LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation

[Cool Beans]

You need to prove it to us, or at least convince us that it's true, because we don't believe you.  It's as simple as that.  Noone has gotten any logic wrong.  You're missing the point. 

If someone doesn't believe a contentious claim that you make, you must support your claim with sufficient evidence.  Anecdotal evidence will not fly. 

cosigned

You two are missing the point, doods.  If you're in a police station and drink a cup of water, boom, they have your DeeEnnAye.  Does this not happen?  Ever?  Can you argue that this never happens?  No, you can't.  So LawDog's right.  It occurs and the burden of proof to argue the frequency or probability of the action is on everyone in this thread.  Boom, you've been lawyered.

[TTom]

The op's obviously a really good guy.  The LSAC should stop busting his chops.  Sorry, won't do it again.  Let's not ruin lives here folks.  What he did wasn't even really dishonest.  He was just following the standards of conduct which his employer previous instituted.  No deceit, no harm.  Everyone needs to back the @#!* off.  Now.

Writing a letter and forging your boss's name without permission isn't "really dishonest"?

What standards of conduct are you talking about? Did his employer routinely have him write recommendation letters and sign other people's names?

Yeah there was deceit. Yeah, there's harm: It Fs up our entire profession having people like the OP in it.

[LawDog3]

If you 'know' something, but you can't persuade me with some sort of evidence (no, giving me anecdotal evidence is not enough...considering I could say I have the same experience.  It doesn't mean it's true), then I am not convinced that what you say is true.  

That is how debating works.  

You can't sit there and say, 'they are so naive.  I know this and the fact that they don't take my word for that is their loss.  Therefore, they are weak debaters, and I am awesome.'  To make a successful argument, you must persuade your audience with facts, evidence, and logic.  

And I would produce the proof, if that were the real issue at-hand. I have some evidence of fingerprint use beyond stated purpose, but it isn't really solid.

But your point is well-taken, you can reserve the right to reject, out-of-hand, any supposition not bolstered by evidence to your satisfaction. But, that doesn't mean your refutation will be any more solid.

It's just that I thought this whole thing was about helping the OP stay out of trouble. Certainly my ideas about THAT were correct.

My advice stands; the OP needs to speak with an attorney (one who specializes in Education Law - and there is such a field) and his boss, and come up with a strategy, BEFORE LSAC charges him. If he cannot get an attorney or a hearing, he should call the U.S. Dept. of Education and ask if they can refer him to a good Education Lawyer.  

He's entitled to submit evidence of his innocence and, if necessary, receive a hearing and defend against the LSAC's charges.  

"Due Process" extends beyond our criminal and civil courts. It is a "doctrine" as well as a "law" and a "constitutional right". Doctrines are nothing more than "ideals"/"principles" that inform the creation of public policy...that is it. Therefore, a university will enact due process before expelling a student for plagarism, and the LSAC must extend due process to any accused law applicant.

Good luck OP!

[TTom]

You need to prove it to us, or at least convince us that it's true, because we don't believe you.  It's as simple as that.  Noone has gotten any logic wrong.  You're missing the point. 

If someone doesn't believe a contentious claim that you make, you must support your claim with sufficient evidence.  Anecdotal evidence will not fly. 

cosigned

You two are missing the point, doods.  If you're in a police station and drink a cup of water, boom, they have your DeeEnnAye.  Does this not happen?  Ever?  Can you argue that this never happens?  No, you can't.  So LawDog's right.  It occurs and the burden of proof to argue the frequency or probability of the action is on everyone in this thread.  Boom, you've been lawyered.

So because police will use DNA during the course of an investigation where they suspect an individual, it therefore goes without saying that LSAC dusts letters for fingerprints, and the burden is on us to prove that it doesn't?

REALLY?

Here's what probably really happened: Nola wrote a suspicious letter, i.e., "Nola walks on water!," signed her boss's name, and sent it from her address or forgot to include the form that is supposed to be included by the letter writer.

Any suggestion that LSAC dusted for finger prints is retarded. And LawDog's claim that he has access to some secret files that documented LSAC's use of finger prints is pura mierda.

 

[TTom]

It's just that I thought this whole thing was about helping the OP stay out of trouble. Certainly my ideas about THAT were correct.

My advice stands; the OP needs to speak with an attorney (one who specializes in Education Law - and there is such a field) and his boss, and come up with a strategy, BEFORE LSAC charges him. If he cannot get an attorney or a hearing, he should call the U.S. Dept. of Education and ask if they can refer him to a good Education Lawyer.  

