Background Issue

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
gimmieadvice
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:06 am

Background Issue

Postby gimmieadvice » Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:13 am

I have a situation from my past I am going to have to find a way to explain. It surely sounds and looks from the outside more severe then it actually is. I had an ex girlfriend place a protective order on me about 7 years ago. We had went through a terrible breakup with the cheating and lying and all that (you all know how it goes). Anyway, the order was issued on a basis of criminal tresspass (I knocked on her door to try and speak with her and she didn't want me there) so they used that BS to give her an order. Over the course of the next year I was probably arrested at least a dozen times for violating said order. There were never any charges that ever stuck, I was never found criminally guilty of anything, and in order for it to stop I seriously had to become a ghost. I moved, hid, changed numbers and ever other thing I could so she could no longer just call the cops and claim I called her when she was bored.

Any how, there are no criminal convictions, but I see some schools and some bars want you to list all legal incidents. Anyone wanna give me some insight on how the heck I explain that to minimize the damage on applications.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Background Issue

Postby CanadianWolf » Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:22 am

"Crazy girlfriend defense" may work if no convictions resulted & all complaints were filed by her.

P.S. The parameters of this defense can usually be found on page 540 of a 539 page casebook. However, I wonder whether or not you're sharing all of the relevant details.

gimmieadvice
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:06 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby gimmieadvice » Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:59 am

CanadianWolf wrote:"Crazy girlfriend defense" may work if no convictions resulted & all complaints were filed by her.

P.S. The parameters of this defense can usually be found on page 540 of a 539 page casebook. However, I wonder whether or not you're sharing all of the relevant details.


Those are all the basic facts. Some arrests resulted in no charges based of no proof of anything, some arrests resulted in charges based off her statements or "evidence" then she wouldn't show in court (cause the "evidence didn't exist) and they would dismiss charges at court. Then she would get bored and try again.

No convictions. No trials, or anything that goes further then me showing at court when I was required. All in 2005. All arrests expunged.

gimmieadvice
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:06 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby gimmieadvice » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:00 am

Oh....and what I consider to be one of the most important factors....

There was never any actual violence. They call this doemstic violence, but I never touched her. Never came close. It was all arguments, mainly via phone.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Background Issue

Postby sunynp » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:18 am

Here is the thing you need to realize- most people don't know" how it goes" with a situation like the one you describe. It isn't typical. Saying that there was never any violence sounds really bad to people who have never been in you situation- my reaction was. Well, of course there wasn't any violence. Though it would have been much much worse if you had actually hit her.

Usually the best way to address character and fitness issues is to take full responsibility for your mistakes, say you've learned, etc. I don't know how to apply that advice here- you are blaming everything on your ex-girlfriend and I'm sure that isn't enough. But if you admit to being a stalker- that probably won't help. I think you need to at least take responsibility for knocking on her door ( which I picture more as pounding and screaming and yelling) as the basis for the order. You have to show you realize you were wrong and created the situation. People don't like these messy situations.

Sorry I don't have any suggestions except don't blame everything on her.

gimmieadvice
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:06 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby gimmieadvice » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:48 am

sunynp wrote:Here is the thing you need to realize- most people don't know" how it goes" with a situation like the one you describe. It isn't typical. Saying that there was never any violence sounds really bad to people who have never been in you situation- my reaction was. Well, of course there wasn't any violence. Though it would have been much much worse if you had actually hit her.

Usually the best way to address character and fitness issues is to take full responsibility for your mistakes, say you've learned, etc. I don't know how to apply that advice here- you are blaming everything on your ex-girlfriend and I'm sure that isn't enough. But if you admit to being a stalker- that probably won't help. I think you need to at least take responsibility for knocking on her door ( which I picture more as pounding and screaming and yelling) as the basis for the order. You have to show you realize you were wrong and created the situation. People don't like these messy situations.

Sorry I don't have any suggestions except don't blame everything on her.


The underlying details are irrelevant in my mind because they're really isn't any. In normal fights in normal relationships you hear the phrase "i dont want to talk to you" hundreds of times, and many many times you end up talking things out 5 minutes later. So hearing "I don't want to see you" doesn't always mean that in those emotional type relationship dramas. Now.....had I known there was another guy at the hosue, and that was the reason I would have been prepared for the aftermath of a sneak court attack. Thats great that everyone wants to add more in then what there really is (like screaming and yealling). The bottom line in these situations is a girl (and I mean any girl) will do anything she can to make you look wrong, and make you look crazy before she has a single person anywhere believe that she is a lying cheating *&^*(. And there you have it, she got the order, she made up stories for months.

Once I got an attorney worth is weight, the order was removed. But I still have this story to explain, and the only thing I have learned from the situation, is that I plan on staying single.

