Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation  (Read 30712 times)

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #80 on: February 23, 2009, 02:50:28 PM »
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.

Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!

You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.

So naiive.

I love the part about how they bought yachts with female deer! No way, that's INSANE!

That's how the super rich roll.  They know that real liquidity is in female deer.
If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #81 on: February 23, 2009, 02:52:04 PM »
Dude. There is a compound in Montana with your f-ing name on it. :D

Also, I said that the OP's prints might have been used in addition to other evidence, not that his prints were the key!

So, that said, wise guys, you tell me how they knew abou the letter? Was it simply his handwriting? Tell me...since you all know so much. You tell me from beginmning to end how the LSAC sniffed that guy out.

And, even more importantly, tell me how this relates to my original argument, that the OP should defend himself.

I see rioght through you. Weak, asses...cannot beat me in a debate...so attack my credibility...with feeble arguments, I might add.

It really makes no difference HOW the LSAC caught the OP, we could fight about that forever; what counts is how the OP is going to proceed in defending himself. And he does have a right to a hearing. That's the topic of this post. Do yourselves a favor and stick to it.

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #82 on: February 23, 2009, 02:53:59 PM »
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.

Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!

You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.

So naiive.

Believing that there's not enough evidence to assert that LSAC is really CSI in disguise (omg!!!1 both have a "C" and an "S"!!!11) is not equivalent to blind faith in governments and corporations.

Yes, and believing that surveillance can extend beyond the stated measures publicized by an agency does not make me a "conspiracy theorist"...nor does it make me crazy...esp. given this country's history.

non parata est

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • buh??
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #83 on: February 23, 2009, 02:55:11 PM »
Lemme guess... you're going to law school because you "like to argue?"
Quote from: Lionel Hutz, Esq.
Well he's had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog... Well, replace the word "kinda" with "repeatedly" and the word "dog" with "son."

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #84 on: February 23, 2009, 02:56:14 PM »
Dude. There is a compound in Montana with your f-ing name on it. :D

Also, I said that the OP's prints might have been used in addition to other evidence, not that his prints were the key!

So, that said, wise guys, you tell me how they knew abou the letter? Was it simply his handwriting? Tell me...since you all know so much. You tell me from beginmning to end how the LSAC sniffed that guy out.

And, even more importantly, tell me how this relates to my original argument, that the OP should defend himself.

I see rioght through you. Weak, asses...cannot beat me in a debate...so attack my credibility...with feeble arguments, I might add.

It really makes no difference HOW the LSAC caught the OP, we could fight about that forever; what counts is how the OP is going to proceed in defending himself. And he does have a right to a hearing. That's the topic of this post. Do yourselves a favor and stick to it.

How about the possibility that they didn't know poo and just run a random audit, contacting people who provided letters to see if they were actually the one who sent it, and the OP just happened to get nabbed? Kind of like how the Department of Education double-checks people's information.

If you read ALL of my earlier posts, I already stated that possibility. READ! moreover, what does the LSAC do before they fire those calls? I will concede that I cannot prove the use of fingerprints if you concede that you cannot disprove their use.

And you must admit that a random audit catching a cheater is so unlikely...and the LSAC and schools know it. Audits are primarily used as a deterent...they don't actually expect to find anything because they know the odds are slim to none. Like I was saying, the OP didn't cover his bases. In any other similar situation, his boss would have had a copy of the letter sitting on his deskl when he got back into town, anyways.

PaleForce

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #85 on: February 23, 2009, 02:56:22 PM »
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.

Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!

You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.

So naiive.

Look, LawDog, I said I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories and I agree with you that there's plenty of reason to question the government's every move.  But, I was asking for specifics...facts, if you will.  You stated a few times in posts in this thread that the LSAC checks LORs for fingerprints, as though you had some kind of inside knowledge.  I was just asking for something that would resemble a basis for that statement.  I would have also accepted a conspiracy theory answer that identifies itself as such, like: "Well, I wouldn't put it past them.  They do have our thumb prints available to them.  But, I don't know, I'm just guessing."  Calling people stupid and naive for not agreeing with you may not be the best strategy for getting them to understand where you're coming from.   :-\

heartbreaker

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3817
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #86 on: February 23, 2009, 02:56:46 PM »
Lemme guess... you're going to law school because you "like to argue?"

