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 - iracafella
« on: December 13, 2011, 12:22:25 AM »
I've actually been hoping that Ipad or similar would eventually allow you to utilize word, legal study/test taking, and textbooks all in one place ... I would love to never use a book or a laptop again.
Anybody know if this is possible?
Search ebay for "7 inch tablet" or "10 inch tablet"
Many companies make tablets (non apple, ipad-like things). Many run on the Android Operating system, or a Windows version for tablets or something else. I recommend a Android tablet if you are looking for a cheap price and all the qualities you listed above, they can run as low as 75$ new, with all the main features. Android also runs things that apple can't.... check it out
« on: December 13, 2011, 12:05:59 AM »
a four letter word of mine, was changed to "bunnies" in the above post. now that's ironic. All this study of freedom of speech and I get censored in a law school discussion board. I'm probably going to get banned for dissenting about this, so this may be my last post. Swearing is legal generally, although it is legal for a webmaster of a site like this to censor swear words, I think that is wrong. Perhaps swear words should be allowed, but the post would have a warning message before being viewable, so that you would have to click "agree" to see "over 18 material" or whatever. I think that is more in line with allowing the free market of ideas. Because swearing, is speech, and in many cases protected speech.
quentin tarantino once said "If they're not swearing, they're not improvising." I think that says a lot. People swear through out their lives, and when it is done out of passion and expression rather than primarily to create disturbance (which I would argue should still be allowed under certain circumstances), it expresses something no other word can
This is food for thought
« on: December 12, 2011, 11:56:07 PM »
This question calls for a highly complex answer. There are all sorts of lawyers, but they tend to all hate injustice. I am not attracted to the prosecuting side of criminal cases. I like civil law, and defense for criminal law (when they are not scum, which they often aren't).
The government is kinda of crazy, in the U.S. and anywhere else really. America's better than everywhere else, but lots of racism is still built into the system in the U.S., and corruption is common. I think a good lawyer is dedicated to hammering down the bad, and calculating what the bad truly is. Lawyers tend to say "I like helping people" a lot more than "I love ridin on my enemies like tupac", even though I think law students and lawyers alike think about the law in terms of "ridin" just as much as helping.
But all humans have a need for justice. Maslow's hierarchy of needs should have Justice somewhere in the middle. People love seeing wrongdoers get their karma, and people love being compensated for bad *&^% done to them... It is a true need... not a want... but a need. I think the main difference between a layperson and a lawyer would then be, if you like going out and making that happen, and intellectually philosophizing about what is practical and right, and impractical and wrong.
« on: December 12, 2011, 11:43:48 PM »
The only thing I dislike about ebooks is that I can't throw them out the window after a final. Having said that, I should note that there are also a lot of Digital Audio recording series for sale online. You can buy recordings of Bar Exam Prep courses and stuff, and it costs a lot less than an actual class. The only real difference is that you personally cannot ask questions, but I don't think that's too bad.
Ebooks are good, audio recordings too, same with legal research websites. Things just get better and better... except politics, money, power, and influence... that generally stays the same.
« on: December 05, 2011, 11:46:52 PM »
Hmm, first of all, I am suspicious of this situation.
Do you think that you have been graded fairly? Have you earned those grades by playing too much games or partying, or is something going on that is tortious?
You know, there have been a lot of civil lawsuits filed with university defendants due to ADA discrimination for attention deficit disorder, or perhaps a lawsuit alleging poor grades based on racial discrimination, or first amendment retaliation. Grades have been used in the past as a pretextual tool to commit tortious conduct. I am really curious as to why this is happening to you....
Assuming that the grades are legitimate, I would say that you should talk to a lawyer ASAP. You should avoid Academic Probation, but keep in mind the Administrative Procedure Act, and your own state's law about the APA. You are entitled to a Notice and a Hearing (which is subject to judicial review
if they try to do anything major to you. You should try hard in school, but don't let anyone mess with you.
I am interested in this case, I am not a lawyer, but I myself have filed lawsuits against university employees for tortious conduct (i had to, being pro se is foolish, but it was that or nothing because i'm broke). I would like to help you through this as much as I can, but I would like more facts to work with.
« on: December 01, 2011, 01:03:55 AM »
Court corruption really sucks, but I think that you should just stick to your arguments and work hard on your briefs. Things should turn up better for you if you stay on point.
