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 - loki13

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 63
I have 2 cases on my record (both nonpublic). One for jostling (pushing someone)(misdemeanor) and the other for credit card fraud (felony). I've paid my debt to society with both and both are now off of my record. I also have an embezzlement charge which was dismissed. I am wondering if I am still able to go to law school and take the bar exam? Will this look TOO bad? I DEEPLY regret my actions and have not done anything since. All of these crimes have been committed within the past 3 years. Will they give me mercy? Do I still have a chance?

I'm going to give you a typical attorney answer. Maybe?

Let's start with the very bad. The number of crimes (three- that's more than one, or two, although it is unclear if the embezzlement was part of the credit card fraud or a separate incident). The type of crimes (jostling, alone, would be no big deal, but credit card fraud and embezzlement both go to honesty and character & fitness qualifications - in addition, expect some probing into your finances in many jurisdictions). And the timeline (they were within the last three years; it's hard to show evidence of significant rehabilitation within a short time frame). You are going to have problems, even though they are off your record.

Now, the good. Context will matter. Assuming you accepted responsibility, made any court-ordered restitution, and can adequately explain both why it happened then and why it won't happen again, you should have a shot.

Different states have different rules, and different schools do as well. Find out if there are any specific to the school/state you wish to practice in. The best rule of thumb is to disclose everything. The Bar will want to know about the charges, even if they were dropped or removed from your record.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 19, 2016, 09:55:22 AM »
Loki thinks Bernie sanders was sheepdoggin'.  Now, that is precious.

Naw. What's precious is you thinking that anyone bothers with you, other than to mock you.

It's not like you're even making anyone angry, because to cause anger, you first have to be taken seriously.

Which means that even as a troll, you're a failure. You're more like a mascot.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 19, 2016, 09:38:50 AM »
"Our job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House and a Hillary Clinton president and I am going to be in every corner of this country to make sure that happens.

I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. We were a bit younger then. I remember her as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children.

Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today. Thank you all, very much!"

Feel the Bern!

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 19, 2016, 09:12:32 AM »

Dont believe me

Never have truer words been spoken!

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 19, 2016, 07:20:24 AM »

Eg..lololol....not found in any a group of 39 independents whom I know one third will be writing in bernies name....

There was so much goodness here I don't know where to start. But this was my favorite part.

You don't have a single friend, let alone 39. And I don't need a periodical to tell me that.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 18, 2016, 10:46:47 AM »
Loki, the well goes a bit deeper than even what cyn wrote as far as Dems creating Trump (and they very much so DID)

Politics are like a pendulum the more you push one way, the more its unavoidable to push back the opposite way until everyone leaves it alone long enough to organically get to where it should be (which in politics is NEVER fyi)

Obama asked for too much too soon. And he continues to do so on his way out.

Same pendulum swinging is why BLM supporters keep shooting cops too. Its all just weight and gravity.

That is ... one of the best parodies of #THANKSOBAMA I have ever seen.

That said, Trump (or a Trump-like substance) was a necessary result of the GOP's policies and practices. Simply put, they have engaged in anti-elite, anti-establishment rhetoric, so it should come as no surprise that the elite and the establishment were not able to seize control. They have continuously stoked the fires against politicians, so, again, is it any surprise that a non-politician has seized the levers of power? They tried to harness the fury of nativists and racists, without fully comprehending that these same people might not be as attached to free trade as the GOP is.* They fed off of the anger and resentment of talk radio and Fox News, which allowed short-term electoral success at the expense of long-term electoral stability. And so on.

More importantly, politics is hard. It is the art of the possible, filled with compromise and gradual change. It is not the continual unmet promises of revolution unfilled, with brinkmanship as its lodestone ("We'll repeal Obamacare, and shutdown the government, again, to do so.").  Trump only exploited that which was already there.

The Democrats have 99 problems, but the Trump ain't one.

*This is not, by the way, to say that the GOP is/was nativist and/or racist. But it was perfectly happy to pander to those interests to get their votes.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 18, 2016, 07:23:07 AM »
But thanks you one party Hillary supporters---thanks for nothing---
We blame you for the rise of trump.......

U mad bro?

I have to admire your chutzpah*, but blaming Democrats for the rise of Trump is particularly rich. I hate to break the news to you,** but Clinton came in a (very) close second to Obama in 2008 after she was the presumptive nominee, and was the presumptive nominee coming in to this cycle, so her victory, while disappointing to some, was pretty much par for the course.

