Law School Discussion

Show Posts

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 - kmpnj

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 57
Current Law Students / Re: Moot Court v. Law Review
« on: July 26, 2006, 06:07:07 AM »
Does your school award credit for LR?  I know some schools do.  If you can get academic credit for LR, then you could do both.

If not, I would say LR.  In looking at NALP's directory, every employer (it seems like, anyway) that does OCI requires law review. 

Thanks Vonhayes77.

And oh yeah...Clevland sucks.

Von Hayes...The single most responsible person for the downfall of the Philadelphia Phillies back in 1981.  5 for 1 my ass.

Sorry, painful childhood memory.

Current Law Students / Re: Mushroom Cloud...
« on: July 22, 2006, 12:19:37 AM »
With the full political, financial and military backing of the United States, the Zionist regime is attempting to transform Lebanon into an Israeli protectorate. This military operation is a continuation and escalation of the imperialist geo-political restructuring of the Middle East and Central Asia that began with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and whose goal is the establishment of US domination of the entire region. The immediate aim of this war—the elimination of Hezbollah as a military and political force within Lebanon—is directed against all mass resistance to Israeli and American domination of the country. The Bush administration and its allies in Jerusalem see this as an essential step toward: 1) the removal of the Syrian Baathist regime, and 2) the launching of a full-scale war against Iran.

As the Financial Times of London wrote in its lead editorial of July 17, "Israel's massive bombardment of Lebanon by land, sea and air in response to Hezbollah's cross-border raid last week is now about a great deal more than recovering two Israeli soldiers seized by Islamist guerrillas—and it probably always was." Similar assessments have been published in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, as well as numerous newspapers internationally. They simply state what is by now obvious: the Israeli attack on Lebanon is the realization of a long-planned act of aggression.

Recent events have placed in clearer perspective the significance of the February, 2005 assassination of the Lebanese multi-billionaire and former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Hariri was killed by a massive explosion that destroyed his motorcade in Beirut four months after he resigned his post as prime minister in protest against the decision of Emile Lahoud, an ally of Syria, to extend his term as president of Lebanon. The United States and France, the country's former colonial ruler, immediately blamed Hariri's death on Damascus. Their anti-Syrian allies within Lebanon, predominantly based on the more affluent social layers, seized upon Hariri's killing to launch the so-called Cedar Revolution, which resulted last year in the withdrawal of Syrian troops, which had occupied Lebanon since the 1970s. If, in fact, the Syrian regime was behind the killing, it carried it out because it had become convinced that Hariri had lent his support to a US-Israeli plan to drive Syria out of Lebanon, in preparation for an assault on the Hezbollah movement, which enjoys mass support among the impoverished Shiite population and dominates the south of Lebanon. It was well aware that this would be followed by an offensive against the Baathist regime in Damascus itself.

It is, on the other hand, eminently possible that the killing was a provocation organized by Israeli or American intelligence agencies for the purpose of creating a pretext for carrying through the same plan. In either case, the current Israeli offensive is the implementation of precisely such an operation. The Cedar Revolution itself produced disappointing results in the eyes of the Israelis and Americans. Under the terms of a United Nations Security Council resolution co-sponsored by Washington and Paris, Syria was obliged to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. The power of its Hezbollah ally, however, remained intact. Indeed, at the height of the anti-Syrian agitation, marked by well-publicized demonstrations in Beirut organized by Maronite Christian forces and other Lebanese parties aligned with Washington, Hezbollah organized far larger counter-demonstrations that brought hundreds of thousands into the streets of the capital. With the specter of a new civil war before it, the government that emerged from the Cedar Revolution felt obliged to make a settlement which included the admission of Hezbollah representatives into the cabinet.

