Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation  (Read 27127 times)

TTom

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #130 on: February 24, 2009, 05:02:07 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?
 

I take offense. I'm a 0L and I know that LawDog is ignorant on concepts like crime, charge and due process.

Apologies! But I certainly wouldn't fault you if you didn't.

WheelsUp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #131 on: February 24, 2009, 06:14:23 PM »
Thank you, I'm glad to see people joining this discussion who are not placing moral condemnation on the OP. LawDog and I were the lone defenders here for a while.

To answer an earlier post, no, I am not Nola. Lol. I can see how you might think that since I've tried to argue with some of his protagonists. I created an account simply to ask about my own LOR question related to a 1L summer job. Then I got wrapped up into this thread. I've really enjoyed the arguments

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #132 on: February 25, 2009, 01:02:51 AM »
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?
 

You sound so stupid...you are actually boring me. If someone doesn't know what they're talking about, produce the evidence from...wherever, and shut them up. But don't keep saying they are wrong and calling their arguments BS if you can't back it up.

First, as a prospective lawyer, your first instinct should have been to figure out how the OP could defend himself or at least negotiate. He made it clear that the LSAC was on his back. But, you just condemn the guy. Great defense attorney you'll make. Some guy (guilty or innocent) walks into your office and asks for help. You ask him what happened and give him a lecture. Then send him on his way. GREAT! That's what we need. Self-righteous, arrogant, apathetic attorneys.

I DO know what I am talking about. The terms you speak of are nothing but concepts, and they apply in a variety of situations.

And "crime"..."due process"...etc...you obviously have limited concepts of those terms. You need to broaden your scope. A crime is any wrong perpetrated against an entity or individual...period.

Are the Student Conduct Committee proceedings at any university NOT examples of "Due Process"? Cases from both sides present cases before sanctions can be metted out. There is usually a judge or a panel of judges...possibly a jury of "peers". Now, if you have not been behind the scenes at the LSAC, you would not know that these dynamics do not exist.

I, on the other hand, can say with strong confidence that they do exist, because the LSAC would not want to "charge" (i.e., accuse!) an applicant of an irregularity w/o giving him the opportunity to defend himself or offer controverting evidence. This, i know. I also know that anyone who has debated me on these points (quite unsuccessfully, I might add) will not make a very good attorney.

I win, every time I step into a courtroom. I have written briefs that have saved my friends from eviction, I have argued on my own behalf for expungement of an assault case that was on my record (something that impressed at least one dean at a top law school), I have gotten senior managers at large real estate companies fired by stating potential cases of discrimination. I am preparing the brief for a federal discrimination case.

And this has happened within the last three years. And...up until December, I had as much law school experience as any 1L on LSD  (the website, not the drug!) or TLS. Did you forget that I attended Georgetown for a semester and took first year courses AND EXAMS? That's more than any other 0L. Oh...did I neglect to tell you that I received the highest grade in my Legal Writing course? Oh...and I also earned an A+ in Appellate Advocacy and won "Best Argument" at our Moot Court Competition that summer. My opponent, whom I beat, went to GULC and made Law Review.

Out of everyone here, I am quite certain that I am the only person who has gone head-to-head against an Assistant D.A. in a live courtroom, and WON! I did it myself arguing "undue hardship" caused by the State of Washington. The A.D.A. could not believe that I wrote a brief that beat her. I didn't even have to argue my case; I rested after that joke tried to argue. She hadn't done her research and she got embarrassed. The other lawyers in the court gave me high-5's on the way out. 

About seven times during undergrad, I argued successfully for raised grades, sometimes based on technicalities like the wording of the syllabi, other times with substantive arguments.

It is YOU and any other pundits who knows not what he speaks of. I cannot wait to meet some of you in Moot Court. And I am going to identify myself after I cream you, b/c I don't lose.   

 

TTom

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #133 on: February 25, 2009, 09:42:18 AM »
It Fs up our entire profession having people like the OP in it.

This...  I mean... What can even be said about this comment?  It's golden.

