Will I have an issue passing the bar C&F? Forum

[future liT1g4tor]

I love that we're now multiple posts into this thread without our "future litigator" actually specifying what his conviction was for.

Because there is no conviction. Calling troll on this one.

Can you guys not read? Or do you just choose not to? In those "multiple posts" I have stated that my conviction was for D/V.

Not a single person on this forum can read. This is a forum for illiterate simpletons who fail to understand perfectly coherent tales of domestic violence, witness intimidation, and bumbling PDs who should really defer to you in all matters. You should probably be a bit more sensitive in the future.

Me? Sensitive? This is coming from someone who goes to UVA? No wonder you brought up sensitivity. Not that UVA is a bad school, it's a wonderful one but I have seen over the years many UVA people get a little too sensitive on this board.

[UVA2B]

This raises another issue: you don't write clearly; your description of your problems is a mess. This is all the more reason to seek the assistance of an attorney before applying to law school.

Let's not fixate on the median, let's look at the message. In this case the answers I am seeking. And yes that's a Slipping Jimmy quote.

The answer is that you need to consult with a C&F attorney. Your inability to express yourself clearly is one reason you should do so, but it is not the only (or main) reason.

I got that part I was mainly referring to cavalier's or w/e his name is post where he is referring to prosecutorial work. And I asked about a clerkship? What consequences will this bare on me in regard to clerking? How about law schools? How will they look upon this conviction? And now don't tell me to go talk to an Education Law attorney. (now that last sentence is trolling, I don't troll).

Seriously, why do you need more than rpupkin's advice? If you're not actually a troll, and you have convictions, detainments, and other legal troubles on your record, why are you not accepting "consult a C&F attorney" as the appropriate answer? They can advise you on the bar, which will be more stringent than law school admissions, and will at least help inform clerkships who do background checks into past criminal conduct.

In the unlikely event you're actually looking for advice, why was that advice, that you acknowledge, insufficient for your particular predicament? No one here can tell you whether your convoluted tale of interactions with law enforcement will affect any future hiring or licensure, so if you're that worried about it, skip ahead in your bank of questions to ask and save them for the attorney you'll eventually need to advise you on how to approach your laundry list of issues in your file.

[UVA2B]

I love that we're now multiple posts into this thread without our "future litigator" actually specifying what his conviction was for.

Because there is no conviction. Calling troll on this one.

Can you guys not read? Or do you just choose not to? In those "multiple posts" I have stated that my conviction was for D/V.

Not a single person on this forum can read. This is a forum for illiterate simpletons who fail to understand perfectly coherent tales of domestic violence, witness intimidation, and bumbling PDs who should really defer to you in all matters. You should probably be a bit more sensitive in the future.

Me? Sensitive? This is coming from someone who goes to UVA? No wonder you brought up sensitivity. Not that UVA is a bad school, it's a wonderful one but I have seen over the years many UVA people get a little too sensitive on this board.

You're literally too stupid for words. I hope you get banned soon.

[future liT1g4tor]

You've got serious issues dude.

As an example of your inability to express yourself clearly in writing:

[My wife] had left her phone in the car so I go back up to her to ask for the phone to make a call.

Why were you asking your wife for her phone, if she had left her phone in the car?

As an example of your inability to follow directions/anticipate the potential consequences of your actions:

My PD pulls me out & tells me talking to my wife will have potential consequences . . . so I go back up to her to [talk to her].

It was my phone, obviously, since hers was in the car. Regardless of that I am sure you are aware both phones are both of ours anyway. My wife did not show up there as a witness only to support her spouse against these frivolous allegations that were the basis for the state to bring charges up against me. Any decent lawyer would have had this case thrown out from the get-go. Knowing what I know now, I am pretty sure I would too. I had the money for a lawyer I just had too much faith in the system.

