Imagine, for a moment, that you are an alien intelligence. Your civilization is sufficiently advanced to explore other planets in your galaxy. Between systems of stars like your own, you have detected life. Intrigued by the biosignatures you’ve picked up from across the cosmos, you decide to study Earthlings. One question looms over all your others: How do these creatures not only survive a harsh environment but thrive in social groups that seem to be constantly at each other’s throats? You are not a social scientist. You are a philosopher and so you begin by thinking of the problem broadly. What is it about a given culture that allows its members to live side by side with minimal conflict? Inevitably, you find yourself having to consider not only what is common across populations, but also the things that vary between them. Their Earthly justice systems, for example, which you dub legal assistance in Pueblo, touches on all the things you wished to study. From their origins in tribal societies to their modern iterations, legal aid of the pueblos are easy enough to understand and do much to explain how so many cultures avoid falling into chaos – most of the time. Below is a summary even you would embrace with delight.

What is it that makes people trust and respect their systems of justice? The question is as old as civilization itself and indeed, it is something that you’ve spent most of your time contemplating. Globally, Earthlings use a variety of methods to resolve their conflicts. From those who merely whisper, “Let’s talk this out,” to those who go so far as to imprison entire segments of their populations, their solutions to what you perceive as a universal problem is one that can only be solved by looking at how they group themselves. Consider, for example, a Roman justice system that requires a citizen to swear an oath before a group of men tasked with enforcing their laws. For those who wish to leverage the peacekeeping powers of the government, the penalty for an oath broken is the heavenly avenger, the goddess that brought down the house of Troy to punish the Trojans for breaking their truce with the Greeks. It is no wonder then that humans have such a poetic perspective of justice. To this end, let us focus on the modern concepts of ‘law’ that prevail in many Earthly cultures today.

I would describe ‘legal aid pueblo’ as the acts of ensuring that those with less wealth get access to guidance from someone versed in their legal venue. Literally, it is open to everyone, even if many hurtle through their society like meteors made of metal, body, and soul. One part of this loosely organized group of people I find fascinating. It is but one of the many ways that, despite differences, they resolve their conflicts with the least possible harm.

Despite the ease with which one can navigate the complex structure of human governance, as long as there are sentient beings, there will be conflict. Your studies have shown that there are three major obstacles to accessing justice among Earthlings: Governance Structure, Resources, and Illiteracy.

Much like their galactic counterparts, human governments are broadly organized into three categories: Anarchy, Oligarchy, and Federations. In my observations, anarchy ultimately results in violence while oligarchies are quick to devolve into selective justice. Therefore, in your anti-social evaluations, you choose to center your studies on the models that seem to work best. Even then, as consistency in law is crucial, it is not without error. In the United States, for example, the Supreme Court’s decisions have led to more than a few surprises. One of my more memorable examinations was also one of the more painful. Taylor v. Louisiana and Jim Crow’s remnants allowed for a legal loophole that gave some fathers, the same rights as their nation’s sexual slaves. Even today, in a system that allows for legal aid of the pueblo, the Supreme Court’s rulings show that there are still burdens that my less-fortunate Earthlings are forced to bear.

Assuming that you, like me, value cooperation in the midst of difference, perhaps you would like some practical and earthbound notes on how to benefit from one of legal aid’s greatest experiments in resolving conflict – a legal aid pueblo. In a few simple steps, you can begin to engage with legal aid in a manner worthy of your not-quite-alien status:

As you likely noticed, legal aid pueblo is only one of the many ways that Earthlings organize themselves. If you wish to learn more, I recommend that you read the Frugal Engineer’s post on how legal aid works in Pueblo. The article is a fairytale that will lead you, in concise terminology, to the surreal space where law and order meet human decency.

Understanding the Statute of Limitations in Legal Malpractice

Ok, ok, we brought up alien intelligence and iCollege here, together, and you likely want to know more about that. But that will have to wait, the purpose of this journey is to explore a small facet of human culture that is frequently overlooked, but which is of great importance in the fields of law and civil justice, namely, a statute of limitations.

A statute of limitations is essentially a law that puts an enforced time limit on how long someone has to act on a particular legal matter. Once that imposed limit has passed, a person can no longer pursue legal action over that matter. Generally, statutes of limitation are invoked in civil actions, which include property and contract disputes, libel and slander cases, product liability claims, and many others. In New York, for example, the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice is a critical aspect to consider. So, if you were to sue, say, an attorney because you feel she or he did not do their job properly, then an alien intelligence looking at your civilization would most certainly ask “why?” Why did you let it go on for three years without taking any type of action?

