Top 3 Fighters in Each Weight Class

Heavyweight:
1. Cain Velasquez (9-0): Current UFC Heavyweight Champion
Cain is undefeated, and is coming off of the destruction of Brock Lesnar. Furthermore, his last two fights have ended via devastating punch.

2. Fedor Emelianenko (32-2-1): Former Pride Heavyweight Champion
Before he recently lost to Fabricio Werdum, Fedor was considered to have been undefeated, and had demolished the worlds best fighters in his time at Pride FC. Still a relevant contender on many Pound-For-Pound rankings, Fedor could do much to improve his stock with a win on Feb. 12th.

3. Junior Dos Santos (12-1): #1 Contender for the UFC Heavyweight Championship
Junior has recently knocked out Fabricio Werdum, punished Mirko Cro Cop so badly that he was forced to quit, and gave Roy Nelson the beating of his lifetime. Currently Scheduled to face Brock Lesnar next, Dos Santos is a credible threat to Velasquez's title.

Light Heavyweight:
1. Mauricio "Shogun" Rua (19-4): Current UFC Light Heavyweight Champion
When Shogun beat Lyoto Machida, he became the first man to do so, and he did so in impressive fashion. The knockout of Lyoto Machida was true redemption for Shogun, in a rematch of a fight that many thought he had won.

2. Lyoto Machida (16-2): Former UFC Light Heavyweight Champion
Prior to getting knocked out by Shogun, Lyoto was seen as invincible, and one of the greatest fighters on the planet. After suffering a setback after losing to 'Rampage," Lyoto will need to string some wins together in order to climb back up the rankings.

3. Jon Jones (12-1): Current #1 Contender for UFC Light Heavyweight Championship
Fresh off of the destruction of Ryan Bader, 'Bones' Jones is next set to fight Shogun for the UFC Light Heavyweight title. Jones is largely considered to be undefeated, as his lone defeat was a result of a DQ, after dominating the fight up until that point.

Middleweight:
1. Anderson Silva (28-4): Current UFC Middleweight Champion
A man whose record speaks for itself: 13 straight wins, 8 title defenses (both the longest in UFC history), wins in multiple weight classes, and the borderline rape of anyone he has faced. What more can be said about a man who has truly cleared out the division in every sense of the phrase.

2. Dan Henderson (26-8): Former Pride Middleweight Champion
This should speak as to how far behind everyone is from Anderson Silva. While Henderson is a quality fighter, the gap between #1 and #2 is beyond explanation.

3. Vitor Belfort (19-9): Former UFC Light Heavyweight Champion
The most recent victim to Silva's reign of terror, Belfort should still be considered a valid Middleweight contender. Vitor will need to get back into the winning column in order to improve his ranking.

Welterweight:
1. Georges St. Pierre (21-2): Current UFC Welterweight Champion
Close to being as dominate as Anderson Silva, Georges St. Pierre has also cleaned out his division, beating multiple fighters twice, and avenging his only UFC loss. If St. Pierre defends his title at UFC 129, a super-fight between GSP and Anderson Silva is on the horizon, which should determine who is the best fighter in the world.

2. Jake Shields (26-4): Former Strikeforce Middleweight Champion
Jake Shields has won his last 15 fights, over the past 6 years, and is the next person to challenge Georges St. Pierre for the Welterweight title. While he may be the underdog in this fight, he poses a credible challenge to GSP, and may spoil the super-fight between GSP and Anderson Silva.

3. Jon Fitch (23-3): Current #1 Contender for UFC Welterweight Championship
Jon Fitch has only lost once in the UFC, and that was to Georges St. Pierre. Other than his lone loss, Jon Fitch has defeated all of his opponents in convincing fashion. Fitch is next slated to face B.J Penn, to determine the #1 contender for the title.

Lightweight:
1. Frankie Edgar (13-1-1): Current UFC Lightweight Champion
Frankie Edgar shocked the world when he beat B.J Penn at UFC 112, then shocked the world again when he beat him again at UFC 118. After a controversial draw to Gray Maynard, Frankie Edgar remains the top Lightweight fighter in the world.