She didn't receive her subpoena due to us moving & the person making the allegations did not show up. I don't know why on God's earth I took their plea, maybe when you're in the chain gang at 18 next to a murderer your mind doesn't process things correctly. My PD said take the deal even though I didn't do it to get out of jail. (In the least unethical way, of course). I wasn't even in jail, I was reprimanded hours earlier due to a positive drug test that they gave me for "intimidating a witness"

If I were lying about any of this, why would it still bother me so much nearly 6 years later? I just wish I knew what I know now back then to stick it to that TTT-going judge. Who is an advocate for domestic violence nonetheless, so anyone walking into her courtroom on such charges is guilty. She didn't even read the drug-test nor did my PD check. They took a 20-year old bailiff's word and that's that. He has no expertise on drug tests.

[future liT1g4tor]

I love that we're now multiple posts into this thread without our "future litigator" actually specifying what his conviction was for.

Because there is no conviction. Calling troll on this one.

Can you guys not read? Or do you just choose not to? In those "multiple posts" I have stated that my conviction was for D/V.

Not a single person on this forum can read. This is a forum for illiterate simpletons who fail to understand perfectly coherent tales of domestic violence, witness intimidation, and bumbling PDs who should really defer to you in all matters. You should probably be a bit more sensitive in the future.

Me? Sensitive? This is coming from someone who goes to UVA? No wonder you brought up sensitivity. Not that UVA is a bad school, it's a wonderful one but I have seen over the years many UVA people get a little too sensitive on this board.

You're literally too stupid for words. I hope you get banned soon.

Banned? In all honesty, the other day I really did feel good about myself for having a good standing on TLS and I am not bullshitting. lol. What would I get banned for? Just a friendly reminder, your post prior to calling me too stupid for words was: You should probably be a bit more sensitive in the future.

If your statement by any chance happened to mean being more aware in regard to how I am writing & explaining this story, I agree and I apologize.

[cavalier1138]

This gets more entertaining with each incoherent rant.

[guynourmin]

Literally no one cares that your traffic court judge didn't go to Harvard...


If it was not clear from UVA2s posts, a c&f attorney can help advise you on everything these convictions will touch (admissions, job hunt, etc), not just the c&f portion of the bar. You really should consult one for all of your questions/half stories/whatever this is because you actually have a situation where their advice may be helpful. Consulting one only after you've applied to school would be the same mistake you made when not hiring a lawyer on this DV charge.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I love that we're now multiple posts into this thread without our "future litigator" actually specifying what his conviction was for.

Because there is no conviction. Calling troll on this one.

Can you guys not read? Or do you just choose not to? In those "multiple posts" I have stated that my conviction was for D/V.

Not a single person on this forum can read. This is a forum for illiterate simpletons who fail to understand perfectly coherent tales of domestic violence, witness intimidation, and bumbling PDs who should really defer to you in all matters. You should probably be a bit more sensitive in the future.

Me? Sensitive? This is coming from someone who goes to UVA? No wonder you brought up sensitivity. Not that UVA is a bad school, it's a wonderful one but I have seen over the years many UVA people get a little too sensitive on this board.

Don't make fun of people's schools (including your "TTT-going" judge who still had the power to convict you).

[lymenheimer]

I don't think non-OP hijacker has to worry about his conviction keeping him from a clerkship or ever becoming an attorney. His incoherence will do that wonderfully.

[UVA2B]

I love that we're now multiple posts into this thread without our "future litigator" actually specifying what his conviction was for.

Because there is no conviction. Calling troll on this one.

Can you guys not read? Or do you just choose not to? In those "multiple posts" I have stated that my conviction was for D/V.

Not a single person on this forum can read. This is a forum for illiterate simpletons who fail to understand perfectly coherent tales of domestic violence, witness intimidation, and bumbling PDs who should really defer to you in all matters. You should probably be a bit more sensitive in the future.

Me? Sensitive? This is coming from someone who goes to UVA? No wonder you brought up sensitivity. Not that UVA is a bad school, it's a wonderful one but I have seen over the years many UVA people get a little too sensitive on this board.