Now how I articulate that on an application, has gotten me pretty dumbfounded.

gimmieadvice
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:06 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby gimmieadvice » Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:03 am

Maybe Ill just apply in Texas where you dont have to disclosed expunged stuff.

bobbyh1919
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:40 pm

Re: Background Issue

Postby bobbyh1919 » Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:11 pm

gimmieadvice wrote:
sunynp wrote:Here is the thing you need to realize- most people don't know" how it goes" with a situation like the one you describe. It isn't typical. Saying that there was never any violence sounds really bad to people who have never been in you situation- my reaction was. Well, of course there wasn't any violence. Though it would have been much much worse if you had actually hit her.

Usually the best way to address character and fitness issues is to take full responsibility for your mistakes, say you've learned, etc. I don't know how to apply that advice here- you are blaming everything on your ex-girlfriend and I'm sure that isn't enough. But if you admit to being a stalker- that probably won't help. I think you need to at least take responsibility for knocking on her door ( which I picture more as pounding and screaming and yelling) as the basis for the order. You have to show you realize you were wrong and created the situation. People don't like these messy situations.

Sorry I don't have any suggestions except don't blame everything on her.


The underlying details are irrelevant in my mind because they're really isn't any. In normal fights in normal relationships you hear the phrase "i dont want to talk to you" hundreds of times, and many many times you end up talking things out 5 minutes later. So hearing "I don't want to see you" doesn't always mean that in those emotional type relationship dramas. Now.....had I known there was another guy at the hosue, and that was the reason I would have been prepared for the aftermath of a sneak court attack. Thats great that everyone wants to add more in then what there really is (like screaming and yealling). The bottom line in these situations is a girl (and I mean any girl) will do anything she can to make you look wrong, and make you look crazy before she has a single person anywhere believe that she is a lying cheating *&^*(. And there you have it, she got the order, she made up stories for months.

Once I got an attorney worth is weight, the order was removed. But I still have this story to explain, and the only thing I have learned from the situation, is that I plan on staying single.

Now how I articulate that on an application, has gotten me pretty dumbfounded.


Definitely don't come across as so anti-female. The theme of your addendum should not in any way resemble "ugh, you know how girls are", because chances are you're going to piss of a lot of women reading your application.

Be humble, admit whatever you did wrong, state what you were wrongly accused of, minimize the incidents while still being honest, and hope for the best.

kublaikahn
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby kublaikahn » Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:48 pm

By "actual violence" do you mean you "threatened" her? I would say most adcoms will read the fact that law enforcement arrested you 12 times (unless her daddy was chief of police) and think they took your threats seriously.

apollo2015
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:13 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby apollo2015 » Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:54 pm

Don't let your moral worth be mixed up in what you put down on the applications. You are clearly innocent, but with society the way it is today men are viewed as guilty until proven innocent. Put down what the readers want to hear, not what is necessarily true. Females are viewed as sacred, so you should not criticize them. It would probably be best to be as brief as possible when describing the situation, what you learned from it, and how your track record after the fact has shown you have not repeated the situation.

gimmieadvice
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:06 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby gimmieadvice » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:15 pm

kublaikahn wrote:By "actual violence" do you mean you "threatened" her? I would say most adcoms will read the fact that law enforcement arrested you 12 times (unless her daddy was chief of police) and think they took your threats seriously.


Are you retarded? Who said anything about threats?...

What I mean by actual violence is exactly what you are asking in your post. People hear domestic "violence" but many do not realize there are other things that fall under that umbrella that are not "violent".

If someone has a restraining/protection order against you and that protected person calls the police to inform them you (the restrained) just called on the phone to tell them (protected person) the sky is blue.....that = arrested........Does that sound violent to you?? Probably not, but you just commited an act of domestic violence.

User avatar
cinephile
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: Background Issue

Postby cinephile » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:27 pm

gimmieadvice wrote:In normal fights in normal relationships you hear the phrase "i dont want to talk to you" hundreds of times, and many many times you end up talking things out 5 minutes later.


This is true, but it's up to the person who said "I don't want to talk to you" to change his/her mind and take the initiative to talk things out. If you try to force that person to talk it out when they clearly don't want to, then you need to own up to that. You can't blame others for your mistakes. Good luck with your application.

gimmieadvice
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:06 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby gimmieadvice » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:31 pm

cinephile wrote:
gimmieadvice wrote:In normal fights in normal relationships you hear the phrase "i dont want to talk to you" hundreds of times, and many many times you end up talking things out 5 minutes later.


This is true, but it's up to the person who said "I don't want to talk to you" to change his/her mind and take the initiative to talk things out. If you try to force that person to talk it out when they clearly don't want to, then you need to own up to that. You can't blame others for your mistakes. Good luck with your application.


Why are these boards always about whose fault it is. I dont really care about the order, its not even in place anymore and there isn't alot to "own up too".

