Discussion
Resources
1
General Board / Re: John Marshall - Atlanta v. South Texas
« on: May 28, 2007, 08:50:37 AM »YES, I DO.
HOWEVER, THE WEBSITE ALSO CONTAINS MORE INFORMATION ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS REVIEWS AND APPEALS USUALLY NOT AVAILABLE B/C OF MY PRE-APPEAL CHALLENGES.
I've met Professor Van Detta and he was pretty informative as to JMLS-Atl. I don't know what kind of problems you two have with each other but your website is pretty scattered, broad and offers nothing about the school's programs, progress, etc(which is what I was inquiring about). If you want to plug your poor website do it somewhere else because I'm not interested.
I'm sorry it took so long to respond. Yes, I have problems w/Prof Van Detta, but those are personal ones.
Jeff resigned in December 2000 only b/c law school went "for-profit". He was very idealistic then.
I actually convinced him to go back to JMLS. He is an excellent professor and teacher.
The problem I have is that he's placed our child’s interest above his career and placed him in the middle of the WORST custody battle so far - bar NONE....for the best interests of the law school and not our child.
Prior to filing suit against JMLS in May 2005, I sent a settlement letter grounded only in equity. The "institution's" lawyer responded that if I did, it would result in "consequences far beyond my contemplation". Prior to filing suit, I naively thought I had made my peace with Jeff and that he of all people understood why I had to protect the degree I worked so hard on, which I did for more than 50% of the semester hours prior to marrying Jeff. After that, I got a tuition remission but that does not justify what JMLS did to me when it involved me in the other lawsuit w/out informing me of any potential risks to my character and fitness evaluation.
It's clear now that since Jeff and Dean Ryan knew about the Fitness Board's inquiry into my involvement in Meltz v. John Marshall (probably around April / May based on an email from Jeff to me), the events that happened over the next two years were simply playing out in anticipation of litigation. In order to bootstrap Board’s tentative denial ONLY for my involvement in Meltz v. John Marshall, JMLS had to destroy my reputation and use "after the fact" information to bootstrap the Board's denial b/c they don't want denial based on my assistance to JMLS....just like they used information I gave to Ryan to bootstrap firing of Dean Meltz using "after the fact" information.
I agree with you that Jeff is an EXCELLENT professor and teacher. In my opinion Jeff is too good to be at JMLS and should be teaching at a better law school. He was accepted at Yale LLM's program, one of a handful each year are accepted. But as he said later, my lawsuit was not a "slip and fall", it challenged the "institution" on ethical grounds, which was far worse. I never thought that it would end up this way and interfere in our child life the way it has. But, I was naive and believed the lawsuit would be litigated on the elements of the claims, not the politics of suing a law school and challenging the Gods who determine whether one is "fit and moral" enough to sit for the Bar. My lawsuit against the Fitness Board and the Supreme Court of Georgia is the lack of procedural safeguards in the evaluation of a fitness application---it has NEVER been about “making” the Board certify me…not in ANY pleading, not in ANY forum…only the process itself b/c the Rules are so subjective and elusive, and an application must go through the administrative appeal process simply to learn the reason for a “tentative denial”. ALL of the applicants that have filed administrative appeals have lost. Even when the “independent” hearing officer’s recommendation was to certify, the Board still denied and the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld. Even when the “independent” hearing officer admitted he made many mistakes in the hearing, the Fitness Board still denied and the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the denial. All of this information is on www.jmlsatlanta.info.
Had I a chance to do things differently when I responded to the Board’s June 14, 2004 “inquiry” letter, I would have simply said “John Marshall Who?...”Dean Ryan Who?”… waited out my three–year “punishment” and went on with my life. Just like their response to me was when I begged, really begged, for their assistance in clarifying the “institutions” involvement in the non-confidential, end-product filings – LETTERHEAD which showed Dean Meltz as “of counsel”, which is not refuted at all so that I could have at least sat for the academic portion that summer.
Now, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to pass---my knowledge is simply gone…as is probably my desire to ever become a “professional”.