You're literally too stupid for words. I hope you get banned soon.

Banned? In all honesty, the other day I really did feel good about myself for having a good standing on TLS and I am not bullshitting. lol. What would I get banned for? Just a friendly reminder, your post prior to calling me too stupid for words was: You should probably be a bit more sensitive in the future.

If your statement by any chance happened to mean being more aware in regard to how I am writing & explaining this story, I agree and I apologize.

Doesn't get how sarcasm works. Intelligence continues to come into question.

[HonestAdvice]

OP has much bigger issues. There's a major inconsistency on their app while Litigator's issues can be chalked up to kids being kids. What teenager hasn't goofed around? I pranked called, you cut school, Litigator did meth and beat women. Just kids being kids.

[future liT1g4tor]

I love that we're now multiple posts into this thread without our "future litigator" actually specifying what his conviction was for.

Because there is no conviction. Calling troll on this one.

Can you guys not read? Or do you just choose not to? In those "multiple posts" I have stated that my conviction was for D/V.

Not a single person on this forum can read. This is a forum for illiterate simpletons who fail to understand perfectly coherent tales of domestic violence, witness intimidation, and bumbling PDs who should really defer to you in all matters. You should probably be a bit more sensitive in the future.

Me? Sensitive? This is coming from someone who goes to UVA? No wonder you brought up sensitivity. Not that UVA is a bad school, it's a wonderful one but I have seen over the years many UVA people get a little too sensitive on this board.

Don't make fun of people's schools (including your "TTT-going" judge who still had the power to convict you).

It's just if she were the only one, I mean back home (not Romania but the Bay Area) the judges at least are heavily respected. They were once good lawyers, top scholars, etc but in my current county every judge has went to a TTT. I think there's like one or two that went somewhere just outside the T14.

[jamesmangi]

I love that we're now multiple posts into this thread without our "future litigator" actually specifying what his conviction was for.

Because there is no conviction. Calling troll on this one.

Can you guys not read? Or do you just choose not to? In those "multiple posts" I have stated that my conviction was for D/V.

Not a single person on this forum can read. This is a forum for illiterate simpletons who fail to understand perfectly coherent tales of domestic violence, witness intimidation, and bumbling PDs who should really defer to you in all matters. You should probably be a bit more sensitive in the future.

Me? Sensitive? This is coming from someone who goes to UVA? No wonder you brought up sensitivity. Not that UVA is a bad school, it's a wonderful one but I have seen over the years many UVA people get a little too sensitive on this board.

Don't make fun of people's schools (including your "TTT-going" judge who still had the power to convict you).

It's just if she were the only one, I mean back home (not Romania but the Bay Area) the judges at least are heavily respected. They were once good lawyers, top scholars, etc but in my current county every judge has went to a TTT. I think there's like one or two that went somewhere just outside the T14.

Litigator, I really dislike your writing "style." Sorry.

Hope things work out tho

[lymenheimer]

It's just if she were the only one, I mean back home (not Romania but the Bay Area) the judges at least are heavily respected. They were once good lawyers, top scholars, etc but in my current county every judge has went to a TTT. I think there's like one or two that went somewhere just outside the T14.

I'd take a TTT-grad judge over an incoherent wife-beater any day of the week. And at least they became lawyers. As your posts imply, that's gonna be an uphill battle for you.

[jamesmangi]

It's just if she were the only one, I mean back home (not Romania but the Bay Area) the judges at least are heavily respected. They were once good lawyers, top scholars, etc but in my current county every judge has went to a TTT. I think there's like one or two that went somewhere just outside the T14.

I'd take a TTT-grad judge over an incoherent wife-beater any day of the week. And at least they became lawyers. As your posts imply, that's gonna be an uphill battle for you.

LOL!

[Barrred]

You've got serious issues dude.

As an example of your inability to express yourself clearly in writing:

[My wife] had left her phone in the car so I go back up to her to ask for the phone to make a call.

