this aggression will not stand, man

I would like to go on record as expressing my profound irritation with my Evidence professor.

Evidence professor, I am profoundly irritated with you.

Seriously, I sent her a question via e-mail Monday afternoon, and as of 11:12 on Wednesday, the night before the final, she still has not responded. Nothing. Not even a little letter to say that she doesn't answer e-mail questions and I should arrange an office visit. Zilch.

This wasn't just some passing inquiry that I posed to her:

I am having some confusion regarding witness impeachment by prior
inconsistent statement...

1. Would 613(b) govern a witness testifying to an inconsistent
statement made by a previous witness? Example: If witness A
testified, and the adverse party wanted to impeach him with a prior
inconsitent statement that was made to witness B, would the adverse
party have to allow A his "opportunity to explain or deny" during the
initial cross-examination of A? Or could they do it after a direct
examination of B? And if they could, would they have to call A back
up the stand?

2. If A were to deny making the inconsistent statement, would the
adverse party be bound by A's denial and be prevented from presenting
B's impeachment evidence? Or does that rule only apply to past
misconduct?

3. Does 806 only apply to a situation where the declarant is
testifying in court? Or would it apply to a witness testifying to
what the declarant said? Could a declarant be impeached under 806
even if unavailable?

Also, according to the Siegel's Evidence Q&A, under the FRE, assertive
conduct is not hearsay at all. This sounded inaccurate, as I was
under the impression that assertive conduct was hearsay as long as a
showing of intent to communicate was made. Any thoughts?

I spent dadgum near an hour writing that question. Yes, I actually had to study the material at length before I could even form a coherent question. It's not like I asked her "so what's up with 613(b)?"

Although I would like to brag on the Texas Tech School of Law:

We had the highested passage rate in Texas for the February bar exam.

#1 in Texas.

Which goes to show you how bogus law school tier rankings are. Tech is Tier 3. And yet somehow, our lowly, podunk Tier 3 law school mangaged to beat Univerisity of Texas, Southern Methodist, and University of Houston, all of which are Tier 1 schools. Not that our success will do me any good when I'm working at Del Taco.

Seriously, since finding a job in the Pacific time zone is so elusive, I think when I get out there, I'll just find a good animal nickname and buy some commerical air time during Judge Judy.

"Adam 'The Marmot' Hoover got me...two-hundred thousand dollars!"

Or I could just set up a little cottage industry suing Richard for legal malpractice.