« on: November 29, 2011, 09:26:39 PM »
Well that's actually a really good point. The question is not "Do you currently have any criminal convictions on your record," it is "Have you ever been convicted or pled guilty to a crime?"
The language of the actual question is (on one hand) saying what big is saying. But on the other hand, the people who created (and made prominent) that classic question were probably not lawyers - thus they do not seek exact statutory-like language. They aren't trained like us (i'm still pre-law, after undergrad but before law school) to think logically and use language in an exact way to create very specific rules and laws.
So I hereby change my vote, to "we should do more research, inquiry, and contemplation, and then reconvene together with new found proposed answers."
« on: November 29, 2011, 05:10:51 PM »
any bar association person or lawyer says when in doubt disclose...
This exact situation is asked in MPRE questions and the answer is always disclose.
Okay, I think you have good arguments, but I feel like you are misapplying some rules here. First of all, the key phrase in the first quoted sentence, is "when in doubt". There should be no doubt. And I think the correct phrase after "when in doubt" should usually be "do research, inquiry, and contemplation", rather than guess that you should disclose something.
I may be wrong, but the original poster is talking about expunged minor convictions right? or were they not expunged?
Secondly, I think the MPRE may have a question about criminal convictions that were not
expunged. So the facts are different in that circumstance I believe.
Lastly, I have a few quotes below from Black's Law Dictionary 9th Ed. to clear this situation up, if
we are dealing with convictions that were not
expunged. I believe that the best advice would be to not disclose, if the crimes were expunged:
erasure of record. See EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORD
expungement ofrecord. (1966) The removal of a conviction
(esp. for a first offense) from a person's criminal
record. Also termed expunction of record; erasure of
record. [Cases: Criminal Law C=>1226(3).]
expunge (ek-spanj), vb. (17c) 1. To erase or destroy <the
trustee wrongfully expunged the creditor's claim
against the debtOr>. 2. Parliamentary law. To declare
(a vote or other action) null and outside the record, so
that it is noted in the original record as expunged, and
redacted from all future copies.
« on: November 28, 2011, 04:51:29 PM »
Pleading guilty to computer hacking at 17 is a very serious matter. Not like staying up past your bedtime, or pranks like smashing pumpkins and streaking around the block when you're 14. Hacking goes to your honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. If you really want to become a licensed attorney, an officer of the court, you'll wait for the Bar Association to uncover your past at your peril. Even if you slid it under the radar to get the license to practice law, how do you know that somebody who remembers you wouldn't inform the Bar Association upon learning that you, former computer hacker, had become an attorney? You might find yourself disbarred for offering a fraudulent application. Best to disclose it up front. It's a hell of a lot easier to explain your conduct at 17 when you're forthcoming about it than it is to explain away why you weren't forthcoming about it in the first place.
Well i think that it is serious, but I cannot recommend enough that you just not say it unless you have to. It would not be fraudulent to apply for law school or any related other thing, if you had no duty to say it, or were not simply asked. Just saying it out of the blue is, IMO, a bad idea. I think that you should do what anyone would do. Just keep quiet about it until you have a duty to disclose, and/or an application or interviewed specifically asks for your criminal background. Even then, as I said before, dont mention the expunged computer crime unless you also have to say expunged crimes you had as a minor.
Ask this question of Lawguru.com, or an attorney in your area. I bet they would be helpful if you are still wondering what to do.
« on: November 26, 2011, 11:36:17 PM »
In response to the above reply, I would vote that you do not disclose your teenage criminal conviction that was expunged. I think that first of all, it wouldn't matter, I am unaware of computer hacking being a crime in any part of the U.S., I know that Cyberstalking is a crime, and that things like harassment or fraud or embezzlement or other cases sometimes involve the medium of a computer... but anyway, I am guessing you are talking about a misdemeanor. So that matters so little, everyone was 17 once, and that sounds like a petty crime. And I think barely anyone, if at all, would even find out about it.
My opinion would be that you should only disclose the criminal charges if you are specifically asked (implied or expressly, through oral or written medium) for your criminal background and you are subsequently asked to include all expunged convictions as well.
But definately try to learn about the law, you can go to your local public law library and look around, you can even sit in during certain hearings and cases at your local superior court. think about it for a while