Why were you asking your wife for her phone, if she had left her phone in the car?

As an example of your inability to follow directions/anticipate the potential consequences of your actions:

My PD pulls me out & tells me talking to my wife will have potential consequences . . . so I go back up to her to [talk to her].

It was my phone, obviously, since hers was in the car. Regardless of that I am sure you are aware both phones are both of ours anyway.

Not to keep harping on this rather de minimis point, but this is a very good example of your incoherence. You left out a crucial piece of information in your narrative (that you had given your wife your phone because she left hers in the car, and when you went to talk to her in direct disregard of your attorney's warning, it was to ask for your phone back so you could make a call), which caused a logical ambiguity in your narrative and confusion in your audience's minds. How you generally respond to your audience's confusion is equally, if not more, concerning.

Once again, you've got serious issues in addition to having a domestic violence conviction, having tested positive for meth while presumably on pretrial supervision, and having been arrested for intimidating witnesses against you in a criminal matter.

[Pozzo]

You've got serious issues dude.

As an example of your inability to express yourself clearly in writing:

[My wife] had left her phone in the car so I go back up to her to ask for the phone to make a call.

Why were you asking your wife for her phone, if she had left her phone in the car?

As an example of your inability to follow directions/anticipate the potential consequences of your actions:

My PD pulls me out & tells me talking to my wife will have potential consequences . . . so I go back up to her to [talk to her].

It was my phone, obviously, since hers was in the car. Regardless of that I am sure you are aware both phones are both of ours anyway. My wife did not show up there as a witness only to support her spouse against these frivolous allegations that were the basis for the state to bring charges up against me. Any decent lawyer would have had this case thrown out from the get-go. Knowing what I know now, I am pretty sure I would too. I had the money for a lawyer I just had too much faith in the system.

She didn't receive her subpoena due to us moving & the person making the allegations did not show up. I don't know why on God's earth I took their plea, maybe when you're in the chain gang at 18 next to a murderer your mind doesn't process things correctly. My PD said take the deal even though I didn't do it to get out of jail. (In the least unethical way, of course). I wasn't even in jail, I was reprimanded hours earlier due to a positive drug test that they gave me for "intimidating a witness"

If I were lying about any of this, why would it still bother me so much nearly 6 years later? I just wish I knew what I know now back then to stick it to that TTT-going judge. Who is an advocate for domestic violence nonetheless, so anyone walking into her courtroom on such charges is guilty. She didn't even read the drug-test nor did my PD check. They took a 20-year old bailiff's word and that's that. He has no expertise on drug tests.

Gosh, that sucks. Have you looked into doing a podcast?

[stego]

[quote="Barrred"][quote="future liT1g4tor"][quote="Barrred"]You've got serious issues dude.

As an example of your inability to express yourself clearly in writing:
[quote="future liT1g4tor"]
[My wife] had left her phone in the car so I go back up to her to ask for the phone to make a call.[/quote]
Why were you asking your wife for her phone, if she had left her phone in the car?

As an example of your inability to follow directions/anticipate the potential consequences of your actions:
[quote="future liT1g4tor"]
My PD pulls me out & tells me talking to my wife will have potential consequences . . . so I go back up to her to [talk to her].[/quote][/quote]

It was my phone, obviously, since hers was in the car. Regardless of that I am sure you are aware both phones are both of ours anyway.[/quote]

Not to keep harping on this rather de minimis point, but this is a very good example of your incoherence. You left out a crucial piece of information in your narrative (that you had given your wife [i]your [/i] phone because she left hers in the car, and when you went to talk to her in direct disregard of your attorney's warning, it was to ask for [i]your [/i]phone back so you could make a call), which caused a logical ambiguity in your narrative and confusion in your audience's minds. How you generally respond to your audience's confusion is equally, if not more, concerning.

Once again, you've got serious issues in addition to having a domestic violence conviction, having tested positive for meth while presumably on pretrial supervision, and having been arrested for [b]intimidating witnesses against you[/b] in a criminal matter.[/quote]
Except as I understand it the "witness against him" was his wife, who if anything was going to testify for him?
Sounds like this went poorly for him because he didn't hire a lawyer and struggles at explaining himself clearly, English being his second language probably doesn't help.

[future liT1g4tor]

It's just if she were the only one, I mean back home (not Romania but the Bay Area) the judges at least are heavily respected. They were once good lawyers, top scholars, etc but in my current county every judge has went to a TTT. I think there's like one or two that went somewhere just outside the T14.

I'd take a TTT-grad judge over an incoherent wife-beater any day of the week. And at least they became lawyers. As your posts imply, that's gonna be an uphill battle for you.

LOL!

Haha, I so wish you would get to see and make that pick. Remember how I said she reprimanded me? She got reprimanded a couple years later too. Had to take some classes at UNR to still sit on the bench. I am not mad at her, though, I am mostly mad at myself for having faith in the system & not knowing what I know now.

Like I mentioned earlier, if it were all true why would it bother me so much almost six years later? With no additional arrests, let alone any additional instances where the police were called. And I don't hit woman. I have done many horrible things but hitting a female is not one of them. Even if you are in a toxic relationship or in any situation where a female hits you, you simply don't hit a woman back; unless of course you're a coward or she is coming at you with malicious intentions (and she is actually halfway in the process of succeeding at them).

I may not display it on here because I tend to type how I talk. I don't slow it down or proofread and as I have said previously you think I will put the same effort here as I would there? I get it. I haven't quite grasped my writing style that is unique to TLS. But that's due to the fact that I don't want to write essays all day combined with rushing and multi-tasking. I will get better at composing my posts on TLS in a more focused manner. Where everything isn't spread out all over.

At least they became lawyers? As if I will not become one? An uphill battle is what I like then I really will know why I did it not sit & cry that my biglaw job is causing me to miss my frat boy reunion that i'm only keeping to pay off my loans. I have the capital for law school. As in to attend at full price (which I won't) and to score a high score on the LSAT. I have a 4.0 & mastering a standardized test that dictates the possibilities of my aspirations in the subjects I am comfortable with most will not be easy, but it will not be hard.

As for the Meth remark. I have done many drugs, just not that one. About a year before this whole ordeal I had surgery due to having my eye socket knocked out of place from Boxing. It wasn't like it was major, things tend to happen in boxing like that. I didn't notice until a couple nights later that something was wrong. So I had surgery and had a screw inserted into my face. After the surgery I was prescribed lots of opiates, methadone being one of them. I pray to god no one on this forum is as stupid as that bailiff and thinks Methadone has anything to do with Methamphetamine.

From experience he isn't the only one to make that mistake but the others wouldn't be stupid for thinking that. He is stupid because he read on the drug test the abbreviation "METH." as Methamphetamine where actual Meth shows up as AMP, an abbreviation for Methamphetamine/Amphetamine. I saw the results myself, along with the officer who administered it (via oral swab). The Judge told me not to talk and my PD didn't address it to the court properly when it was brought up. All opiates show the same on that drug test. Methadone happens to be a synthetic opiate, not an actual opiate, thus the reason for its own spot, which happens to be abbreviated as Meth. You can say what you want but the facts will never change.

[guynourmin]

Add Foe

[future liT1g4tor]

You've got serious issues dude.

As an example of your inability to express yourself clearly in writing:

[My wife] had left her phone in the car so I go back up to her to ask for the phone to make a call.

Why were you asking your wife for her phone, if she had left her phone in the car?

As an example of your inability to follow directions/anticipate the potential consequences of your actions:

My PD pulls me out & tells me talking to my wife will have potential consequences . . . so I go back up to her to [talk to her].

It was my phone, obviously, since hers was in the car. Regardless of that I am sure you are aware both phones are both of ours anyway.