The question is how to explain the arrests the best, because there is NOTHING to own up to in that category. I didn't do anything, wasn't even charged in 10 out of the 12 arrest as I look at the old paperwork.

I argument, and order are kind of irrelevant to the law school app....its the aftermath that is of concern.

kublaikahn
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby kublaikahn » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:32 pm

gimmieadvice wrote:
kublaikahn wrote:By "actual violence" do you mean you "threatened" her? I would say most adcoms will read the fact that law enforcement arrested you 12 times (unless her daddy was chief of police) and think they took your threats seriously.


Are you retarded? Who said anything about threats?...

What I mean by actual violence is exactly what you are asking in your post. People hear domestic "violence" but many do not realize there are other things that fall under that umbrella that are not "violent".

If someone has a restraining/protection order against you and that protected person calls the police to inform them you (the restrained) just called on the phone to tell them (protected person) the sky is blue.....that = arrested........Does that sound violent to you?? Probably not, but you just commited an act of domestic violence.


No, it doesn't sound violent. It sounds threatening. When a dude pushes through a court order 12 times in a year and rides away in cuffs each time, it is safe to say he is sending a message to the girl that he will do whatever he feels like doing. That dude is you.

gimmieadvice
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:06 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby gimmieadvice » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:39 pm

kublaikahn wrote:
gimmieadvice wrote:
kublaikahn wrote:By "actual violence" do you mean you "threatened" her? I would say most adcoms will read the fact that law enforcement arrested you 12 times (unless her daddy was chief of police) and think they took your threats seriously.


Are you retarded? Who said anything about threats?...

What I mean by actual violence is exactly what you are asking in your post. People hear domestic "violence" but many do not realize there are other things that fall under that umbrella that are not "violent".

If someone has a restraining/protection order against you and that protected person calls the police to inform them you (the restrained) just called on the phone to tell them (protected person) the sky is blue.....that = arrested........Does that sound violent to you?? Probably not, but you just commited an act of domestic violence.


No, it doesn't sound violent. It sounds threatening. When a dude pushes through a court order 12 times in a year and rides away in cuffs each time, it is safe to say he is sending a message to the girl that he will do whatever he feels like doing. That dude is you.


No Jerky. When a dude pushes thru a court order even once he is charged and convicted of such. That dude is not me. These things are used as a sword just as much as a shield. All police need to make an arrest is a statement from the alleged "victim" that claims violation of the order, whether or not one actually happened. So if you cant focus on the actual question, which is how to explain all this on a law school appplication, then shush. Cause I really dont need to hear your accusatory remarks about what you think, when the system already excused any wrong doing on my part.

User avatar
cinephile
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: Background Issue

Postby cinephile » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:42 pm

gimmieadvice wrote:

The question is how to explain the arrests the best, because there is NOTHING to own up to in that category. I didn't do anything, wasn't even charged in 10 out of the 12 arrest as I look at the old paperwork.


If you don't want to raise red flags with adcoms, you have to explain it in a way that shows you take responsibility for your past. Everyone would like to argue that it was all a mistake, but it looks like whining and excuses. Simply write, "I was young and immature and did not realize the gravity of my actions. This experience has taught me a lesson about boundaries and I have not repeated this behavior since."

bobbyh1919
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:40 pm

Re: Background Issue

Postby bobbyh1919 » Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:05 pm

cinephile wrote:
gimmieadvice wrote:

The question is how to explain the arrests the best, because there is NOTHING to own up to in that category. I didn't do anything, wasn't even charged in 10 out of the 12 arrest as I look at the old paperwork.


If you don't want to raise red flags with adcoms, you have to explain it in a way that shows you take responsibility for your past. Everyone would like to argue that it was all a mistake, but it looks like whining and excuses. Simply write, "I was young and immature and did not realize the gravity of my actions. This experience has taught me a lesson about boundaries and I have not repeated this behavior since."


This sounds right to me.

User avatar
BiglawOrBust
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: Background Issue

Postby BiglawOrBust » Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:15 pm

How adcomms will picture the OP:

Image

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Background Issue

Postby sunynp » Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:31 pm

cinephile wrote:
gimmieadvice wrote:

The question is how to explain the arrests the best, because there is NOTHING to own up to in that category. I didn't do anything, wasn't even charged in 10 out of the 12 arrest as I look at the old paperwork.


If you don't want to raise red flags with adcoms, you have to explain it in a way that shows you take responsibility for your past. Everyone would like to argue that it was all a mistake, but it looks like whining and excuses. Simply write, "I was young and immature and did not realize the gravity of my actions. This experience has taught me a lesson about boundaries and I have not repeated this behavior since."



This is what I was trying to get to - you are not taking any responsibility for what happened, mostly because you think you did nothing wrong. That attitude will not help you with ad comms.