Also, I'm now convinced that not only are you flame, but that you must not be in law school yet.  You couldn't have sat through even a month of law school and think that what you're saying is anything but tripe.  You're comparing the OP's "LSAC misconduct" to legal malpractice... I mean, no matter what you want to say about the kid's judgment, that comparison is just absolutely gaga.  It's nonsensical.  It's not even crazy; it's just meaningless.  (And it requires just absolutely wild extrapolations about his "moral character," into which none of us has any meaningful insight... but in any event is neither here nor there, because the whole thing is just such a gobbledygook proposition.)

So anyway, you're a 0L, which makes calling the law "your profession" just that much more awesome.  (Or, to be fair, maybe you just have no idea how to express yourself.  If you're not a 0L but are in fact a TTT 2L with Asperger's, I apologize.)

If nola thinks it's okay to write fake letters and forge names, then yes, this behavior will lead to censure and possibly disbarment. This is not uncommon. The fact that you don't know this is scary. I'm not sure why you're have a difficult time understanding this. Have you taken legal ethics?

As for LawDog, he's talking out his ass about fingerprinting, using words he doesn't understand while refusing to admit he doesn't understand them, and claim that we, as future lawyers, should be trying to figure out how to get nola off the hook. That's F-ing absurd. And if you think it's not, you should probably go into practice with LawDog. That would make one hell of a law firm.

I'm done with this thread. Your comments have been preserved and anybody who cares to read them can.

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #134 on: February 25, 2009, 09:48:45 AM »
It Fs up our entire profession having people like the OP in it.

This...  I mean... What can even be said about this comment?  It's golden.

Also, I'm now convinced that not only are you flame, but that you must not be in law school yet.  You couldn't have sat through even a month of law school and think that what you're saying is anything but tripe.  You're comparing the OP's "LSAC misconduct" to legal malpractice... I mean, no matter what you want to say about the kid's judgment, that comparison is just absolutely gaga.  It's nonsensical.  It's not even crazy; it's just meaningless.  (And it requires just absolutely wild extrapolations about his "moral character," into which none of us has any meaningful insight... but in any event is neither here nor there, because the whole thing is just such a gobbledygook proposition.)

So anyway, you're a 0L, which makes calling the law "your profession" just that much more awesome.  (Or, to be fair, maybe you just have no idea how to express yourself.  If you're not a 0L but are in fact a TTT 2L with Asperger's, I apologize.)

If nola thinks it's okay to write fake letters and forge names, then yes, this behavior will lead to censure and possibly disbarment. This is not uncommon. The fact that you don't know this is scary. I'm not sure why you're have a difficult time understanding this. Have you taken legal ethics?

As for LawDog, he's talking out his ass about fingerprinting, using words he doesn't understand while refusing to admit he doesn't understand them, and claim that we, as future lawyers, should be trying to figure out how to get nola off the hook. That's F-ing absurd. And if you think it's not, you should probably go into practice with LawDog. That would make one hell of a law firm.

I'm done with this thread. Your comments have been preserved and anybody who cares to read them can.

If I am talking out of my ass...PROVE IT! And i do not think it is ok to write fake letters and forge signatures. But the law is 75% about language, my friend, and with that reality comes the prospect that our laws are flawed and open to interpretation. Any fair process, then, dictates that the language of any law be scrutinized at every possible turn, including those that apply to the education field. Like any crime, "forgery" has "legal elements" (do you even know what a "legal element" is?). I am not yet familiar with them, but I am certain there is room for interpretation in at least one of them. And ambiguities in any law creates openings for controversy. This is why i asked how you would defend the OP. Not one of us even knows whether or not there is a relevant precedent concerning, for example, "after-the-fact endorsements" in situations like this. Therefore, you cannot dismiss, out-of-hand, the prospect that the OP's boss may be able to remedy the situation.

We have established the fact that no one on this post knows for 100% certain whether the LSAC does/does not use fingerprints to bust potential fraudsters. Yet, we know they collect and save them...for...nothing, according to some posters here. But, I concede on that point. So let's assume they don't take the fingerprints from the stationary to bolster their investigative efforts and catch forgers.

