So for the past 3-4 weeks, I have been working on preparing for my oral arguments in the Superior Court (if you have spoken to me at all in this time period, you likely already know this.) In the past week, I have managed to sleep a little, but honestly not much. This is largely due to my general trait of getting really really nervous before major speaking events (yes, I know I will be fine, and yes, I know I have been doing public speaking for a long time. I didn’t say this was a RATIONAL trait…) And today, October 5, 2004, all my work was to come to fruition. I have practiced my arguments, prepared for “tough” questions from a scary judge, and knew my facts pretty much cold. But, alas, this was not to be.

Why, you might ask. Why, after all your work and planning, did you not do your grand oration? Ironically, it is my own fault. You see, last night, I went to pull a clean copy of the regulations from the library (they are not online.) Since my case involves benefits from April 95 through June 96, I needed to pull the statutes that existed back then. So off to the library I went. And, with a little help from the friendly neighborhood legal librarian, I found that I had to essentially work backward, searching through book after dust covered book, to find all the changes in the code. After about 2 hours I made what I thought was a rather odd discovery. The regulatory statute I had been citing did not exist in April of 95 (the TAFDC). Another regulation, that of the AFDC, was controlling at the start of the disputed time. So I copied the AFDC regs, and made sure the subsections matched up, so I could easily cite them in my argument. As I was going through the subsections, I noticed they were not exactly the same. Very, very close, but not exactly the same. The thing is, it turns out that the small difference that I discovered, if correct, essentially means that the agency was clearly incorrect. And, in turn, my client wins. Or she would, if this goes to court. Likely the department will settle. Which means no argument in superior court. But my client wins, and that is really what matters.

Ah hell, who am I kidding?!? What really matters to ME is that my client won because of something I found. Something that no one, not the agency, not the 6 students on the case before me, not even the 3 supervisors on the case had found. So possibly no argument in court. But damn I feel good.