In an article published July 20, the New York Times reflected the frustration within the Bush administration and American ruling circles: "Despite the hopes raised by the so-called Cedar Revolution, which ended nearly three decades of Syrian control, the government remains trapped in the sectarian straitjacket of a system that apportions political offices by religion." (The Times has no similar objections to the "sectarian straitjacket" of Lebanon's neighbor to the south, which not only apportions all political power to representatives of one religion, but defines itself as a "Jewish state"). This comment points to the real purpose of the current onslaught against the Lebanese people. Its aim is a thoroughgoing political restructuring of the country, in which the fiercely pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli sentiments of the Shiite masses are to be crushed and the power of right-wing, pro-US forces—above all, the Christian Phalange — vastly expanded.

This is an attempt to reverse the outcome of the Lebanese civil war, which raged from 1975 until 1990. The US, Israel and other imperialist powers, notably France, played a central role in inciting that long and bloody conflict and keeping it going, including the introduction of American and French military forces and an Israeli invasion in 1982 that was followed by an 18-year Israeli occupation of the south. Washington's chief ally was the fascistic Phalange, which headed a coalition of right-wing forces arrayed against an alliance of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Lebanese Left. Imperialist intrigue and intervention succeeded in driving the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) from Lebanon, but the eventual settlement curtailed the power of the Phalange, on the one hand, and saw the rise of the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hezbollah on the other. This is what Washington is determined to change. Significantly, the current Israeli offensive has enabled the US to move its military forces into Lebanon for the first time since they were withdrawn in the aftermath of the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut in October of 1983.

This message brought to you by your friends at Al Jazeera and

Current Law Students / Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« on: July 21, 2006, 08:19:28 AM »
If you would like there are many books asserting my thesis (as if it really must be reasoned, it is so obvious that it’s not necessary to state it) including my favorite “The Big Test: The Secret of the American Meritocracy”

American Meritocracy!?!?!?! Can someone reconcile this with Goerge W. Bush?

To be fair, John Kerry got worse grades at Yale than Bush did.

Current Law Students / Re: Why do doc review
« on: July 20, 2006, 11:54:45 AM »
How is it that a person comes on these boards, consistently contradicts and impugnes his own argument and we're the TTT's?  On what planet does this make sense?  Planet scumbag?

Current Law Students / Re: Why do doc review
« on: July 20, 2006, 09:39:55 AM »
why would they see me as more than a "trained monkey"

they knew i was going to be here for 1 year while i decided if i wanted law school, not someone who wanted to make a life out of being a paralegal - they also realize that i have brains between my ears

if i was not a "good paralegal" (equivalent to being a wet puddle - nothing special required) i can only assume i would have been tossed aside instead of being given 2raises and a bonus

So, then clearly, using your above assertions, paralegals do important work.  If they did not, then your firm would not have felt it necessary to give you a bonus.  I'm sure they did not reward you for your stellar personality, which has been on full display on this thread.

So, to sum up, you have either a) clearly understated the role of paralegals within the framework of the legal profession, or b) indicted yourself as being "a wet puddle." (Is there any other kind of puddle, besides a wet puddle?) Either way, you are a very sad little boy.

Current Law Students / Re: Why do doc review
« on: July 20, 2006, 08:52:00 AM »

enjoy a year off, make sure its what i wanted, make some great connections for after law school, usual reasons for pre law people wanting to to do it - though in hindsight, i wish i just went straight to LS

Interesting, although this particular passage brings up an interesting point.  If, as you assert, paralegals are basically trained monkeys (not a direct quote, but a fair summation of your argument), what great connections for after law school could you have possibly made?  Let me guess:  You graduate and then you go back to the old firm and say "ooohhhh, I've got my JD now, can I play with you guys now?"  If paralegals are as worthless as you claim, why would they ever see you as more than a paralegal?  In three years (again, using your own logic and argument), the people at your firm are likely to only remember you vaguely as that male paralegal who used to work there for a year.  No more, no less.  So, if paralegals are as useless as you claim, then you've wasted a year, working as a "glorified secretary," trying to build contacts that will never exist. Good Plan.