What justification do you have for assuming that the OP will not be given an opportunity to defend himself should he be charged?

And if he WILL be given an opportunity, should he just sit on his hands and wait for the hammer to drop without possibly saving his own career, or should he get proactive and build a defense?

TTom

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #135 on: February 25, 2009, 10:54:37 AM »
It Fs up our entire profession having people like the OP in it.

This...  I mean... What can even be said about this comment?  It's golden.

Also, I'm now convinced that not only are you flame, but that you must not be in law school yet.  You couldn't have sat through even a month of law school and think that what you're saying is anything but tripe.  You're comparing the OP's "LSAC misconduct" to legal malpractice... I mean, no matter what you want to say about the kid's judgment, that comparison is just absolutely gaga.  It's nonsensical.  It's not even crazy; it's just meaningless.  (And it requires just absolutely wild extrapolations about his "moral character," into which none of us has any meaningful insight... but in any event is neither here nor there, because the whole thing is just such a gobbledygook proposition.)

So anyway, you're a 0L, which makes calling the law "your profession" just that much more awesome.  (Or, to be fair, maybe you just have no idea how to express yourself.  If you're not a 0L but are in fact a TTT 2L with Asperger's, I apologize.)

If nola thinks it's okay to write fake letters and forge names, then yes, this behavior will lead to censure and possibly disbarment. This is not uncommon. The fact that you don't know this is scary. I'm not sure why you're have a difficult time understanding this. Have you taken legal ethics?

As for LawDog, he's talking out his ass about fingerprinting, using words he doesn't understand while refusing to admit he doesn't understand them, and claim that we, as future lawyers, should be trying to figure out how to get nola off the hook. That's F-ing absurd. And if you think it's not, you should probably go into practice with LawDog. That would make one hell of a law firm.

I'm done with this thread. Your comments have been preserved and anybody who cares to read them can.

If I am talking out of my ass...PROVE IT! And i do not think it is ok to write fake letters and forge signatures. But the law is 75% about language, my friend, and with that reality comes the prospect that our laws are flawed and open to interpretation. Any fair process, then, dictates that the language of any law be scrutinized at every possible turn, including those that apply to the education field. Like any crime, "forgery" has "legal elements" (do you even know what a "legal element" is?). I am not yet familiar with them, but I am certain there is room for interpretation in at least one of them. And ambiguities in any law creates openings for controversy. This is why i asked how you would defend the OP. Not one of us even knows whether or not there is a relevant precedent concerning, for example, "after-the-fact endorsements" in situations like this. Therefore, you cannot dismiss, out-of-hand, the prospect that the OP's boss may be able to remedy the situation.

We have established the fact that no one on this post knows for 100% certain whether the LSAC does/does not use fingerprints to bust potential fraudsters. Yet, we know they collect and save them...for...nothing, according to some posters here. But, I concede on that point. So let's assume they don't take the fingerprints from the stationary to bolster their investigative efforts and catch forgers.

What justification do you have for assuming that the OP will not be given an opportunity to defend himself should he be charged?

And if he WILL be given an opportunity, should he just sit on his hands and wait for the hammer to drop without possibly saving his own career, or should he get proactive and build a defense?

Preserved.


LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #136 on: February 25, 2009, 10:55:22 AM »
Forgery Defined: A person who makes, utters, or alters a writing in such a way as to convey a false impression concerning its authenticity imposing a legal liability with the purpose of deceiving or injuring another is guilty of forgery in its contemporary sense

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3474tl3l563vrk1/

Elements:

1) Makes, Utters or alters a writing

2) In such a way as to convey a false impression concerning its authenticity

3) Purpose of deceiving

Ok, so we have something that looks like three "elements" (disclaimer: I may not have broken them as legally done)

Q1. Did the OP "make" the document? That is to be decided. We do not know whether his boss previously told him what he would like to put in the prospective letter, whether the OP took notes on these points in the presence of his boss and saved them. And it will be up to the LSAC, and possibly a judge or jury to debate this point. But 'make" is a vague term that might be exploitable in a defense. My guess is that the OP probably DID make the writing.


