entris posted:

Vests, on the other hand, make you look like a cool motherfucker.

CmdrSmirnoff posted:

Re: ties. I've fallen in love with paisley ties like this one. Are they too fancy for law? Too gay? Now that I think about it I don't think I've seen anything beyond flat colours or stripes.

MoFauxHawk posted:

Sure, as long as you're not a dorky goon, or even an average schlub. You'd better have your poo poo together if you're wearing these.

billion dollar bitch posted:

I think that they're a good idea for people who are in average good shape, and also for people who are hideously obese. It's those people between these two categories that you have to look out for.

Enigma89 posted:

Got my first (and hopefully last) rejection letter from Fordham University today.

Enigma89 posted:

Got my first (and hopefully last) rejection letter from Fordham University today.

prussian advisor posted:

Feces do you have any grades yet. I don't

Feces Starship posted:

i got all of one. onnnnne

prussian advisor posted:

Feces do you have any grades yet. I don't

prussian advisor posted:

Ugh you dickweed. Im literally jealous. Wish I had a grade

The Warszawa posted:

Apparently I don't get grades until April. Makes it awkward when jobs ask for a transcript.

MechaFrogzilla posted:

Ainsley McTree posted:

I'm seriously kicking myself for ever taking out private loans. I recalculated my fed loan payments today and I'll be paying $309/mo on my $100k of federal debt on my current salary (a standard repayment would be $1350, a smopping 40% of my salary). I'm also paying $336 a month on my $50,000 of private access group loans. If I'd just checked the "grad PLUS" box instead of the "access group" box when I was filling out my applications I'd only be paying $309/mo on my $150k of debt. I literally might as well be flushing $336 down the toilet every month, there's zero, zero need for me to be paying this extra debt. But I was dumb and didn't think things through so here I am. Fortunately access group was kind enough to stop lending me money entirely during my second semester or I'd owe them about $75k

quote:

I will say that I do feel mildly guilty about taxpayer money subsidizing my worthless law degree that I'm not using. I hope the tea party never finds out about IBR

Draile posted:

Thinking of...

Fordham just started a redesign of its Manhattan campus that will put the law school in a 22-story building. The first nine stories will be the law school. The top thirteen will be undergraduate dorms.

Ainsley McTree posted:

IBR chat:

I'm seriously kicking myself for ever taking out private loans. I recalculated my fed loan payments today and I'll be paying $309/mo on my $100k of federal debt on my current salary (a standard repayment would be $1350, a smopping 40% of my salary). I'm also paying $336 a month on my $50,000 of private access group loans. If I'd just checked the "grad PLUS" box instead of the "access group" box when I was filling out my applications I'd only be paying $309/mo on my $150k of debt. I literally might as well be flushing $336 down the toilet every month, there's zero, zero need for me to be paying this extra debt. But I was dumb and didn't think things through so here I am. Fortunately access group was kind enough to stop lending me money entirely during my second semester or I'd owe them about $75k

I will say that I do feel mildly guilty about taxpayer money subsidizing my worthless law degree that I'm not using. I hope the tea party never finds out about IBR

edit: on top of the reasonable loan payments, I should also point out that I was paying $0 a month during my 17 months of unemployment without so much as a phone call from the DoE. The federal government can be pretty awesome when it wants to be

fake second edit: is there somewhere on the dl.ed.gov website where you can tell them you've started making money to start repayment? I looked all over and all I could find were calculators. Am I going to have to actually call them or something?

The Warszawa posted:

Apparently I don't get grades until April. Makes it awkward when jobs ask for a transcript.

Feces Starship posted:

Is there actually any realistic chance that IBR gets taken away?

In this grim future I will march around in the desert in camouflage

CmdrSmirnoff posted:

Oh my god a C+

this has never happened before in my life



(I deserve it for farting out a 10k word paper in two days though)

CmdrSmirnoff posted:

Got an A in Sex Offences though

CmdrSmirnoff posted:

Class Actions, which is completely unrelated to where I hope to work.

Got an A in Sex Offences though

What is said posted:

Overall I ended up with a 3.4 GPA when I finished, putting me in the top ~35%. The summer of my 1L year I worked at a Public Defenders Office and clerked with a judge. The second summer there was a family emergency and I was not available to work. This left me in a rather lovely position for getting a job when I graduated. It took around 6 months to find a decent job, which seemed like an eternity.

In short, do not go to law school in a school ranked in the 50's or 60's.

