Chương 10: Chapter 10: The Systematic Approach
Chapter 10: The Systematic Approach
Day 36, 9:00 AM.
The hypothetical dropped into my inbox exactly on schedule.
ANNUAL ASSOCIATE MOCK TRIAL
Simmons v. State Board of Education
Constitutional Law - Fourth Amendment
I downloaded the case file and started reading.
A school district in Ohio implemented an surveillance system that monitored student social media accounts for keywords related to bullying, self-harm, and violence. The system flagged concerning posts and alerted school administrators, who could then intervene.
Parents sued, claiming the surveillance violated students' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
The school district argued they had in loco parentis authority—standing in place of parents—and a compelling interest in preventing bullying and protecting student safety.
Perfect split.
Civil liberties versus child safety. Technology versus tradition. Individual rights versus community protection.
The kind of case designed to make both sides sound reasonable.
I read through it three times, highlighting key facts, identifying the legal questions that would determine the outcome.
Then I activated the System.
[WIN RATE CALCULATOR: ANALYZING CASE STRUCTURE]
[PROCESSING...]
[CASE PRESENTS: 60/40 SPLIT DEPENDING ON ARGUMENT FRAMING]
[KEY ISSUE: DEFINING "REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY" FOR MINORS IN DIGITAL SPACE]
[PRECEDENT SPLIT: TINKER V. DES MOINES (STUDENT RIGHTS) VS. VERNONIA V. ACTON (SCHOOL AUTHORITY)]
[OPTIMAL STRATEGY: DEPENDENT ON SIDE ASSIGNMENT]
I spent the rest of Day 36 building a systematic brief.
First, every Fourth Amendment precedent relevant to schools—Tinker v. Des Moines, student free speech rights; New Jersey v. T.L.O., school searches; Vernonia School District v. Acton, drug testing; Safford Unified School District v. Redding, strip searches.
Then, digital privacy cases—Riley v. California, cell phone searches; Carpenter v. United States, location data; Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., off-campus social media speech.
I created a matrix comparing physical surveillance to digital surveillance, identifying where precedent aligned and where it created gaps.
Three distinct legal frameworks emerged:
Framework One: Strict Fourth Amendment protection. Social media is private space, minors have constitutional rights, school authority doesn't extend to off-campus digital activity.
Framework Two: Balanced approach. Schools have some authority over student safety, but surveillance must be narrowly tailored with procedural safeguards.
Framework Three: Broad school authority. In loco parentis extends to digital spaces when student safety is at stake, minimal Fourth Amendment protection for minors in educational context.
I need to be ready to argue any of these depending on which side I get assigned.
The library closed at midnight. I packed up my materials and headed home.
Day 37 started at 6:00 AM.
I went for a run through Central Park before the sun came up—needed to clear my head, let my subconscious process everything I'd absorbed yesterday.
The System ran passive calculations in the background.
[ARGUMENT STRUCTURE: OPTIMIZING]
[PRECEDENT HIERARCHY: ORGANIZING]
[COUNTERARGUMENT PREPARATION: BUILDING]
By the time I got back to my apartment, showered, and made coffee, I knew my strategy.
I'll argue for the parents. Civil liberties side.
It was counterintuitive—most people would expect the emotional, passionate argument about protecting children's freedom. But that's what Mike would do.
I'd do the opposite.
Strip all emotion from it. Make it pure constitutional analysis. Force the judges to engage with technical precedent instead of policy concerns.
If Mike gets the school district side, he'll lead with child safety, bullying prevention, protecting vulnerable students. All emotional appeals.
I'll counter with cold Fourth Amendment doctrine. Reasonable expectation of privacy. Warrant requirements. Procedural safeguards.
Logic versus emotion. Structure versus narrative.
I spent Day 37 afternoon building a brief that was ninety percent case law, ten percent policy argument.
Fifteen pages of systematic constitutional analysis. Every precedent cited with pinpoint accuracy. Every argument built on technical legal foundations rather than moral principles.
It wasn't inspiring.
But it was irrefutable.
[ARGUMENT CRUSHER: STRATEGY ANALYSIS]
[RECOMMENDATION: PREVENT OPPONENT NARRATIVE MOMENTUM]
[RECOMMENDATION: ATTACK LOGICAL FOUNDATIONS]
[RECOMMENDATION: FORCE TECHNICAL PRECEDENT DEFENSE OVER BROAD PRINCIPLES]
[ESTIMATED EFFECTIVENESS: 67% AGAINST EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTATION]
I saved the brief and checked the time.
8:00 PM.
Stop now. Over-preparation causes mental fatigue.
Louis had told me that weeks ago during one of our case discussions. The brain needed rest to execute well. Cramming the night before was for law students, not lawyers.
I closed my laptop and went for another run.
Central Park at night was quieter—just a few other runners, some couples walking, the occasional homeless person sleeping on benches that the police pretended not to see.
The System continued organizing information passively, but I let my conscious mind rest.
Tomorrow. The mock trial. Mike Ross with Harvey's training versus me with Louis's systematic approach.
We'll see which philosophy wins.
I finished my run, went home, ate something that might've been pasta, and forced myself to sleep by 10:00 PM.
That night, I dreamed about the interview room.
Not the Pearson Hardman interview from five weeks ago, but the Cross Bronx Expressway. The delivery truck. The moment before impact when I knew I was going to die.
Then waking up in Scott Roden's body, younger, given a second chance with a System that calculated probabilities but couldn't tell me why I was here or what I was supposed to do with this gift.
Why me? Why this world? Why these abilities?
The System had never answered those questions.
Maybe it didn't have answers.
Maybe I wasn't supposed to understand. Just use the tools I'd been given and build something worth building.
I woke up at 5:47 AM—thirteen minutes before my alarm.
Friday. The mock trial. Time to prove that preparation beats improvisation.
I got dressed, made coffee, reviewed my brief one last time.
[MENTAL FATIGUE: 8%]
[SYSTEM READINESS: OPTIMAL]
[WIN RATE CALCULATOR: FINAL ASSESSMENT]
[VICTORY PROBABILITY: 48% (±14%)]
[FACTORS: THOROUGH PREPARATION, STRATEGIC OPPONENT ANALYSIS, OPTIMAL MENTAL STATE]
Forty-eight percent.
Better than the thirty-four percent from when brackets were announced.
I've done everything I can.
I grabbed my briefcase and headed for the subway.
Today would prove whether Scott Roden—the systematic, methodical, thoroughly prepared associate everyone underestimated—could beat Harvey Specter's golden boy.
+1 CHAPTER AFTER EVERY 3 REVIEWS
MORE POWER STONES == MORE CHAPTERS
To supporting Me in Pateron .
with exclusive access to 20+ chapters on my Patreon, you get more chapters if you ask for more (in few days), plus new fanfic every week! Your support starting at just $6/month helps me keep crafting the stories you love across epic universes like [ In The Witcher With Avatar Powers,In The Vikings With Deja Vu System,Stranger Things Demogorgon Tamer ...].
By joining, you're not just getting more chapters—you're helping me bring new worlds, twists, and adventures to life. Every pledge makes a huge difference!
👉 Join now at patreon.com/TheFinex5 and start reading today!
— Chương tiếp theo sắp ra mắt — Viết đánh giá
Tình trạng nguồn điện hàng tuần
-- Xếp hạng
Quyền lực 
-- Đá
Quyền lực