Q2. Did he do so in a way that would convey a false impression of its authenticity? Well, what does "authentic" mean?

accurate, actual, authoritative, bona fide, certain, convincing, credible, creditable, dependable, factual, faithful, for real, genuine, legit, legitimate, official, original, pure, reliable, sure, true, trustworthy, trusty, twenty-four carat, valid, veritable

"Genuine" means not fake or counterfeit - or sincerely felt or expressed, while "authentic" means conforming to fact and therefore worthy of belief and trust

This is murky. The praise and accolades the OP may have expressed in the letter may have been genuinely felt by the boss, even if he did not scribe them on the final copy of the letter. They certainly could have been true, factual, dependable and all of those things. This, too may/may not be exploitable. But, clearly the OP constructed the letter in a way that indicated falsity, probably with too much praise, vernacular, sentence structure and punctuation too similar to his own AND/OR...I have to say it, those dredded fingerprints. My guess is that the OP loses on this point, too.

Q3. "Purpose" of "deceiving". Did the OP intend to deceive the LSAC and/or schools? Or did he intend to write what his boss would have written, and promised to write, had he gotten off of his lazy ass? If the OP told the truth as his boss would have stated it (and admittedly intended to state it) in the substance of the letters, then, by their nature, the accolades themselves are not deceptive. Element three also requires deception. What "degree" of deception would be necessary? If the accolades are true, the deception is only in the written signature.

Here is a different example. I could say I believe, based on my knowledge, that the Lakers won their last game. Now, the Lakers may have actually won their last game, but to maintain the veracity of my statement, what level of knowledge must I have? I may not have seen or heard the game; I may not have spoken to anyone about the game, I may not have seen the news or have any other reliable indicator that would give me that "knowledge"...other than the fact that the Lakers are on a huge win streak.

If the Lakers won their last game, would I be lying, then?  To what degree am I being deceptive if what I actually say is true? The Lakers did win, and my level of "knowledge" may be left up to interpretation on the matter b/c a hunch based on a win streak may be good enough for some, but not others. Others may want "proof".

But, if you remember my diatribe on proof earlier in this post, proof is a sufficient condition for knowledge, but knowledge in NOT a sufficient condition for proof. This means one can "know" something without being able to "prove" it.

Based on that standard, I can say I knew the Lakers won the game without proving it. And if they won, I am not a liar.

Same with that signature. If the OP's boss gave him indications of what he actually would have written, how deceptive are the OP's statements? And how deceptive is the signature?

Now...all of these arguments are not likely to help the OP, but this is how we must think, as future lawyers. Break the elements of an offense apart and dissect them..analyze them before making a judgement. Make arguments. This is exactly what a law prof. will ask of you...spot issues (as I did earlier), dissect elements and make arguments.  

TTom

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #137 on: February 25, 2009, 11:14:59 AM »
Forgery Defined: A person who makes, utters, or alters a writing in such a way as to convey a false impression concerning its authenticity imposing a legal liability with the purpose of deceiving or injuring another is guilty of forgery in its contemporary sense

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3474tl3l563vrk1/

Elements:

1) Makes, Utters or alters a writing

2) In such a way as to convey a false impression concerning its authenticity

3) Purpose of deceiving

Ok, so we have something that looks like three "elements" (disclaimer: I may not have broken them as legally done)

Q1. Did the OP "make" the document? That is to be decided. We do not know whether his boss previously told him what he would like to put in the prospective letter, whether the OP took notes on these points in the presence of his boss and saved them. And it will be up to the LSAC, and possibly a judge or jury to debate this point. But 'make" is a vague term that might be exploitable in a defense. My guess is that the OP probably DID make the writing.