What is heard posted:

Go to any law school you want, just make sure you're in the top 10%. Which you will be of course, because as your parents have always told you, you're special. Change the world, hero.

Chakron posted:

Nero posted:

jim beam that we put graham crackers in as an experiment

quote:

Parents Sue Expert Witness Who Made Fake Child-Porn of Their Kids

An Ohio lawyer who serves as an expert witness in child pornography cases might be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil damages for Photoshopping courtroom exhibits of children having sex.

Attorney Dean Boland purchased innocent pictures of four juvenile girls from a Canadian stock-image website, and then digitally modified them to make it appear as if the children were engaged in sexual conduct. Boland was an expert witness for the defense in half-a-dozen child porn cases, and he made the mock-ups to punctuate his argument that child pornography laws are unconstitutionally overbroad because they could be applied to faked photos.

In 2007, the tactic made Boland the defendant of a deferred federal child-porn prosecution in Ohio even though his exhibits helped clear at least one client of child-porn-related allegations. Now, a federal appeals court decision (.pdf) is reinstating a civil lawsuit by the parents of two of the girls, potentially putting Boland on the hook for a minimum $300,000 plus legal costs.

Boland, a former state prosecutor, had argued he was immune from such a lawsuit because, among other reasons, he’d created the images for use in court. That argument had already failed in his own criminal case, and was no more successful with the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“[N]o constitutional principle … allows a criminal defendant to defend one criminal charge by urging his lawyer or witness to commit another,” wrote the three-judge panel, in an unanimous ruling Wednesday. “Otherwise, an individual on trial for a murder-by-stabbing charge could try to prove that the knife was not long enough to kill someone by using it to stab someone else in the middle of the trial.”

Boland said in a telephone interview Thursday, “I was hired as an expert witness. This was not like, let’s start a website of this crap.”

Wednesday’s ruling reverses a lower court’s dismissal of the civil lawsuit (.pdf) that the parents lodged against Boland in 2007. Under the 1986 Child Abuse Victims’ Rights Act, each victim is entitled to a minimum $150,000 in damages if Borland loses at trial.

“This is a complete scam,” Boland said.

Boland said the avalanche of legal trouble started when he was an expert witness in a local Ohio child-porn prosecution in 2004, in which his testimony and morphed images helped convince a judge to drop the pornography-related charges in a rape case.

He had used the morphed pictures as exhibits in a nuanced legal defense.

Given that the law prohibited “knowingly” accessing child pornography, Boland argued, it violated the First Amendment on “vagueness and over-breadth grounds” because a defendant could not know whether what he was viewing was an actual or virtual image of a child having sex.

The parents learned of the photo morphing from the FBI, according to the girls’ attorney. They’re suing over Boland transforming a picture of a 5-year-old girl eating a doghnut into one of her having oral sex. Another photo was of a 6-year-old girl’s face placed on the body of an adult woman having sex with two men. Boland purchased the pictures from iStockPhoto, according to court records.

The appeals court noted that Boland could have attempted to make his legal defense without creating or possessing child pornography.

“Boland could have illustrated the difficulty of discerning real from virtual images by combining two innocent pictures into another innocent picture,” the court wrote. It added that once Boland modified the images of the minors, “he crossed the line between possessing lawful images and violating the statute.”

Still, the appeals court said Boland could try to convince the judge presiding over the girls’ civil lawsuit that the children are not entitled to damages. That’s because the law requires them to have suffered “personal injury.” In this case, the children don’t know about the pictures, so they haven’t suffered any psychological harm, he said.

The parents are “insisting I owe them hundreds of thousands of dollars for harm these children don’t even know is going on,” Boland said.

But the parents’ attorney, Jonathan Rosenbaum, said the harm was real enough. The pictures, he said in a telephone interview Thursday, were distributed in disc format to an untold number of “defense lawyers and different clerks of courts.”

“Their faces have been abused and misappropriated in the most disgusting manner,” Rosenbaum said. “How would you like this to happen to your children?”

BigHead posted:

Did anyone else take a gander at this article:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/morphed-child-porn/


tl;dr: Expert witness who testified that "hey it's this easy to make fake child porn images, see I'll make them in front of your eyes" gets sued by the parents of the girl he used as an example. Oops.

All I could think of when I read this article were the old "Make NSFW images SFW [NSFW]" threads that kept popping up ages ago. I guess this means turning a doughnut into a dong is bad now. Goddamn country we live in taking my constitutional doughnut-dong rights away.