This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Denny Shore
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 13
« on: February 16, 2010, 07:06:40 PM »
I've been told by numerous professors during lectures that if you believe there is something requiring disclosures, to discuss it immediately with a dean.
Start there: go speak to a dean at your school and find out what you can do to mitigate the issue. For us, that person is the dean of academic affairs. Your school may have a different name for that person.
If I were you, I'd seek that person out and see what they had to say.
Good luck. It doesn't sounds like a huge deal, but it is always better to have come clean (even if late) about stuff like this.
« on: February 16, 2010, 03:31:35 PM »
My guess is that a guy like you goes to Cooley. AND you had a 4.0 UGPA and scored a 175 on the LSAT.
I'm saying that because nothing you write makes any sense, especially in light of your last post.
Again, I'll explain it for the eternally stupid:
This thread asked the question "Why is Cooley Law so despised?"
I gave some reasons, which then turned into a pair of dolts attacking me, as if I am the only one who believes Cooley is a sub-par school.
The reason Cooley is so despised has nothing to do with MY education. It has NOTHING to do with where I go to school. It has nothing to do with an answer I gave regarding false imprisonment (which, by the way, I gave to assist a student in their understanding of the concept, not to prove my own intelligence). It has to do why the legal community, including law students, views Cooley negatively.
So it stands to reason that making fun of my intelligence for saying what most people think anyway is counterproductive and meaningless. The question was asked. I answered it. Don't like what I said? Refute my assertions (curiously, this part of the way lawyers are supposed to be trained to think is absent) and make your case. The stupid way to argue a point is to ignore the point and rely on ad hominem to justify your own misconceptions.
Is Cooley ranked very, very low? Yes, it is.
Do Cooley students complain that the school is a fail out factory school that should be stripped of ABA accreditation? Yes, they do.
Do students choose to attend Cooley for a full ride scholarship when they can get a full ride scholarship to higher ranked schools with better reputations? I doubt it. MAYBE if they have a compelling reason to remain in Michigan. Otherwise, no, they don't.
Until these assertions are argued, I'm done with this thread. Responding to ad hominem attacks is a waste of my time. I prefer to live in the realm of substantive discussion.
« on: February 16, 2010, 02:00:04 PM »
First of all, a special thank you to
- for posting false statements attributed to a response to this thread in another as an example of how dumb I am. He asserts that I got the "false imprisonment" thing wrong and attacks my education. Of course, I was correct about false imprisonment. He was referring to my response regarding fraud, where I said, "Fraud? Perhaps."
So, because I've been too busy to answer his post (apparently, I am required by some code to do so because he is an important fella), here is my response.
Specifically, damages: the damages element is the weakest, but could be argued. The woman could claim damages, such as lost wages (if she quit her job to audition for the job of assistant when no such job existed) or loss of income (if she took time off of work to audition for a fake job). Also, she may be able to establish a cause of action based on reliance or other costs (for example, she purchased a fancy outfit for the audition). I agree that fraud is a weak argument, but it is stronger than F.I.
Now, if you please, let's try not to follow posters into other threads to talk smack about them merely because they didn't respond quickly enough to your posting. Some of us actually go to school, study hard, and have memo's due, all of which may prevent us from visiting the site 90 times a day to see if anyone is looking to start an internet fight. And to correct you again, I didn't get the false imprisonment question wrong, I got it right. You just didn't like the fact that I mentioned the possibility of fraud (mostly because you seem happy to think only inside your own box). While fraud isn't the STRONGEST argument, it qualifies for a "perhaps." As in "perhaps the case for fraud could be made". Granted, it would require more information, but I've gotten awesome grades on essays merely because after answering the question spouting rules, I've explored other ideas that showed my ability to apply the law to hypos. Since I doubt the question was a "yes/no" midterm question (in which case the answer would be 'no'), exploring other possibilities would certainly prove to a professor that you've been paying attention.
« on: February 16, 2010, 01:43:58 PM »
Actually, I DID get the false imprisonment question correct. I just didn't reply to your damages question regarding fraud yet.
Do you enjoy following posters around the boards from topic to unrelated topic to make a point?
Besides, this isn't about MY education, it is about Cooley's reputation. Two different, and unrelated, topics entirely.
« on: February 15, 2010, 05:42:46 PM »
I personally think it is so they can keep the test prep industry afloat.
« on: February 15, 2010, 12:45:19 PM »
Law students take an oath not to dispense legal advice. Doing so is a violation that could result in not being allowed to sit for the bar, and not being allowed to practice law.