No, he wants to punish sketchy governments and corporations, just like Jack McCoy, duh.

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #87 on: February 23, 2009, 02:59:09 PM »
Dude. There is a compound in Montana with your f-ing name on it. :D

Also, I said that the OP's prints might have been used in addition to other evidence, not that his prints were the key!

So, that said, wise guys, you tell me how they knew abou the letter? Was it simply his handwriting? Tell me...since you all know so much. You tell me from beginmning to end how the LSAC sniffed that guy out.

And, even more importantly, tell me how this relates to my original argument, that the OP should defend himself.

I see rioght through you. Weak, asses...cannot beat me in a debate...so attack my credibility...with feeble arguments, I might add.

It really makes no difference HOW the LSAC caught the OP, we could fight about that forever; what counts is how the OP is going to proceed in defending himself. And he does have a right to a hearing. That's the topic of this post. Do yourselves a favor and stick to it.

I don't see how you can claim to know with certainty that your VERSION of the truth is more probable than ours.  By what standard do you determine which version is more likely?  You tell us that it is more likely that LSAC uses fingerprints in the manner you say, but how do you determine that it is indeed more likely?

I don't see how you can call us weak asses.  You keep changing your point, so there really isn't a debate.  You're just ranting about *&^% like usual.
If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #88 on: February 23, 2009, 03:09:53 PM »
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.

Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!

You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.

So naiive.

Look, LawDog, I said I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories and I agree with you that there's plenty of reason to question the government's every move.  But, I was asking for specifics...facts, if you will.  You stated a few times in posts in this thread that the LSAC checks LORs for fingerprints, as though you had some kind of inside knowledge.  I was just asking for something that would resemble a basis for that statement.  I would have also accepted a conspiracy theory answer that identifies itself as such, like: "Well, I wouldn't put it past them.  They do have our thumb prints available to them.  But, I don't know, I'm just guessing."  Calling people stupid and naive for not agreeing with you may not be the best strategy for getting them to understand where you're coming from.   :-\

Ok dude, the reason I have some inside info on admissions is because I worked in undergrad admissions. The reason I have info on LSAC is because I also worked also for the Urban League for two years and dealt with the NAACP as a result (I have seen the files they keep on agencies and organizations like LSAC)...we look for discrimination in police agencies. I have done so much work with this stuff. Knowing something and being able to prove it are not the same thing. But one can still KNOW it, not from random belief or guess, but knowledge. When you work certain jobs, you get certain info. 

In law, there's a difference between knowing and proving. How did it go with Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men? "It doesn't matter what I know, it only matters what I can prove!" So there is a difference.

I know...KNOW the LSAC uses those prints for more than their stated purpose, and on some other levels, so do you and the others. It would not make sense to use them just for catching cheaters at the testing sites, because there are so few people willing to try anything that bold. So, the prints are a deterrent. But, do you really think the LSAC just discards them? And if not, how would they use them?

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #89 on: February 23, 2009, 03:15:42 PM »
Dude. There is a compound in Montana with your f-ing name on it. :D

Also, I said that the OP's prints might have been used in addition to other evidence, not that his prints were the key!

So, that said, wise guys, you tell me how they knew abou the letter? Was it simply his handwriting? Tell me...since you all know so much. You tell me from beginmning to end how the LSAC sniffed that guy out.

And, even more importantly, tell me how this relates to my original argument, that the OP should defend himself.

I see rioght through you. Weak, asses...cannot beat me in a debate...so attack my credibility...with feeble arguments, I might add.

It really makes no difference HOW the LSAC caught the OP, we could fight about that forever; what counts is how the OP is going to proceed in defending himself. And he does have a right to a hearing. That's the topic of this post. Do yourselves a favor and stick to it.

I don't see how you can claim to know with certainty that your VERSION of the truth is more probable than ours.  By what standard do you determine which version is more likely?  You tell us that it is more likely that LSAC uses fingerprints in the manner you say, but how do you determine that it is indeed more likely?

I don't see how you can call us weak asses.  You keep changing your point, so there really isn't a debate.  You're just ranting about poo like usual.

History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer.