Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation  (Read 27153 times)

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #120 on: February 24, 2009, 01:38:43 AM »
Como te llamas,you make excellent points, really. We are ALL right here...EACH OF US IS CORRECT.

I have tempered several of my arguments with "moral arguments aside". Hell, I have even said that the OP did this to himself. But come on...no law school or law career for a funky letter that was at least halfway approved? We don't know if that letter even gave the OP an advantage because we don't know if it was viewed by the schools.

I have seven letters, and each school gets a different set of them, depending on which personal statement (I have three that I tweak for the schools) each school receives. How do we even know that the school viewed that letter? And at GWU officials may or may not have looked at all b/c GWU doesn't require letters.

But until all of the facts come out, we won't know what the appropriate punishment is. For example, what if the OP has done something else to really make his supervisor mad and his supervisor is getting even. Or what if the LSAC has lied to call the OP's bluff. It's entirely possible that his boss actually copped to authorizing the letter but the LSAC didn't buy it. And does the OP still work for his boss? If my employee falsified a letter in my name, I would fire him.  Apparently that hasn't happened.

There are still questions to answer. I question whether the OP's boss really sold him out. My guess is that the OP is really sunk. But we watched O.J. walk (the first time), GWB escape impeachment and Clay Bennett steal the Seattle Sonics and lie under oath about it. I never say never.

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #121 on: February 24, 2009, 01:53:08 AM »
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.
 

In LSAC's eyes, this IS a crime. What are we to think, that crime is only defined as wrongs done under police jurisdiction? Crime is crime. You somewhat undermine your own argument. They have this tool at their disposal and you dismiss outright their inclination to use it. Obviously it's not too expensive for the LSAC to scan a print, because they clearly have to save them in order to bust imposters on the re-take tip. If suspicion arises, they have to verify identities after the fact, somehow.

And, I posited that they keep those prints because they do. They will check them if your score rises 20 points, bet on it. That's why they hold all files of test-takers with score increases of 15 points or more. What are they doing during that hold? And I know for a fact that they do hold such scores because I was one of them. My score went from 145 to 151 to 166. LSAC held my file for verification. Is the use of fingerprints in the OP's case such a stretch?   

Look, once and for all, maybe LSAC didn't have to use his prints. But they very well could have. That is still my point on the prints.

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #122 on: February 24, 2009, 02:03:05 AM »
OK everybody. I have one question for each future attorney whpo has posted here: "How would you defend Nola?"

Let's have strategy talk if you care to engage me. Forget your own morals, lawyers have to disregard that. First rule of a lawyer: what we think or know really doesn't matter; it's what we can prove that counts.

so...I've posed the question. What can you prove? What would you attempt to prove, and why?

How would you defend the OP if he were your client?

Would you make a quid pro quo with the LSAC...no law school attendance for five years, withdraw all applications...LSAC no irregularities report. Would you file a temporary injunction and sue to have the LSAC drop its investigation? I don't even know if that can be done. Would you put a gun to the boss's head and tell him to go to bat for his protege? Or would you tell OP to throw himself on the mercy of the LSAC?

What would you do? Let's have some ideas.   

TTom

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #123 on: February 24, 2009, 09:48:00 AM »
Como te llamas,you make excellent points, really. We are ALL right here...EACH OF US IS CORRECT.

I have tempered several of my arguments with "moral arguments aside". Hell, I have even said that the OP did this to himself. But come on...no law school or law career for a funky letter that was at least halfway approved? We don't know if that letter even gave the OP an advantage because we don't know if it was viewed by the schools.

I have seven letters, and each school gets a different set of them, depending on which personal statement (I have three that I tweak for the schools) each school receives. How do we even know that the school viewed that letter? And at GWU officials may or may not have looked at all b/c GWU doesn't require letters.

But until all of the facts come out, we won't know what the appropriate punishment is. For example, what if the OP has done something else to really make his supervisor mad and his supervisor is getting even. Or what if the LSAC has lied to call the OP's bluff. It's entirely possible that his boss actually copped to authorizing the letter but the LSAC didn't buy it. And does the OP still work for his boss? If my employee falsified a letter in my name, I would fire him.  Apparently that hasn't happened.

There are still questions to answer. I question whether the OP's boss really sold him out. My guess is that the OP is really sunk. But we watched O.J. walk (the first time), GWB escape impeachment and Clay Bennett steal the Seattle Sonics and lie under oath about it. I never say never.

BS

TTom

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #124 on: February 24, 2009, 09:48:21 AM »
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.
 