Here is my advice: call a lawyer. The biggest mistake most people make is believing they can't afford a lawyer then paying a much bigger price because a loved one ends up being convicted and lands in jail. Find a criminal lawyer who is willing to charge less or work out a payment schedule with you.
Alternatively, go speak to someone at your local public defenders office. They have offices in most county court's and will meet with you. You may have to wait for a while. OR, contact a law school near you and ask if they run a legal assistance program where students can assist you under the supervision of a licensed attorney.
I'd love to help, but I'm not risking my license so I can provide an answer.
« on: February 15, 2010, 12:39:45 PM »
Not to come off as an a-hole, but if your only link to judaism is from your father's side, you aren't jewish. Sorry to burst that bubble, but judaism comes from the mother - meaning if your mother is jewish, you are jewish. If your mother isn't jewish, you can only be jewish if you go through the process of conversion.
And no, jews aren't considered a minority even though they make up a very small percentage of the population. And in terms of law, jews are far from under represented.
« on: February 15, 2010, 12:32:25 PM »
False imprisonment requires that the "victim" knows she is being imprisoned against her will, amongst other things. That means willingly agreeing to be restrained removes false imprisonment at law, until or unless she is prevented from escaping the situation, at which time it becomes an unlawful restraint and qualifies under the remaining elements. False imprisonment is the intentional infliction of confinement under false authority. The P must know of the confinement or must suffer actual harm from the confinement. Additionally, it must be done against the P's will. In the hypo provided, the P consented to the act and thus was not subjected to it against her will (no deprivation of liberty). The duty to release was not breached. Therefore, this is not a case of false imprisonment. Fraud? Perhaps.
« on: February 15, 2010, 12:20:58 PM »
The ABA should cut off a lot of law schools.
I am not sure how they should decide which schools to discredit, but Cooley would probably be on the list under any formulation.
But what do I know? I also think the 2L and 3L years should become apprenticeship requirements.
Finish an ABA accredited 1L year, Complete 2000-3000 hours at an approved employer, take whatever additional classes your employer likes and whatever classes you think you need for the Bar Exam.
Not only would the educational experience be more valuable, but if you didn't get into a school in the area you'd like to work, then you could still be an apprentice in your preferred area and take classes (like barbri) tailored to your state's bar exam.
A good idea, to be sure.
I spoke with an attorney the other day and he made another excellent point:
If law school is supposed to prepare you for the practice of law, why force graduates to take a bar exam? Graduation from an ABA approved law school should be the only requisite for admission to the bar. You should be handed two things on graduation day: your diploma and your bar card.
The truth is, law school should be the requirement for bar certification - graduate? Then you are licensed.
« on: February 12, 2010, 11:34:37 AM »
You claimed I made a statement about knowing the numbers of every Cooley student. That isn't even close to what I said. I made a claim that no one at cooley has a CERTAIN combination.
Maybe your legal writing class hasn't discussed the importance of words yet.
Here's an example of words that say what you *think* I tried to say:
"ALL students at cooley have UGPA's under 4.0 and LSAT scores under 175." While that is arguably true, it is far different than what I said:
"You will not see a Cooley One L with a 4.0 UGPA and a 175 on their LSAT."
The reasoning behind this statement is simple: a 4.0 and 175 will get you a full ride scholarship at several schools. I can verify, with complete confidence, that these scores will get you a full ride at, say, DePaul (I know a student who got a full ride there with a 3.7 and a 172), Kent (I know a student who got a full ride with a 3.5 and a 170) as well as many other schools rated FAR higher than Cooley.
I do like how reasonable you've come off throughout this discussion. In a thread asking why Cooley Law is so despised, you've chosen to take umbrage with people who attempt to answer that very question. Good on ya!
Also, I firmly believe that most folks are capable of making it in the real world. Of course, most folks have a sense of logic, humility and reality. People who refuse to accept simple, widely held truths about the quality of their school do not qualify as possessing logic, humility, and a sense of reality.
Again - good luck to you. I hope Cooley is able to provide you with access to your aspirations. There is no need to get upset. You shouldn't care much about what other people think anyway.
Guy, you say that you didnt say something and then quote yourself saying it. Being long winded dosn't make poo into pudding.
I never made a statement that reflects the assertion that I somehow represented myself to know what anyone's GPA is at Cooley law school. I merely said that you won't see Cooley students with 4.0 UGPA and 175 LSAT scores. Perhaps you should reread my post. Since I doubt you have the ability or desire to do so, I will quote myself and make your life easier:
"You will not see a Cooley One L with a 4.0 UGPA and a 175 on their LSAT."
That statement cannot be reasonably construed to mean that I "know what everyones GPA is at cooley".
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 13