U.C.C. § 9-109 would be better if it said: "This Article applies to a bunch of shit, but not to certain other shit."

Amazingly, I've actually been productive today. I've actually spent the past six hours...(gasp)...outlining. Of course, this was possibly probably assuredly caused by the fact that the internet connection at Starbucks sucked more dick than a porn star working overtime. However, since Starbucks is now closed, and I've relocated to the library, my productivity had to come to an end. So now I'd like to share some of what I've learned about Secured Transactions this evening:

1) Despite it's name, "Secured Transactions" has nothing whatsoever to do with hiring a hooker to tie you to the bed. Apparently, it has to do with collateral, or some shit like that.

2) If you take a security interest in someone's firstborn, you should probably get your interest noted on the birth-certificate.

3) "Accounts" under § 9-102(a)(2) are basically the equivalent of a pimp saying "Bitch, where's my money?!?!"

4) If one pimp sells all of the ho's in his stable to another pimp, along with their accounts recievable, cf. U.S. v. Pipkins, 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (detailed description of pimping financial affairs), this transaction would be excluded from the scope of Article 9. § 9-109(d)(4).

5) The word "fuck," or any of it's conjugations, is conspicuously absent from, not merely Article 9, but the entire UCC.

6) The following fact pattern will never appear on an exam:

Debtor is a corporation organized under Delaware law. Debtor does business in a Middle Eastern country where selling young women as “harem commodities” is legal. Creditor takes a security interest in "all of Debtors inventory, now held or after-acquired" and properly files a financing statement in Delaware. Does the Thirteenth Amendment void Creditor's interest in any harem-girls owned by Debtor, or does that country's law govern the effect of perfection under § 9-301(2)?

7) I am very ready for this semester to be over.

Fuck it, back to work.