Despite this, you have been intensely focused on a rather boring election that everyone knew was finished a long time ago (hint- proportional delegates), instead of the bizarre and fascinating rise of Trump(tm), and what it means to the GOP. I would be more worried ... but since you are now predicting a Trump victory, that means that the nation can sleep soundly at night.

*Defined as the ability of a person to kill their parents, and the plead for leniency because they are an orphan. Or, in the alternative, the ability of a person to continue to make 100% wrong popcorn predictions, and then keep spouting off like anyone is doing anything but laugh at him.

**No, I don't. I love it, although with the caveat that you couldn't learn something if it was attached to a semi and it ran you over.

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: UMass going anywhere?
« on: July 14, 2016, 05:50:19 AM »
So how long until Umass-dartmouth becomes a tier three, tier two law school. UC Irving rose way faster. I'm planning to go to umass-dartmouth in the JD/mpp program, and I got a 17,000 dollar scholarship to the JD. But right now, even when it's parent is University of Massachusetts, they aren't even ranked. The usnews considers them less then tier four. Which I don't know why. They are by the way a public interest law school. They have higher bar pass, higher employment, higher lsat scores than a lot of the TTTT's. Someone explain.

First, you can't compare any school to UC Irving- it's sui generis. Hiring Chemerinsky, hiring the other faculty members that it did, subsidizing high LSAT students etc. It was a planned attempt to get to T50 that worked (and cost dearly).

UMass-D has a slightly different issue; look at the market. Massachusetts has nine law schools; of those nine, three of them are Harvard, BU, and BC (one of the top in the nation, and all three T25). It has three more respectable schools for its urban center (Northeastern, Suffolk, NESL).

So, no, I don't see it as being T2 (50-100) any time soon, at least not in today's market. It has no reputation, no real alum base, and it doesn't have particularly great admission numbers.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 13, 2016, 10:33:07 AM »

I agree that the vast majority of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, if grudgingly.

My question is about they view Sanders himself after his endorsement of Clinton. This is anecdotal, but so many of the Sanders supporters I know were as opposed to Clinton as they were to Trump. I think Cinnamon falls into that category.

So, when the guy who they supported so strongly endorses someone who they oppose so strongly, does that change their opinion of Sanders? Do they think he's a sellout, or do they say "Hey, it's politics and the most important thing is defeating Trump!" (Which is essentially Sanders' line).

I'm curious because it seems like there would have to be some cognitive dissonance involved in order for it to NOT change their opinion of Sanders, at least somewhat.

Well, I don't think you can easily categorize all Sanders voters, as I alluded to in my earlier post. How they feel about Sanders himself will likely depend on what type of Sanders voters they were to begin with.

There is the old-school, mostly white, left wing of the Democratic party. They either already get it, or will get it.
There are the young people for whom this is their first election. "Politics" and "compromise" is a dirty word, and the idea of losing the battle, but then fighting the war, is a new one. Again, though, I'm not overly worried about them.
Then there are those who were motivated primarily for hatred of Clinton and/or Obama (call them the Spiced Troll / West Virginia voters). To be honest, I don't think they'll come around, and I don't think it was really about Sanders at any point.

It's the second category that's the most interesting to me, and that's the area that Sanders himself will have to work on.

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« on: July 12, 2016, 09:03:42 AM »

Do you really want to ask Spiced Troll? As in, do you think his answers are representative of the overall Sanders vote?

In the more, ahem, tied-to-reality, living on things other than popcorn community, I would look to the following-

1. Past is prologue. Whenever there is an interesting fight within a party, you end up seeing those who declare, "I will never vote for the other person." (Remember the PUMAs - party unity my ... behind, who supported Clinton and not Obama?). But the majority eventually comes back to the fold. Heck, even *Trump* is getting a fair amount of GOP support, and he's ... well, not a typical GOP candidate. After all is said and done, support for the party (or dislike of the other party) counts for more than the intra-party differences.

2. The nature of Sanders' support. Yes, he did attract a lot of "super liberal" folks, and those people will be appeased by the changes made to the Democratic platform. But a fair amount of support in the primaries came from those who disliked Obama (yeah, I know) - see, for example, his victory in West Virginia. He attracted not just supporters, but those who were simply protesting - and Sanders would not have received their votes in the general, anyway (unless you think a New England socialist is going to win West Virginia is the general). This isn't to discount the fact that he identified a key Democratic constituency and motivated them, but it also speaks to the fact that this constituency is over-represented in the actual support he received.

Anyway, Sanders will campaign with and for Clinton and appear at the convention. You'll see the usual rates of people returning to the fold; cf. the rates for the Clinton/Obama race.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 63