Also, as to the grammar thing.  As lawyers (or future lawyers), writing is what we do.  Spelling errors are fine, but basic grammar is something that, at this point, should be reflex.  If you have to think about your grammar, at this point, I have to wonder how you have made it through a whole year as a paralegal, since all the paralegals I know (and I know a few) write quite a bit. 

Maybe your animosity toward paralegals is based in the fact that you have been working as a paralegal, but you're not a terribly good one.  So, to make yourself feel better about yourself, you slam paralegals as a class of people.

Depressed, substance-abusing people become depressed, substance-abusing AFTER they start law school, they are normal when they enter the hell.

I think I've seen a study on that somewhere. 

On a related note, has anyone read   Making Docile Lawyers: An Essay on the Pacification of Law Students, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 2027 (1998)?  It's an amazingly frank and brutally honest account of what law school does to many students, written by an HLS student.

Funny I'm not a coke addict yet. What exactly DOES lawschool do to students besides teach them to become lawyers? If you're going to become an alcoholic or drug addict you don't need lawschool to do that to you. You can do that on your own. That article you reference is mere propoganda.

I'm from South Georgia. I knew people that were drug addicts and alcoholics and they never even went to college. What is your point?

Get real, lawschool doesn't make people alcoholics or drug addicts, people turn themselves into these things. Further what school do you go to that it's a "hell"? I've yet to see fire and brimstone or any demons at Florida State.

You and the "intellectual" Harvard student that wrote the article you reference are absurd if you think that it's lawschool that makes someone an addict.


I would tend to agree that people who turn to substance abuse to deal with the stress of law school were probably predisposed to turn to substance abuse to deal with any stress, no matter its source.  I think that part of the problem is that nothing is anyone's fault in this country anymore.  I know I'm going to get slammed for the following statement, but I truly believe that this whole "Substance Abuse is a disease" thing is a crock.  Cancer is a disease, AIDS is a disease, Diabetes is a disease.  There is no 12-step program for Cancer, but there is for addictions.  I also don't buy into the whole "genetic" thing either.  My birth father was a huge alcoholic.  Also liked to beat up everyone in the house.  My mom left him when I was 6 and to this day, I can have a beer or two and be done.  In fact, I don't think I'm really addicted to anything (besides food, water and air).  I just think that its way to easy for anyone to label whatever faults or foibles they have (and we all have them) as "diseases."  Just my opinion, anyway.

Current Law Students / Re: Law school discouragement
« on: July 19, 2006, 12:36:43 PM »
I would also suggest dropping the boyfriend if he can't be supportive.  Lets say that you stay with the boyfriend and get married and don't go to law school.  You'll regret not going for the rest of your life and you will, ultimately, resent him for that.  You have to pursue your dreams and he should be supportive of that.  If he loves you/cares about you, then he should want you to be happy.

Current Law Students / Re: Why do doc review
« on: July 19, 2006, 12:25:48 PM »
Not only that, but a lot of legal assistants/paralegals know other legal assistants/paralegals in other offices and firms.  So lets say Mr. Assclown treats a legal assistant like crap during his 1L/2L summer.  Then, lets say this assclown gets a job at another firm in that same market.  Well, legal assistant from firm B calls firm A to ask about a file or memo or contract that he/she needs.  Then, legal assistant B tells legal assistant A that "they just hired someone who used to work at that firm, Mr. Assclown."  legal assistant A then tells legal assistant B that he wasn't offered a job because he treated the support staff like crap.  Think that person is gonna call in favors for you.  Favors like calling the clerk that she knows for Judge soandso who can guarantee a favorable look from the Judge at your motion to dismiss?  Not friggin likely.

The point of this litte scenario is to treat the support staff very well.  When your a wet nosed punk, fresh out of law school with no kind of time, they're the ones who are going to give you intelligence like, which judges to file suits or motions with, what the lawyers you're up against tend to do well and not so well (I.E.: The lawyer that you're up against doesn't really do well with technical or scientific evidence, but is good at cross examination, etc.)  If you treat support staff like crap, they will make your life suck.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 57