He's entitled to submit evidence of his innocence and, if necessary, receive a hearing and defend against the LSAC's charges.  

"Due Process" extends beyond our criminal and civil courts. It is a "doctrine" as well as a "law" and a "constitutional right". Doctrines are nothing more than "ideals"/"principles" that inform the creation of public policy...that is it. Therefore, a university will enact due process before expelling a student for plagarism, and the LSAC must extend due process to any accused law applicant.

You are retarded. I've come to that conclusion. It's really the only explanation.

You're throwing around a lot of words and ideas and you have no idea know what they mean. What "charges" are you talking about? This isn't a criminal proceeding. And where do you get this idea that he's "entitled" to submit evidence of his innocence? Is there a process you can cite? And please, stop invoking due process because you clearly have no idea what it means. A university is required to give due process if it's a public institution.

And as for hiring an "education" lawyer: You don't know what the F--- you are talking about. Please stop. Just make it stop.

 

[PaleForce]

You two are missing the point, doods.  If you're in a police station and drink a cup of water, boom, they have your DeeEnnAye.  Does this not happen?  Ever?  Can you argue that this never happens?  N, you can't.  So LawDog's right.  It occurs and the burden of proof to argue the frequency or probability of the action is on everyone in this thread.  Boom, you've been lawyered.

First of all, I never argued that things like this don't happen.  Once again, I love conspiracy theories and am generally distrustful of any government agency.  However, we're not talking about what happens in a police station!!  Stop watching Law & Order marathons for your check on reality!  Crime shows =/= real life.  (BTW: most police stations don't have the funds to collect and store random samples of DNA, some don't even have the resources to use DNA to help solve most crimes in their district and so the technology is reserved for the most heinous and well-publicized crimes.)

We were talking about LawDog presenting the idea that the LSAC actually dusts for fingerprints on LORs as "fact."  I wanted to know how LawDog came to this conclusion.  I was basically told "they do and you're naive if you don't think so."  Sorry, but that doesn't do much to convince me that the LSAC actually does this in practice.  It seems ridiculous that the LSAC (NOT a governmental institution) would take the time and money to dust LORs or other application materials just to double-check the app for authenticity.  What could they possibly hope to gain from this?  They get their fee regardless.  It wouldn't be worth the time and effort.  I'm sure that your LSAT signature and thumb print is compared to subsequent papers (like bar apps) to determine identity, but dusting an LOR is not the same thing.  It's nuts to say that the LSAC would act in exactly the same manner as a police force, if given the opportunity.  

Now, if the LSAC were a police force, do I think that they would use the voluntarily obtained fingerprints when searching for a match related to a crime?  Hell yes!  Should they is an entirely different question.
 

[WheelsUp]

Wow, wish I hadn't stepped away from my computer for so long. This has been an interesting discussion, but I feel like it's been sidetracked a bit. At the end of the day, we don't know what LSAC does with the fingerprints. What's important is that the OP got caught. My guess is that he had written things in the letter that made LSAC really question its authenticity - as in, it was way over the top in praise. Lol, it's funny to think that might be the reason.

Anyway, I agree with TTom on one point. LSAC does not owe the OP any form of due process within its own structure. I understand LSAC has an appeals process, but I don't know much about it. But I imagine this appeals process is more about preserving LSAC's reputation as a legitimate organization than true justice. Outside of LSAC (as in, courts of law), I really don't know what the OP can do. Can he bring suit against LSAC, maybe a civil suit? I really don't know. But LawDog is right in that the OP needs legal representation ASAP. At least counsel can give the OP his options.

[just some guy]

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. 

Buh??

Didn't you give a sperm sample at the LSAT site? Because I know I had to.

[non parata est]

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. 

Buh??

Didn't you give a sperm sample at the LSAT site? Because I know I had to.

I thought that was for extra credit only...

[WheelsUp]

And, yes, as LawDog mentioned, I'm concerned that we're the ONLY ones in this discussion that have even mentioned that the OP needs to seek out his legal options. This is his whole career on the line. I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say. There's a lot of facts we simply don't know, specifically about the level of authorization the boss has permitted the OP. What some have advocated is the equivalent of telling a criminal, "Well, you've committed a crime. You're a bad person, and I would never do what you did. You don't deserve a defense, because there is simply no justification for theft."  If you think this is an exaggerated analogy, here are a few lines from this ongoing discussion:

“… I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse…”

“you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.”

“Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.”

“… you deserve to have your admissions rescinded…and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.

 “…there is NO justification for what you did. None.”