abundance of qualifications, it would not seem surprising that Jeremy now teaches law, but “I got into academia by a process of elimination,” he claims. “The clerkships I undertook did not dispose me in favour of corporate life, and working in government I encountered a lot of red tape and inertia. Consulting for the government is fun, though”. He currently is a Human Rights Adviser for the Victorian Parliament. “I love my job and I couldn’t imagine doing anything else. The only downside is that people are too reverential towards lawyers. I have never encountered the dim view that people are alleged to take of us. If anything, they should be more cynical than they are!” ‘The challenge with teaching is to keep it fresh. Using new cases helps with this.” Jeremy receives a number of phone calls every week from journalists who want to understand criminal law for cases they’re reporting on. “Sometimes I can’t comment, but more often, I advise them off the record.” Though his work is also his hobby, Jeremy also enjoys cooking and eating. “I used to whip up some pretty good curries and risottos, but having little kids has lessened my creativity a bit. They like simple food but we enjoy watching Master Chef together.” His other favourite TV shows include Survivor and The Apprentice. “I love reality TV! I think it’s the human element. I would love to work on the contracts the participants have to sign.” Jeremy also enjoys reading sci-fi, playing computer games and having fun with Angry Birds on his phone. His favourite film is Being John Malkovich, in which an unemployed puppeteer finds a portal behind a filing cabinet which allows him to enter and control the actor’s mind. Jeremy’s advice for JDs: “If you’re not enjoying it, quit now, while you’re ahead. Don’t wait 10 years, during which the law is unlikely to grow on you, and then make a wrenching career change. I am lucky in that I love my job. For other lawyers, the problem is a being in a job they don’t love and that takes up all their time so that there’s no room for anything else.” Bronwen Ewens Volume 1, Issue 12 (Originally Published 21 May 2016)
James graduated Arts-Law in 2009 and started at Corrs Chambers Westgarth. He now works-in house at Australian Unity advising on health insurance law, contract negotiation, corporate governance, ASX Listing rule compliance and trade practices law. At the start of the degree James was originally interested in labour law but as he progressed through his degree he enjoyed private law and commercially-orientated subjects such as Contracts, Torts, Property, Competition law and Corporations. After graduation James started at Corrs. He enjoyed working in the Corporate Advisory team at Corrs because the work was intellectually stimulating and practical. “It was always a thrill to be working on a file, be it a technical problem in an advice or assisting in a large project team on a deal, and then see your work impact on a business.” It was this thrill of having an impact on a business that led him to work in-house. “In an in-house team, you work directly with the staff of a business to manage the legal affairs of a business. You are involved in the day-to-day of the business. There is also a lot of risk management involved. The work is a lot more varied, faster paced, sometimes less technical and a lot more practical.” Has working in law met the expectations he had at law school? “I had expectations that the hours would be long and the work would be challenging. Those expectations were met...What did surprise me, however, is that there was a lot of give and take regarding hours. There was always downtime after a big deal and no busy period lasted forever. You also didn’t notice the time going by, however, as the work was really stimulating.” James says this isn’t limited to the top tier firms. “Despite common perceptions, however, work-life balance is by no means better at mid-tiers. The work and industries mid-tiers deal with is just different.” Advice to law students? “If you have good interpersonal skills, strong written and verbal communication skills, good organisational skills, can learn quickly and think carefully, you will go far... I had worked part-time and had participated in extra- curricular activities consistently throughout my time at university. This showed I could work in a team, keep myself organised and could jump out of my comfort zone if required.” The thing he most enjoys about law is “the constant challenge, the constant learning and the constant possibilities”. BRONWEN EWENS
Volume 1, Issue 12 (Originally Published 21 May 2016) The post-Apartheid Constitution of South Africa, promulgated by then-President Nelson Mandela in 1996, is widely considered the most progressive in the world for its emphasis on human rights. It draws praise from the constitutional law teachers at Melbourne Law School as well as United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (as well as opprobrium for former US presidential candidate Rick Santorum). Now, however, section 16 of the country’s Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, is under threat from the Protection of State Information Bill. This bill was passed in the National Assembly last November despite eighteen months of public protest against it by journalists and organisations of civil society. The protests against the Secrecy Bill, as it is known, will continue during this year. Civil society organizations, the media—and significantly, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)—plan to jointly convene a summit meeting against it. COSATU’s director of alternative information and development said that the government’s response to “deepening poverty and inequality, faltering social cohesion”. The Secrecy Bill specifies prison sentences for whistle- blowers who expose the rampant corruption by individuals in government, industry, and finance. South African Nobel prize-winning author Nadine Gordimer has condemned the bill, which she said was taking the country back to the years of white minority rule. The advocate George Bizos, who defended Nelson Mandela during his apartheid treason trial in 1963, predicted that “if this bill is passed in its present form there will be a long queue of advocates to take the president and minister of state security to court. ...it will be a never-ending queue.” Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu called it "insulting" and warned it could be used to outlaw "whistle-blowing and investigative journalism". So why does the ANC, the party of Nelson Mandela - the liberator of South Africa from the repressive apartheid laws, want to undo the good work and human rights-orientation that have earned the world’s praise? One possible reason is because of an arms deal probe. President Jacob Zuma recently established a commission of inquiry into the dealings of the controversial multi-billion dollar procurement in 1999 of fighter jets, submarines and other armaments to beef up the country's defences. One of his former associates was convicted for corruption in his role in the arms deal. There is therefore a belief that the contentious bill will assist the state by allowing it to classify some of the information a secret, making it difficult to be disclosed publicly. Nelson Mandela once said that press freedom would never suffer in South Africa "as long as the ANC is the majority party". Yet the capacity of power to corrupt now threatens South Africa’s much-admired constitutional freedoms, the very rights for which Mandela and countless others were ready to sacrifice their lives. Brownen Ewens AUNTIE ETHEL
Volume 1, Issue 11 (Originally Published 14 May 2012) Dear Agony Aunts, My non-law friends are starting to get annoyed when I say no to catch up plans. They refuse to understand that it's too close to exams and every time I try to explain my workload I feel like banging my head against the wall. What do I do? Frustrated **** Dear Frustrated, On the up side, banging your head against a wall for an hour burns 150 calories*, which can help balance your vast junk-food intake during exam time. On the other hand, to avoid the potential head-trauma, there are some things you could try: 1. Instead of just saying no, suggest an alternate date, when you are available. Even if that’s in a month’s time, it will make your friends feel like you are looking forward to seeing them (which hopefully you are). 2. Suggest a breakfast catch up. Breakfasts are short because people have to get to class/work/etc, and as an added bonus, it will weed out the friends who are more interested in whining about you being a bad friend from the ones who genuinely want to see you. Before you say you don’t have time for breakfast, remember that it’s the most important meal of the day, and if you can’t spare 30-45minutes one morning from your studies, you are probably working yourself too hard. 3. Stop trying to make them understand. If they are good friends, they will be around to celebrate the end of exams with you in 4 weeks despite their complaints. Auntie Ethel * true according to reputable internet sources ** ** may not actually be reputable ANNIE ZHENG
Volume 1, Issue 11 (Originally Published 14 May 2012) On M a y 16t h , 1975, Ca lifo rn ia n hospital nurse Norma Jean Armistead was charged with murder of pregnant woman Kathryn Viramontes and theft of patient another patient’s, Mary Childs’, unborn baby. Armistead was an obstetrics nurse who craved a baby of her own. Her husband Charles had undergone a vasectomy and could not provide the 44 year old Armistead with any children. She befriended Kathryn Viramontes at a hotel in Beverley Hills in late 1974, which seemed to have triggered the disturbing chain of events that followed. In October 1974, Armistead used her position as a nurse to change her own medical records to create a report of her own pregnancy. Other nurses had thought it was a typing error because they didn’t believe she could be pregnant at her age. Around the same time, Childs was admitted into hospital preparing to give birth. Armistead, experienced in delivering babies without a doctor present, took this opportunity to heavily sedate Childs with drugs. When Childs woke up the next day, she was told by doctors that Armistead had delivered a stillborn due to the significant amount of narcotics in her body. Childs vehemently denied that she had ever taken drugs, but doctors brushed it off as it was apparently common for drug users to deny using. In May 1975, Armistead went to Viramontes’ apartment and stabbed her to death, cutting out the unborn baby from her womb. She checked herself into hospital and tried to pass off the baby as her own, stating that she had a home birth. Doctors became suspicious because there were no physical signs of recent childbirth. They immediately alerted authorities. Eventually it was revealed that Armistead not only killed Viramontes and stole her baby, but she had replaced Childs’ baby with a stillborn stolen from the hospital morgue. She had taken Childs’ baby and raised her as her own. It would be 8 months before Mary Childs was reunited with her baby. Childs also sued the hospital. At trial, Armistead tried to plead insanity. She was convicted of murder, theft, and kidnapping, and sentenced to life in prison. The strange and disturbing circumstances surrounding the gruesome case led eventually to a TV Movie being made called ‘Empty Cradle’. Annie Zheng CHARLES HOPKINS
Volume 1, Issue 11 (Originally Published 14 May 2012) By week 11 lecturers have returned results for mid- semesters. You’d think the results themselves would be the most anxiety-inducing element of that process; not so! I keep having this recurring dream that I am the secret ingredient in a Masterchef challenge and as I approach Matt Preston’s mouth I wake up in a cold sweat. But the results aren’t even the second-most nauseating experience! The loaded questions are. “Have you picked up your assignment yet?” equals “Tell me your results”. “Were you happy?” equals “I’m trying to be somewhat subtle but I want numbers.” “I was so relieved, how did you feel?” equals “I f***ing nailed it and my appetite for self- validation and domineering sex is insatiable.” The other approach I’ve encountered is where people tell you their marks and expect an accurate response, which always gets awkward. Once someone said to me “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” but I didn’t want to show the person mine, and there was an uncomfortable silence because we were each wondering about the other person’s... marks. The intent behind these attempted facile queries is patent self-motivated inquisitiveness (thank you thesaurus.com). But that motive is only half the problem. What is most frustrating is the notion that the questioned is oblivious to said motive, and yet the questioned never responds with “mind your own business”; it’s always something equally as dressed up in civility. This ritual tango is like a friendly greeting between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, Peter Costello and John Howard, or Simon Breheny and Antony Freeman. This masquerading is the smoke of a more profound fire – Western society privileges decorumover sincerity. But why?! What society labels “bitchy” I think of as “refreshingly candid”, “in-your-face” as “keen to engage”, and “Franc” as “a currency which Europe is wishing the French hadn’t abandoned”. In the vein of being upfront, I don’t know if that last word-play even makes sense. If you want to know my marks just ask me! I’ll still refuse but I’ll respect your balls, or... vagina? No, that can’t be the equivalent. What produces oestrogen? Is that even relevant? Probably should’ve paid more attention in Sex-Ed, or bothered to Wikipedia this when writing. Maybe a solution is for faculty to release averages because that always appeases and pleases everyone. Not! God I love sarcasm because it’s always really funny! Or maybe we should take a leaf out of the Gillard Government’s book and respect everyone’s privacy. I guess the other solution is that, from here on in, I tell everyone my average and thereby remove the basis of the questions. So here goes: for LMR I got ‘satisfactory’, for Torts I got- (due to printing costs the entirety of this article could not be printed). Charles Hopkins is not the subject of any Fair Work investigations because the shady stuff he does he bills to his personal credit cards. Bronwen Ewens
Volume 1, Issue 11 (Originally Published 14 May 2012) Jason Bosland’s sunny personality and warm smile are known to his many MLS students – he teaches, or has taught, Property to JDs, and both Trademark Law and Media Law to JDs and LLBs. Jason’s LLB and LLM are both from Melbourne, as is his BA in Cultural Studies. He also holds an LLM from The London School of Economics and Political Science. In his post-graduate degrees, he specialised in, respectively, Intellectual Property and Media Law. ‘Intellectual Property appealed to me from the beginning’, he explains. ‘I enjoyed it, the most of the LLB subjects. I think there’s a connection with my interest in language, which I studied in depth in my Arts degree. Trademark Law, especially, is closely linked to linguistics. In terms of Media Law, I ampassionate about such subjects as freedom of speech and how competing interests, and freedoms, play out’. His least favourite subject was Criminal Law, which never really resonated with him. In addition to his enthusiasmfor his subjects, Jason enjoys the scope for interaction with students and other faculty that an academic career allows. The opportunity to explore ideas and to exchange them with others makes academia a fulfilling career. ‘I even enjoy it when people disagree strongly with me, and take issue with something I’ve said’, he says. Outside the “Law World” If he wasn’t a law academic, Jason would be an English or Legal Studies teacher, ‘or a landscape designer. That also offers scope for self-expression and creativity, as well as the chance to connect with nature. For now, gardening is my hobby’. Jason enjoys home and family life. He and his partner, Luke, dote on their two dogs, Lucy and Stanley. He also likes travelling and his favourite destination is Italy, especially Naples and the Amalfi Coast. In addition to the cultural and scenic attractions there, visiting provides a chance to catch up with Luke’s family. Instead of naming anything he dislikes about being a lawyer, Jason focuses on types of behaviour or personality, not unknown in legal circles, which he finds off-putting. ‘Competitiveness, egomania, one-upmanship, self-importance – they aren’t my style at all. This is not to say that achievement and excellence shouldn’t be celebrated. They should – but they ought not to come at the expense of other people.’ Jason is not one to proselytise, but if he could change one thing in today’s world, it would be the amount of meat people consume. ‘I became a pescatarian five years ago, out of concern for the environment and also for animal rights, and I haven’t looked back since.’ Some Friendly Advice Enjoy your time at law school. Don’t become tunnel visioned, focusing on marks he detriment of engaging with fellow students and faculty. Don’t let stress cloud your experience – that can actually get in the way of learning. I didn’t undertake articles and Bronwen Ewens Volume 1, Issue 11 (Originally Published 14 May 2012)
Athol Birtley graduated from Melbourne in 2007 with Bachelors in Computer Science and Law. He started as a grad at Allens but decided law wasn’t for him. He quit and is now working part time as a hotel porter and spending his spare time writing movies and TV shows. De Minimis reporter Emma Henderson asks him why he left the law. For Athol working in law wasn’t all bad. “I met a lot of interesting people, made a lot of good friends, and visited places I never thought I’d visit, like Beijing, and Brisbane.” But he decided it wasn’t for him. “I wanted to entertain, make people laugh – and you can only fail hilariously in court so many times before they take away your practising certificate.” Athol thinks his law degree is less versatile than law schools would have you to believe. He has yet to find a use for his legal skills in his new career. “But ask me again once I’ve negotiated my first sale and you might get a different answer.” At law school Athol did a fair bit of negotiation on the basis that you didn’t need to prepare. “I have since been told that the key to a successful negotiation is preparation, which might explain why we never made it to the final.” “I tried to avoid anything that sounded like it would “look good on a resumé.” How you might wonder did he land a graduate position at Allens? “Some people would say it was my marks, but in my interview at Allens they commented on my experience as a paperboy during primary school, so maybe it was that?” Where does he see himself in five years? “In the credits of that movie you just watched and really enjoyed.” For advice Athol wishes he received earlier have a read of this article: Patrick J Schiltz, ‘On Being a Happy Healthy and Ethical Member of an Unhappy Unhealthy and Unethical Profession’ (1999) 52 Vanderbilt Law Review 871. (http://www.vallexfund.com/download/Being_Happy_Healthy_Et hical_Member.pdf) DOUG PORTEOUS
Volume 1, Issue 11 (Originally Published 14 May 2012) No. It isn’t. But what does it mean for France to elect a socialist President? François Hollande’s election continues a trend of anti-austerity elections across the European Union, and the President-elect has set a renegotiation of the EU fiscal pact – to reduce spending cuts and focus on ‘growth’ – as one of his first challenges. True to form, Britain is opposed to the proposal. Angela Merkel’s response was blunt enough – “I expect France to implement the fiscal pact unchanged.” But it appears there might be room for slight compromise around the edges, with European Commission President José Barroso suggesting an 11 per cent increase on EU spending by 2020. Suffice to say, I don’t expect Hollande to single-handedly break the European Union before this goes to print. (Although in love, war, and Europe’s economy, anything can happen.) Amongst other policies, Hollande is expected to reform abortion funding and the prohibition on euthanasia, to legislate for gay marriage and adoption, and to legalise embryonic stem cell research. For those radicals amongst us who believe in a woman’s right to choose, equality regardless of sexual preference and the importance of reasonably unfettered scientific endeavour, this is progress. But this puts him in Joe Biden [and Obama] territory, not Trotsky- land. The most “socialist” policy Hollande touts is a reported 75% taxrate for incomes over a million euros, although the substance is much less drastic than much of the commentary has suggested. The 75% bracket applies only to income earned over one million euros, with lower rates applying for the first million of that income. On Hollande’s proposed system, a successful worker (most likely a pastry chef) on two million euros will pay an effective tax rate of around 59%; high, yes, but something short of revolutionary. I lived in the north of France for a few months following Sarkozy’s 2007 election, and remember clearly the hard- line, Kevin-Andrews-with-even-less-tact approach he took towards minorities – Islam, in particular. I don’t mean to suggest that France didn’t, and doesn’t still, have significant social issues to deal with, or that Sarkozy is the worst offender; but there are appropriate ways of discussing mu-lt-ic-u-lt-u-ra-lis m, a n d ‘wit-h-a-d-e-ma-g-o-g-ic cricket bat’ is not one of them. Sarkozy is the sort of man who has both the audacity to be seen wearing a €55,000 Patek Philippe wristwatch whilst promoting austerity measures, and the political incompetence to be seen removing it before immersing himself amongst his own supporters. Lest you feel bad for him, I’d suggest only that a man who goes home to Carla at the end of the day has scarce o complain about. It’s doubtful that some 51.7% of voters supported Hollande thinking that he would mount a revolution against the bourgeoisie, destroy their control over the means of production, and sit back idly as the state withered and people learned to love each other. The “socialism” Hollande espouses appears no more radical than free- market social democracy. Orwell wrote in 1946 that the word ‘socialism’ had divergent, irreconcilable meanings. Seventy years (and Michelle Bachmann) later, that clarity has hardly improved. Whatever one means by it, one conclusion flows from the recent French election: either Hollande is not a socialist, or we all are. Doug Porteous |
|