Q2. Did he do so in a way that would convey a false impression of its authenticity? Well, what does "authentic" mean?

accurate, actual, authoritative, bona fide, certain, convincing, credible, creditable, dependable, factual, faithful, for real, genuine, legit, legitimate, official, original, pure, reliable, sure, true, trustworthy, trusty, twenty-four carat, valid, veritable

"Genuine" means not fake or counterfeit - or sincerely felt or expressed, while "authentic" means conforming to fact and therefore worthy of belief and trust

This is murky. The praise and accolades the OP may have expressed in the letter may have been genuinely felt by the boss, even if he did not scribe them on the final copy of the letter. They certainly could have been true, factual, dependable and all of those things. This, too may/may not be exploitable. But, clearly the OP constructed the letter in a way that indicated falsity, probably with too much praise, vernacular, sentence structure and punctuation too similar to his own AND/OR...I have to say it, those dredded fingerprints. My guess is that the OP loses on this point, too.

Q3. "Purpose" of "deceiving". Did the OP intend to deceive the LSAC and/or schools? Or did he intend to write what his boss would have written, and promised to write, had he gotten off of his lazy ass? If the OP told the truth as his boss would have stated it (and admittedly intended to state it) in the substance of the letters, then, by their nature, the accolades themselves are not deceptive. Element three also requires deception. What "degree" of deception would be necessary? If the accolades are true, the deception is only in the written signature.

Here is a different example. I could say I believe, based on my knowledge, that the Lakers won their last game. Now, the Lakers may have actually won their last game, but to maintain the veracity of my statement, what level of knowledge must I have? I may not have seen or heard the game; I may not have spoken to anyone about the game, I may not have seen the news or have any other reliable indicator that would give me that "knowledge"...other than the fact that the Lakers are on a huge win streak.

If the Lakers won their last game, would I be lying, then?  To what degree am I being deceptive if what I actually say is true? The Lakers did win, and my level of "knowledge" may be left up to interpretation on the matter b/c a hunch based on a win streak may be good enough for some, but not others. Others may want "proof".

But, if you remember my diatribe on proof earlier in this post, proof is a sufficient condition for knowledge, but knowledge in NOT a sufficient condition for proof. This means one can "know" something without being able to "prove" it.

Based on that standard, I can say I knew the Lakers won the game without proving it. And if they won, I am not a liar.

Same with that signature. If the OP's boss gave him indications of what he actually would have written, how deceptive are the OP's statements? And how deceptive is the signature?

Now...all of these arguments are not likely to help the OP, but this is how we must think, as future lawyers. Break the elements of an offense apart and dissect them..analyze them before making a judgement. Make arguments. This is exactly what a law prof. will ask of you...spot issues (as I did earlier), dissect elements and make arguments.  


Preserved.

WheelsUp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #138 on: February 25, 2009, 11:21:15 AM »
LawDog, this is roughly similar to a first-year legal memo. You've shown the elements and how the OP may or may not meet those elements. The state of Pennsylvania (which is where LSAC is located) or the other states (where the OP may have made a potential offense) may each have a definition of forgery (either in the common law or by statute). Thus, each state may use different elements for forgery (or maybe the tort of fraud). But you've got the general idea: break down the elements, and show arguments that cut both ways. This is what memo writing and law school exams are all about.

TTom, are you still making arguments in good faith? If you're done, fair enough, just be done. But I'm not sure how all of the retorts to Lawdog's arguments of either "BS" or "Preserved" are furthering the dialogue.

TTom

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« Reply #139 on: February 25, 2009, 11:30:45 AM »
LawDog, this is roughly similar to a first-year legal memo. You've shown the elements and how the OP may or may not meet those elements. The state of Pennsylvania (which is where LSAC is located) or the other states (where the OP may have made a potential offense) may each have a definition of forgery (either in the common law or by statute). Thus, each state may use different elements for forgery (or maybe the tort of fraud). But you've got the general idea: break down the elements, and show arguments that cut both ways. This is what memo writing and law school exams are all about.

TTom, are you still making arguments in good faith? If you're done, fair enough, just be done. But I'm not sure how all of the retorts to Lawdog's arguments of either "BS" or "Preserved" are furthering the dialogue.

I'm really not concerned with having a dialogue with LawDog. I'll give him credit for trying to break forgery down into elements, although his interpretation of those elements is absurd. Not to mention that LSAC is neither charging nola with criminal forgery nor has the capability to do so.