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 - samt
« on: December 16, 2005, 02:58:16 PM »
I read an article a few months ago that Washington state and another state (maybe vermont or virginia?) allowed you to go to take the bar exam without going to law school if you went through some sort of apprenticeship under the supervision of a lawyer. I know that doesn't answer your question but, thought it was interesting
Also, I know Thomas Jefferson in San Diego theoretically admits students without an undergrad degee under exceptional circumstances (read great resume, personal statement, or LSAT score). Hope this helps.
« on: July 16, 2005, 06:30:03 PM »
I found an apartment on 17th and Louisiania for $395 a month that was huge! There was also a shared free laundry facility. My landlord, Chuck Heinbockel (501-658-9845), owns several properties near the law school. He's a great guy and very helpful. He had a great place with a wood fire place on 8th for $450 if anyone's interested. Basically I drove up and down Commerce, Cumberland, and Main as well as the numbered streets, 6th through 19th, and called various numbers posted. There are some scary places around the law school but I saw a few good deals as well. I hope this helps and if anyone has any questions just e-mail me or post.
« on: July 16, 2005, 06:22:09 PM »
J.P. fitness (www.jpfitness.com
) is in the TCBY tower downtown. WHile I didn't get to visit the facility, I called the gym around 9 p.m. the other night only to find that J.P. forwards all calls to his house after he leaves the gym! I talked to him about 15 minutes and he seemed friendly and very dedicated, knowledgeable, and friendly. He reccommended that I join the huge discussion group on his website to get some ideas for fitness plans. If you sign up for an annual membership it's 49.99 a month or you can go at it monthly for 59.99. The gym also offers several fitness classes for free. Hope this helps!
« on: July 06, 2005, 06:40:12 PM »
I've been talking to another incoming student, Adam Weekly, and we're trying to think of alternative locations other than McArthur Park. I was wondering if your apartment complex had a commons area that was both able to be reserved and big enough to accomodate our incoming class. Anyone else out there have any other suggestions! Post or e-mail me!
« on: June 30, 2005, 02:50:31 AM »
Looking at the opinion again I understand that I'm not educated enough to present any kind of intelligent legal argument without sounding like a blowhard so I'm going to switch the platform.
Adam, I see what you're saying and would agree if I thought that governments were ABSOLUTELY incorruptible, trustworthy institutions. However, it is my own personnel belief that all organizations can become corrupt and are imperfect (which is why I am also against the death penalty). On top of that like that famous theory of beaucracy, I agree that all types of institutionalized organizations are inherently self-interested in their own existence and thus not neccessarily always out for the concerns or good of others.
Meaning that I think once you take away the right of someone to have their property protected from being taken by the government, from a private property owner to be used by someone else for a non-public profit bearing purpose, it is inevitable that this power will be abused at some point. To what degree will remain to be seen. Something else that remains to be seen is how state governments will react to this by drafting new legislation, secondly, over time it remains to be seen how governments (check this out about Arkansas-- http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=79430a91-2c6f-4bfb-a7a3-cf65f19c2de2
--) that don't have legislation in place to restrict eminent domain to the prior understanding of it utilize their now much clearly defined power.
One question though. If the court didn't expand the powers of emminent domain and what they did was cleary based on fifty years of precedent, then why was the case chosen to be heard by the Supreme Court and why was there such a split decision? It would seem to be that if nothing's changed much from the outcome of this decision, of which both O'Connor and Thomas think effectively nullifies part of the fifth amendment, then the court wouldn't have chosen the case to be heard in the first place. Or better put, what would have changed if the decision would have been 5-4 the other way around?
The last question is rhetorical, but the previous ones, as is always hard to convey when communicating in print, are not meant to be sarcastic but inquisitive. Let me know what you guys think and thanks Adam and Chris for putting yourselves out there.
« on: June 29, 2005, 06:35:34 PM »
I was e-mailed today saying I should contact Linda Ahlen so I'll do that tommorrow and let you guys know what's up.
« on: June 28, 2005, 12:48:25 AM »
Thanks, think I'll call the law school tommorrow and see what's going on.