Maybe you really did nothing wrong, but you have to say something about this incident that isn't just blaming your ex-girlfriend. You don't seem to understand what we are trying to tell you. You addendum needs to be simple and straightforward with you taking responsibility for your part in the whole thing -even if you feel you did nothing. Your anger comes across so strongly it makes you seem like a volatile personality. This will not help you with admissions.
Last edited by sunynp on Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kublaikahn
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby kublaikahn » Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:32 pm

gimmieadvice wrote:
kublaikahn wrote:
gimmieadvice wrote:
kublaikahn wrote:By "actual violence" do you mean you "threatened" her? I would say most adcoms will read the fact that law enforcement arrested you 12 times (unless her daddy was chief of police) and think they took your threats seriously.


Are you retarded? Who said anything about threats?...

What I mean by actual violence is exactly what you are asking in your post. People hear domestic "violence" but many do not realize there are other things that fall under that umbrella that are not "violent".

If someone has a restraining/protection order against you and that protected person calls the police to inform them you (the restrained) just called on the phone to tell them (protected person) the sky is blue.....that = arrested........Does that sound violent to you?? Probably not, but you just commited an act of domestic violence.


No, it doesn't sound violent. It sounds threatening. When a dude pushes through a court order 12 times in a year and rides away in cuffs each time, it is safe to say he is sending a message to the girl that he will do whatever he feels like doing. That dude is you.


No Jerky. When a dude pushes thru a court order even once he is charged and convicted of such. That dude is not me. These things are used as a sword just as much as a shield. All police need to make an arrest is a statement from the alleged "victim" that claims violation of the order, whether or not one actually happened. So if you cant focus on the actual question, which is how to explain all this on a law school appplication, then shush. Cause I really dont need to hear your accusatory remarks about what you think, when the system already excused any wrong doing on my part.


Put it this way, if you had to do it all over again, what would you do differently?

User avatar
theadvancededit
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:31 pm

Re: Background Issue

Postby theadvancededit » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:35 pm

cinephile wrote:...you have to explain it in a way that shows you take responsibility for your past. Everyone would like to argue that it was all a mistake, but it looks like whining and excuses. Simply write, "I was young and immature and did not realize the gravity of my actions. This experience has taught me a lesson about boundaries and I have not repeated this behavior since."


This is pretty sound advice. Don't assign blame anywhere-- just explain it, as is, with a generic "I've learned" sentence (the one above is a great example) and call it a day. The most important thing here is to disclose it, period. Any projections made after that is moot.

xChiTowNx
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:16 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby xChiTowNx » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:26 pm

Just out of curiousity, would something like this constitute an affirmative response to the c&f application questions

(i.e. "Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either as a juvenile or adult, including misdemeanors and infractions, but excluding minor traffic violations, or are such criminal charges pending or expected to be brought against you? This includes matters that have been expunged or subject to a diversionary program?")

Let's say he was never arrested or had any incidents - the timeframe for the order passed without incident and the file was closed.

Would you still have to say yes to the c&f question?

User avatar
20130312
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: Background Issue

Postby 20130312 » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:31 pm

gimmieadvice wrote:
kublaikahn wrote:
gimmieadvice wrote:
kublaikahn wrote:By "actual violence" do you mean you "threatened" her? I would say most adcoms will read the fact that law enforcement arrested you 12 times (unless her daddy was chief of police) and think they took your threats seriously.


Are you retarded? Who said anything about threats?...

What I mean by actual violence is exactly what you are asking in your post. People hear domestic "violence" but many do not realize there are other things that fall under that umbrella that are not "violent".

If someone has a restraining/protection order against you and that protected person calls the police to inform them you (the restrained) just called on the phone to tell them (protected person) the sky is blue.....that = arrested........Does that sound violent to you?? Probably not, but you just commited an act of domestic violence.


No, it doesn't sound violent. It sounds threatening. When a dude pushes through a court order 12 times in a year and rides away in cuffs each time, it is safe to say he is sending a message to the girl that he will do whatever he feels like doing. That dude is you.


No Jerky. When a dude pushes thru a court order even once he is charged and convicted of such. That dude is not me. These things are used as a sword just as much as a shield. All police need to make an arrest is a statement from the alleged "victim" that claims violation of the order, whether or not one actually happened. So if you cant focus on the actual question, which is how to explain all this on a law school appplication, then shush. Cause I really dont need to hear your accusatory remarks about what you think, when the system already excused any wrong doing on my part.


Gee, OP certainly doesn't sound like someone that would get defensive (read: violent?) for no reason.

rckybbby
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:43 am

Re: Background Issue

Postby rckybbby » Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:18 pm

BiglawOrBust wrote:How adcomms will picture the OP:

Image


this post just validated the entire existence of this forum. thank you God, for TLS.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Blue664, carlos_danger, phelpsy, Snuffles1 and 9 guests