In LSAC's eyes, this IS a crime. What are we to think, that crime is only defined as wrongs done under police jurisdiction? Crime is crime. You somewhat undermine your own argument. They have this tool at their disposal and you dismiss outright their inclination to use it. Obviously it's not too expensive for the LSAC to scan a print, because they clearly have to save them in order to bust imposters on the re-take tip. If suspicion arises, they have to verify identities after the fact, somehow.

And, I posited that they keep those prints because they do. They will check them if your score rises 20 points, bet on it. That's why they hold all files of test-takers with score increases of 15 points or more. What are they doing during that hold? And I know for a fact that they do hold such scores because I was one of them. My score went from 145 to 151 to 166. LSAC held my file for verification. Is the use of fingerprints in the OP's case such a stretch?   

Look, once and for all, maybe LSAC didn't have to use his prints. But they very well could have. That is still my point on the prints.

BS

TTom

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #125 on: February 24, 2009, 09:48:46 AM »
OK everybody. I have one question for each future attorney whpo has posted here: "How would you defend Nola?"

Let's have strategy talk if you care to engage me. Forget your own morals, lawyers have to disregard that. First rule of a lawyer: what we think or know really doesn't matter; it's what we can prove that counts.

so...I've posed the question. What can you prove? What would you attempt to prove, and why?

How would you defend the OP if he were your client?

Would you make a quid pro quo with the LSAC...no law school attendance for five years, withdraw all applications...LSAC no irregularities report. Would you file a temporary injunction and sue to have the LSAC drop its investigation? I don't even know if that can be done. Would you put a gun to the boss's head and tell him to go to bat for his protege? Or would you tell OP to throw himself on the mercy of the LSAC?

What would you do? Let's have some ideas.   

BS

PaleForce

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #126 on: February 24, 2009, 12:25:09 PM »
In LSAC's eyes, this IS a crime. What are we to think, that crime is only defined as wrongs done under police jurisdiction? Crime is crime. You somewhat undermine your own argument. They have this tool at their disposal and you dismiss outright their inclination to use it. Obviously it's not too expensive for the LSAC to scan a print, because they clearly have to save them in order to bust imposters on the re-take tip. If suspicion arises, they have to verify identities after the fact, somehow.

And, I posited that they keep those prints because they do. They will check them if your score rises 20 points, bet on it. That's why they hold all files of test-takers with score increases of 15 points or more. What are they doing during that hold? And I know for a fact that they do hold such scores because I was one of them. My score went from 145 to 151 to 166. LSAC held my file for verification. Is the use of fingerprints in the OP's case such a stretch?   

Look, once and for all, maybe LSAC didn't have to use his prints. But they very well could have. That is still my point on the prints.

Ugh.  There really is no hope for you.  And now I'm bored of the whole thing and arguing with someone who is clearly disconnected from reality.   

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #127 on: February 24, 2009, 01:42:50 PM »
In LSAC's eyes, this IS a crime. What are we to think, that crime is only defined as wrongs done under police jurisdiction? Crime is crime. You somewhat undermine your own argument. They have this tool at their disposal and you dismiss outright their inclination to use it. Obviously it's not too expensive for the LSAC to scan a print, because they clearly have to save them in order to bust imposters on the re-take tip. If suspicion arises, they have to verify identities after the fact, somehow.

And, I posited that they keep those prints because they do. They will check them if your score rises 20 points, bet on it. That's why they hold all files of test-takers with score increases of 15 points or more. What are they doing during that hold? And I know for a fact that they do hold such scores because I was one of them. My score went from 145 to 151 to 166. LSAC held my file for verification. Is the use of fingerprints in the OP's case such a stretch?   

Look, once and for all, maybe LSAC didn't have to use his prints. But they very well could have. That is still my point on the prints.

Ugh.  There really is no hope for you.  And now I'm bored of the whole thing and arguing with someone who is clearly disconnected from reality.   

Yeah. But it wouldn't be boring if we could talk about some ideas instead of arguing this corny stuff about prints.

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #128 on: February 24, 2009, 04:08:03 PM »
OK everybody. I have one question for each future attorney who has posted here: "How would you defend Nola?"

This post didn't get enough love.

TTom

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #129 on: February 24, 2009, 04:34:36 PM »
OK everybody. I have one question for each future attorney who has posted here: "How would you defend Nola?"

This post didn't get enough love.

What would be the point of trying to have an intelligent conversation about the law with LawDog?

I'm not bashing LawDog because of his ignorance -hey, he's a 0L, he shouldn't be expected to know concept like crime, and charge, and due process, etc. I'm bashing LawDog because he insists on claiming he's not ignorant.

LawDog, why can't you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about?