2. Gray Maynard (10-0-1): Current #1 Contender for UFC Lightweight Championship
Gray Maynard is undefeated, and after his draw to Frankie Edgar, there is no question that Gray Maynard is the second-best Lightweight in the world. The rematch is set for the near future, which hopefully won't end in another draw.

3. B.J. Penn (16-7): Former UFC Lightweight Champion
Before Frankie Edgar beat B.J Penn, Penn was considered to be the best Lightweight fighter in the world. After being defeated by Edgar again at UFC 118, Penn decided to move up to Welterweight, and after knocking out Matt Hughes, is set to face Jon Fitch at UFC 127.

Criminal Law and Federalism: Explained!

As many of you may or may not know, the United States system of governance is based on a system called "federalism." While I could go on at length about the details of this system ad nauseam, the cliff notes version is that power is split between the state and federal government. This means that there are 51 relevant sources of law (plus city laws!), one from the federal government, and one from each state.

One of the fundamentals of any criminal law discussion is to know what area of law governs the topic, for the results could be much different depending on what state your are in, or if you're being charged with violating a federal statute. For this, and following discussions, for the sake of clarity, assume that we are in "Shepard Jurisdiction," which is independent of any state. Basically, I'll be talking about topics that are applicable to most, if not all of the states.

The first topic in this criminal law adventure is the "felony murder rule." This is a relatively simple concept, so I won't explain it in too much detail. The felony murder rule applies to situations where one or more persons are involved in the commission of a felony (must be co-conspirators, hostages at a bank don't apply). The rule tells us that when one or more persons (A, B, C, and D, for example) are involved in the commission of a felony (Bank Robbery, for example), and a murder is committed by one (A), the rest are equally culpable, without a required showing of mes rea (the bad mind, basically intent to commit the crime). That means that although B, C, and D had no intention of committing the murder, nor did they even know A would fly off the handle and shoot the bank teller in the head when he refused to give him the money, or even if A had brought a gun to the bank, they will all be guilty of first-degree murder.

The felony murder rule can seem harsh, which it is, but it is primarily used to curb the passive assent some have when crimes are being committed. That is to say, deter people from becoming involved in felonies in the first place. While the rule is typically only used for violent felonies, when the murder is committed during the felony or in furtherance of the felony, there have been some unfortunate examples of exactly how harsh it can be.

In Hines v. State: 578 S.E.2d 868 (Ga. 2003), Hines was convicted of first degree murder after he accidentally shot his friend in the back while hunting. If you've been carefully looking at the requirements of felony murder thus far, you'll know something is missing: the underlying violent felony. It turns out Mr. Hines was a convicted felon, and his possession of a hunting rifle was an inherently dangerous activity, and actually a felony.

So, as you can see, the felony murder rule is quite controversial, with some saying it takes away the requirement of mens rea, and others saying that it helps prevent murders from happening. Let me know what you think in the comments below!



As any prudent law student should say, I would be remiss if I didn't inform you that this blog is for information purposes ONLY. Any construction of it to create some sort of legal advice is on the readers own poor judgment, as a 1l is probably the second worst person you could get legal advice from (the first being a non-law student).


Also, due to the overwhelmingly split result, I'll focus primarily on criminal law for my discussions on law, and continue splitting my posts between MMA and law. Thanks for all that gave me advice!

Poll: MMA or Law

So I'd like to know what you would like to see more of: MMA articles, or law articles. I'm only a 1l, so my legal knowledge isn't that vast, but I can write on the following topics (barely, lol): Criminal Law, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Property, Contracts, and Civil Procedure. On the other hand, I'm a pretty big MMA fan, so I can opinion articles on a wide array of subjects, or just talk about upcoming fights, or maybe show some of my favorite fights from the past.

Let me know what you think in the comments below :)

MMA or law

Anderson Silva Defends Title in Convincing Fashion

So if you haven't already heard, or didn't see, Anderson Silva scored a quick knockout of top-contender Vitor Belfort last night. The knockout came just 3:25 into the very first round of the nights main event, and marked Silva's 13th straight UFC victory, and 8th straight UFC title defense (Lutter, Leben, Griffin, and Irvin were non-title fights).

After a tentative start, as is often the case with Silva, Belfort got caught with a front kick, which landed straight on his jaw. In the blink of an eye, Belfort was knocked out, 2 more punches before the ref stopped the fight, and it was official.

This raises the question: what is next for Silva? UFC President Dana White has stated that if Georges St. Pierre defends his title again, the two will meet, in what surely promises to be one of the greatest MMA fights in recent history. While GSP will certainly be Silva's most skilled and decorated challenger, I believe the size difference, and the striking ability of Silva will be too much for GSP to handle, and Silva will move one step further towards solidifying his legacy as the worlds best fighter.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 11

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a common method of the courts to curb frivolous litigation. Basically, any 'paper' (motion, pleading, complaint, etc.) filed before the court has to be certified by the attorney of record. This certification is a method to assure that the litigation is not being brought for an improper purpose. If the litigation is found to be brought for an improper purpose, the attorney of record can face disbarment, large punitive damages, or other penalties.
As I am sure most of you have seen, "diddy" has recently been sued by a woman, who claimed that he was responsible for 9/11, seeking $1,000,000,000 in damages. While it is purely speculation at this point, I would argue that this is a likely response by "diddy." After the woman filed the complaint, the first thing "diddy's" lawyer should do is file a Rule 11 motion, which, if granted, would immediately end the litigation, and possibly allow the court to take action against both the woman, and her attorney.


Edit: here is the link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/diddy-sued-for-1-trillion-woman-claims-date-rape-911-responsibility_n_815254.html

Why Strikeforce's Heavyweight Division May be the Deepest

With Strikeforce's heavyweight tournament set to kick off in just 9 days, and the fact that current UFC heavyweight Champ, Cain Velasquez, is sidelined until the end of this year, Strikeforce's heavyweight division is a credible challenge to the UFC's. The Strikeforce Heavyweight roster, unlike much of the rest of Strikeforce's divisions, actually contains some big (no pun intended) names, including: Fedor Emelianenko, Alistar Overeem, Fabricio Werdum, Josh Barnett, Antonio Silva, Brett Rogers, and Andrei Arlovski.

The match schedule includes:
Feb 12: Fedor vs. Silva
Arlovski vs. Kharitonov

April, 2011: Overeem vs. Werdum
Barnett vs. Rogers

Whoever emerges champ after the dust settles will have a good case for being considered the best p4p heavyweight in the world. Of course Cain Velasquez can restake his claim to that title after a successful title defense when he recovers. For now, we'll have to wait and see.

The Demise of Promissory Estoppel

There has been a disturbing decline in many contemporary interpretations of the applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel to certain cases. The following three situations are most striking: employment law, disclaimers, and knowledge of the doctrine.

First, we must know what the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is. Basically, the Doctrine seeks to enforce promises, which would otherwise not be enforceable. Section 90 of the restatement of Contracts is usually the benchmark test for it's application, stating the following requirements: 

1.) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance on the part of the promise or a third person

2.) which does induce such action or forebearance

3.) Justice can be avoided only by the enforcement of the promise.

Although it would not fit within a single blog post, there is a litany of cases that have found the doctrine to be applicable to nearly any situation where a promise has been relied upon (most notably, gifts, and construction contracts).

Returning to the three areas where the Doctrine has usually not applied, we can see a concern for many lay people, as these situations may be ones in which they will most frequently interact with the Doctrine. 

First, in employment law, which is usually considered "at will" (freely terminable at any time), parol promises, such as ("The job is yours until you retire," or "You will not be fired") have been held not to have satisfied the requirements of promissory estoppel. These reliance-inducing promises have been held unenforceable, and although the plaintiff took actions to their detriment, in reliance of the above promise, they were essentially out of luck.

Second, the court has held that if a promisor expressly disclaims any attempt to be bound by a promise, even after the promise has been made and relied upon, that no valid contract has existed between the two parties. This is espeically concerning, because it gives some promisors an unequal amount of bargaining power when a contract reaches a certain point (when the promisee actually relies upon the promise).

Finally, if the party either knew, or should have known that reliance upon the promise would likely form no contract, the courts have held that no contract existed. This concept directly affects professionals, or "repeat players" in any form of litigation, regardless of their level of knowledge.