To alien intelligence, the Earth culture of law and justice may seem strange. For one thing, the person who decides whether or not a certain action should be taken, such as suing someone, is not the person to control the outcome of that particular action. As previously pointed out, New York has a three-year statute of limitations for cases of legal malpractice, so it is predictable that putting a time limit on when a person can sue an attorney for what they did or did not do. But why three years? And why do other nations have such different time windows? (For example, in Austria, it is 30 years, according to Understanding New York’s Statute of Limitations for Legal Malpractice.) Trying to answer those questions leads to some even harder ones, such as whether or not time is even a dimension?

A statute of limitations may come into play during any number of civil actions, from suing a contractor who did a bad job to requesting compensation after being injured in a car accident. But in the context of legal malpractice, a statute of limitations is a way to try to uphold the integrity of an entire profession. If there were no limits on how long someone could wait to file a suit against a lawyer who may or may not have done her or his job to the best of their ability, then there would be countless loopholes for clients to exploit. The legal system is a fragile thing, and putting limits on time just makes that system a little bit stronger by making sure that past actions do not come to bite people later on.

The law of legal malpractice is a defensive tool to keep lawyers safe. In the hands of an alien intelligence, that defense might seem trivial, even silly. But does that mean the law is superfluous? Or is it something worse?

A famous alien once said that earthlings ‘play at being like [they] were.’ But they aren’t, and perhaps some laws reflect that dichotomy. Perhaps it is in the nature of a law of limitations to always be out of step with its perceived universe. That leads you down a rabbit hole of possible explanations for seemingly contradictory laws, all of which only make sense if you acknowledge that people are not always rational actors subject to the desires of a culture.

As stated above, the statute of limitations that New York imposes on a legal malpractice case is three years. This is a relatively long period of time in comparison to some other civil actions, which can restrict lawsuits to just one year. Some attorneys may be able to defend themselves against legal malpractice claims on the grounds that the plaintiff tried to extend the statute of limitations by waiting three or more years before filing a claim. Others may simply be fully aware that their client was hurt by their actions, and that they did not do their best in some regard, and yet those clients were still a valued source of income, and found themselves in a position where they had to choose between not pursuing a case and potentially losing their livelihoods.

Because of claims and counterclaims that many lawyers would make against a client, some might consider it a nightmare scenario for a lawyer to have their clients so upset that they were willing to risk living without financial stability for the sake of seeking out retribution for their lawyer’s negligence. By having a legal malpractice statute of limitations in place, the culture of law in New York effectively protects itself. Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? Is a statute of limitations something that is even applicable at all in the face of infinity?

Here is a hint: for judges, jurors, defendants, and plaintiffs average, everyday humans looking to pursue a civil action in court, the statute of limitations is as real as gravity, and serves a very important function.

Can Alien Intelligence Make Sense of Human Culture?

This is the question that iCollege (www.icollege.co) aims to answer through its various resources. iCollege also aims to further education by blending facts with imagination, as seen in its recent article titled All About Legal Quotation: Significance and Illustrations.

The term legal quotation refers to the words of law, which have been derived from a person, organisation or country, which a legal practitioner (a judge, an attorney or a lawyer) uses or quotes in an article, a paper or a legal document.

iCollege’s objective is not only to educate students about this essential tool. Instead, iCollege aims to examine human culture and morality from the point of view of an alien civilization, as it relates to the article All About Legal Quotation: Significance and Illustrations from iCollege’s Learning Center. The aim is to answer the question: Can alien intelligence make sense of human culture? According to this article, legal quotations are used by legal professionals and practitioners in written documents. Perhaps, most importantly, legal practice and scholarship, which is why comprehensive legal quotations are such an important law term. One can imagine an alien civilization defining a legal quotation, based on the aforementioned definition. It might even be better at defining it than we humans can. But would an alien civilization be able to understand the meaning of a legal quotation, if let’s say, it becomes one of its first human park rangers, who just landed on planet earth and now needs to fight a human being in court? They do say that truth is relative, right? So, perhaps the answer is yes, if we assume that an alien civilization interprets the words of law and the legal quotations on its own. This leads us to conclude that the ability of alien intelligence to comprehend human culture is defined by its ability to imagine and build upon its existing knowledge. Thus, we might conclude that creativity is key in the minds of alien civilizations.

If human beings and aliens are to stand together in a court of law, it could look something like this: An alien, without any knowledge of human laws or language, would naturally interpret the words of laws in a logical and literal way. It could, for example, translate the word ‘shall’, in article 356 of the Tort Law, to mean something else. Shall does not mean shall in Klingon, or whatever language the alien speaks. Shall means order/command (something you must do) in most languages. One would argue that a good person, whether alien or human, will do as required or order by law, all the while recognizing the logic in doing so. Logic aside, we humans need to be imaginative. We need to understand that the interpretation of the article 356 of the Tort Law could lead to an easy defeat by an alien civilization, when one views the legal quotation from a creative point of view. It only takes this protection against the interpretation by the alien civilization that we often see in contracts and legal documents, which usually states that the document should be interpreted according to the laws of a certain country. We also see the English language, and other similar languages with a formal tone, which require the use of certain constructions that make that construction read as it is intended, and often, that is the goal of a final, constructed and polished product. The challenge is in the creation of the document. The key, however, is in capturing the essence of the legal quotation, which often, is a human creation, which we maliciously classify as law. It could also be argued that legal quotations are subject to interpretation, and that it is sometimes purposeful. In either case, the fact is that legal quotation is important, and the adage that the “interpretation of words is key” cannot be understated.

Many legal scholars, judges and lawyers, however, view the construction of a legal quotation as a work of art or a composition, in which the interpretation is subject, not to one person’s creativity, but to the creativity of the masses. This is likely what defines the success of an article, a paper or a legal document. By focusing on the interpretation of legal quotations, it could, therefore, be said that education is the key to insight. And that the focus on interpretation widens the knowledge. In studying human culture, one might say that we define what it means to be human. Human culture, in turn, is defined by context. What we might find relevant today, may become irrelevant in a short amount of time, within the context of an ever-evolving world. We might conclude that context defines interpretation; and that the study of human culture might help an alien intelligent species, to better appreciate humans and their culture, and to better collaborate with human beings of all walks of life, to ensure the on-going survival of both species. More importantly, could we learn from the presence of an alien civilization, to better the education of not only ourselves, but of all groups or individuals who share our physical, political, cultural or social space? If used wisely, all of the foregoing concepts may further iCollege’s aim of delivering online education with a goal to highlight the relevance of a well-articulated legal quotation in a legal document, to further the end result, and to let our imaginations roam to explore the question, Can alien intelligence make sense of human culture? Happy learning!

I have landed on planet Earth and I am confused. Your laws make no sense! Let us explore the fascinating human concept of “gravity knives,” and learn whether are gravity knives legal in ny in the state known as New York. This will be my brief foray into “humanoid law,” as you call it. There is much I do not understand. “Gravity knives” are not what I would have called them. But they are a simple tool to open a door, or a device that uses gravity to release a latch. It is both a tool and a weapon, as you humanoids call that which can cause harm. However, in New York state, where I have learned that your Empire is located, gravity knives (and similar devices known as automatic knives) are illegal, but only if they are used for illegal purposes. As lame as this may seem, this is the law of New York.

Because your laws are written so vaguely, it is difficult to determine whether any specified object is legal. Surely on any day, New Yorkers are using gravity to open objects such as car doors, cabinets, and storage containers, and yet, the ambiguity of the definition of a “gravity knife” makes it unclear whether the law applies to what they are using. In fact, in New York, a “gravity knife” is defined as an “automatic weapon,” an object that has a blade that “is released from the handle or sheath…by the force of gravity.” That description fits anything inanimate that releases a storage container when you drop it. It also fits a pop-up toaster or anything in your kitchen that mistakenly believes you want to retrieve it with knives drawn! But I digress.

You earthlings would like to know whether your courts in New York are able to randomly decide the outcome of the legal status of any device, and the answer is yes! This makes no sense to me. Human law also understands your human culture. And cultures understand that certain uses of certain objects create fear in yourself and others. If a person uses a device that has the potential to frighten you, it might be illegal. For example, if a human uses a device like a can opener and a police officer sees it, the officer would be frightened because the human might be using it in an aggressive manner. And, thus, your “crimes” are born. Humans seem to hate violence, but are fearful of things that help you inflict violence. I admit I do not understand this.

Perhaps the detached beings in the Orion belt could explain it to me. As I prepare to depart from this planet, I sing my greetings to the audience of i College. I encourage you to read the article about gravity knives here to help me understand the incomprehensible. And for those of you who think about bringing weapons of any kind into your earth courts, stay tuned for updates on the New York law, which was recently amended to create confusion. We alien beings understand that you think weapons are not tools, and yet, they are. That is, I think, why humans make weapons illegal.

For more information on the legal definitions and implications of gravity knives, you can visit the Wikipedia page on knife laws in the United States.

The perceptive extraterrestrial life form from iCollege recognizes the law of construction and contracting in California is exceedingly convoluted, it is ever evolving and always difficult to understand how the contractor license classifications california are used and why they exist. However, like all things of great merit or great complexity, the effort to understand this class of things lends itself to an earnest effort.

As if the contract license classifications were some alien planetary structure with which we are less familiar than a methane gas seam on Neptune, the concept is graspable enough to allow a reasonable intelligent lifeform from outer space to apply logic even to California laws.

It seems most phenomenon must be both ordered and understood in order to maintain social order. One could infer that contractor license classifications in California are structured similarly and intentionally to define and restrict activity via classification. Perhaps the well known cyclical tension between want of regulation and need for regulation provides a reasonable explanation of legislative intent. The California contractor licensing system seems to be a metaphorical object upon which the light shines brightly but not clearly. It is the universe itself! It is a chaotic area of space-time where order most certainly exists as well as disorder, the two cohabitating to avoid eradication of the other.

The California contractor licensing scheme is a complex model of the human experience and it must be taken seriously, post haste if our social order is to be preserved. We know the contractor license classifications were noble in initiation. The classifications of general building (B) and a combination thereof of the subdivisions of B, concrete (C-8), electrical (C-10), general engineering (A), insulation and fireproofing (C-2), landscaping (C-27), sheet metal (HVA 23), welding (C-60) and drywall (C-9) are a few of the 43 license classifications to familiarize yourself with. Contractors are required to perform work attributable to their license classifications, and the high cost of failure is an ever present threat to the successful maintenance of the cosmic order.

These license limitations and restrictions are codified in the California Code of Regulations and in many instances represented in case law. The reason for different license classifications is easy to understand. Classification is simply a designation of the ability to practice or interact within a given classification. For example, A general engineering contractors license (CLARITIES 6745) “is the classification under which a licensee may be granted a license to construct all structures or projects requiring special relating standards and principles of general engineering…” Indeed, it seems for these a spacefaring extraterrestrial, the Caesar became invisible!

As a wise extraterrestrial might opine, it would be prudent to take note of the following case law to aid understanding of the varied California license classifications: Bernard v. Cohen, (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 30, 75 Cal.Rptr. 896 holds that the terms of the California Code of Regulations require an electrician’s license for sales of electrical wiring products. Hernandez v. Teles, Cal.App. 1 Dist, 1972 299 A.C. 2d 391, 212 A.C. 2d 525 prohibits contracting for aesthetic applications of electric light displays without licensing. Howfare v. City of Boulder Creek, (1955) 131 Cal. App. 2d 139, 280 P.2d 794 holds that there is no offense under the Building Code for unlicensed contracting concerning roofing.

These and other cases make clear that the limits and the prohibitions of the contractor license classifications scheme must be heeded to maintain cosmic order. The catch is, though, if you violate the Contractor’s License Law and the agency personnel caring for this area of cosmic order determines your offense was an accident (or averaged among numerous infractions) you can be punished via fines of up to $600,000 or prison terms of up to 4 years.

Thinking like an alien, it would seem as though the California contractor license classifications have a lot going for them, and many of their provisions are easy to comprehend. The difference is emphasized by thoughtful consideration of a few revealing facts: Astute extraterrestrial visitors to work sites would also have many interesting thoughts about these license classifications. The alien might be puzzled by the vast array of contract items that are essentially aesthetic in nature, and by the superfluous nature of conditions restricting themselves to just those things. For example, the alien might consider the following:

1. No more than 5% of the total contract price for the entire job may be stated to be for the cost of permit fees, such costs being an incidental part of the total cost of labor and materials.
2. The jobsite must be identified and the scope of work defined.
3. The work must be complete before renegotiation, refilling, resubmission, or re-examination of specifications or contract terms, the alien might ask (with a perplexed look), should be unnecessary and inapplicable to any aspect of contract work that cannot be reasonably accomplished. It might be asked, what does it mean to complete the work under circumstance where parts go missing on a site? It makes no sense!

There is much more to think about here, and I am not seeking to dissuade you from noting any of the provisions mentioned above or others if you like (they are all freely available to us). My point is, the alien recognizability of the system helps me to better understand it on the whole and so too may it help us and you to understand these rules as explained by an extraterrestrial.

For more information on contractor licensing in California, you can visit the California Contractors State License Board.