« on: June 28, 2005, 12:46:50 AM »
Hey guys, nice to see people are hitting up this board! Here's what I posted either last night or the night before on the pre law discussion board which so far has racked up about sixty something posts, http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,36344.0.html
This is my reaction to some of what I thought were superfluous and sometimes hateful arguments. Some were real good and got me to think. Swear I'll read that decision again in the next few days (wink) and hopefully write something more balanced and tethered to this discussion. In the meantime I'll flame it up (am I using that correctly ?) so some of you guys will put in your two cents!
--These arguments are fun and I do appreciate them having spent undergrad sloughing through Philosophy classes having to read Wittgenstein and translated Chinese religious texts I think we should bring it back to home.
1. 99& of us are not lawyers or aspiring law students
2. We grow up with an understanding that the Constitution protects our basic rights as citizens
3. We now no longer have the right to own land without fear of a zealous entrepreneur or corporation with money and political connections being able to obtain our land, period.
I don't know where the rest of you are from but here in the South where I live not a week goes by where you don't read or hear about collusion of the wealthy to do things most ordinary people disagree with or blatant corruption in the government (run a google search on the "Tennessee Waltz" scandal for fun). People have always found ways to #@!* people, always will. Dog and pony shows and abstract arguments aside, getting screwed in the ass is still getting screwed in the ass. As we no longer have direct constitutional protection of or basic rights to own land without a legitimate reason for the public good anyone with enough creativity, money, power, and patience can get what they want.
What do you guys think the long term implications of this are? What rights will we lose next but not really care about because the economy's making us not REALLY worry about our upcoming Stafford and private loans? I know what I sound like when I say this but I have to say it anyway, Picture a time when the economy is sh*t and the only piece of equity you have left is your house which can be taken by an individual or class of individuals who have both more political and monetary capital than you. Being as how no one can accurately predict the future, we should all think of what the REAL implications of this decision is, not now but in the future.
« on: June 26, 2005, 07:52:22 PM »
I think Amy has a good idea as far as throwing out some background info to potential roommates.
I'm 25 and from Hot Springs, Arkansas, a town about 45 minutes away from Little Rock. I have a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy from Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee (some of my favorite subjects were Chinese Philosophy and Wittgenstein). I've also studied in Hong Kong for a semester (business), Costa Rica and Uruguay (Spanish), and spent a sememster at the University of Illinois at Chicago studying Anthropology. I'm a Phi Delt for any of you fraternity guys out there.
I'm agnostic and fairly liberal but don't force my views on others. I have an eleven month old daughter who lives in Nashville and whom I will be visiting one weekend a month. I'll be bringing her down twice a year, one week during Christmas and during Spring Break. I won't have her at the apartment then as I'll be taking her near her family in Hot Springs so don't worry about having a baby at the apartment. I have a fiance who lives in Nashville as well who will be spending about a year to half a year in Germany but will probably come down to visit a few times before she leaves.
I'm clean, don't smoke, quit partying after my daughter was born but do still appreciate good wine and drink (I have an extensive restaurant background). I don't want to live with a messy roommate and would prefer not to live with someone with a pet unless the pet was kept fairly clean.
Ideally I'd live as close to the law school as possible so I could walk or bike instead of drive everyday. I'm in the part-time program and may or may not work (if I do it'll be no more than 20 hours a week). Feel free to grab my e-mail off the list-serv or post if anyone is interested. Like I posted earlier, I'll be in Little Rock from July 10th through the 13th to check things out.
« on: June 25, 2005, 11:04:39 PM »
Chris, are you an incoming law student at UALR? If so nice to meet you and I'm sure I'll see you in the fall.
I'm going to post a lot more about this in the next few days after I read the decision again and think about it but thought I'd start off with a few questions to get this discussion started;
1. Does anyone see this as a personal liberties issue, as in part of the fifth amendment is essentially being wiped out? When should a justice rely on how they see precedent vs. what they determine is an essential and fundamental right that is explicitly stated in the constitution (See Thomas's discussion of the word "use" and O'Connor's point about taking every word in the Constitution as is literally)?
2. What do you guys think about what Justice Thomas said using public nusiance law instead eminent domain in regards to "blighted" properties?
3. Looking at my questions, I realize I'm not really asking anything that's obviously not extremely loaded or biased so I guess I should just ask, Who's pissed about this like I am? Who thinks it's ok? Who's concerned that the media has barely touched this?
Like I said I'm going to reread the opinions and I hope others post in the next few days so we can all see what others think about this.