Not to keep harping on this rather de minimis point, but this is a very good example of your incoherence. You left out a crucial piece of information in your narrative (that you had given your wife your phone because she left hers in the car, and when you went to talk to her in direct disregard of your attorney's warning, it was to ask for your phone back so you could make a call), which caused a logical ambiguity in your narrative and confusion in your audience's minds. How you generally respond to your audience's confusion is equally, if not more, concerning.

Once again, you've got serious issues in addition to having a domestic violence conviction, having tested positive for meth while presumably on pretrial supervision, and having been arrested for intimidating witnesses against you in a criminal matter.

Please how many times do I have to say this. Redirect your honor.

None of my paperwork states I tested positive for meth nor that I intimidated a witness. My PD's warnings were directed to me in regard to actually threatening/unnecessarily talking to a witness, not someone showing up that came to support their spouse. She never received her subpoena so they pretty much tried to make it as if she was subpoenaed on the spot on behalf of the state when I went back in. When my wife's only wishes were to drop the charges which I am sure all of you know was not up to her. Once again, there is no mention of any intimidation of any witness. I was only detained for it and the actual arrest showed up as D/V. Plus I was never informed by my PD nor the DA that the plea may bare consequences with immigration. Although it didn't I am sure most of you know that this is a big fuck up as far as appeals go, no?

That's how frivolous this case is. I just wish I didn't take their plea. I don't care how long I would have to sit in jail. I would not take that plea in a million years. I didn't realize the impact of the plea which later was the basis for the conviction. I am more concerned with my consciousness baring the consequences and scrutiny of taking a plea for something I did not do then the actual charge. I will not get into the what-ifs on the more serious questions since I will take the advice and confer with a C&F attorney. Although I am wondering at this point will explaining myself the way I am right now make myself look guilty and receive scrutiny from law schools? The Bar I am not worried about. Although I didn't speak to a C&F attorney, I did speak to an attorney who's partner had two prior felony drug convictions before she was practicing law, he himself had a DUI which is exactly almost the same level as what I have. A misdemeanor & not a crime of moral turpitude.

[A. Nony Mouse]

You realize that DV victims frequently show up with their spouses and don't want to testify against them and want the charges to be dropped, right?

[lymenheimer]

You realize that DV victims frequently show up with their spouses and don't want to testify against them and want the charges to be dropped, right?

Dude thinks that DUI and DV are equal because they are on the same level of sentencing guidelines. I doubt he really thinks much of this stuff through.

[future liT1g4tor]

You realize that DV victims frequently show up with their spouses and don't want to testify against them and want the charges to be dropped, right?

Yes I understand that but this isn't someone under my spell for years nor did she have any physcical signs of abuse. The psychological signs in that situation could have been misperceived due to her being reluctant to testify. But she wasn't reluctant, she was only telling the truth.

If I was really a wife beater I would have showed up with my fancy lawyer like the rest of the wife beaters in that courtroom.

On second hand, I get that in this case it is totally different but what I meant about it is I can have a fifty count felony indictment and my wife can't testify against me but the court & its agents made it seem and treated it as if she was some random person in court.

I get that probably showing up with her by my side made the judge who is a domestic violence advocate angry. Because my wife refused all their help they tried to offer telling them that I'm really a good person. I guess at that point its no ones fault but my own for pleading no contest. They took my plea on a case that had no foundation, they're only other witness didn't show up. If a litigator did the equivalent he would be liable to have a rule 11 letter drawn up and be sanctioned. I get that me taking the plea overrides the evidence but they still offered it with none available to support at trial.

[A. Nony Mouse]

You realize that DV victims frequently show up with their spouses and don't want to testify against them and want the charges to be dropped, right?

Yes I understand that but this isn't someone under my spell for years nor did she have any physcical signs of abuse. The psychological signs in that situation could have been misperceived due to her being reluctant to testify. But she wasn't reluctant, she was only telling the truth.

The point is that the court/etc. didn't know that.