No misconduct write up Forum

[inchoate_con]

The question here is does this violation require MENS REA (a Latin term which means "guilty mind" or criminal intent) and if so, did she possess the requisite MENS REA????? .... STRICT LIABILITY ... may be liable irregardless!!!

wow....

[Jeffort]

That said, the testing center is not a police station and the proctors are not police officers.

Thanks for pointing that out. D'oh!

BTW, the proctors are the test day LSAC police so to speak. They are the ones hired to monitor things and enforce the test day rules and procedures. The test centers are supposed to be secured/controlled environments.

You get it? Brain cloud lifting yet?

[incompetentia]

Guys, LSAC is like a series of tubes. Sometimes these tubes get stuck.

It's not a dump truck.

I received an LSAC on Monday...but it had been sent on Friday.

[JazzOne]

Comparing this situation to walking into a police station to hand over a bag of drugs is completely stupid.

That is all.

Ya, the amount of 0L's playing lawyer is laughable.

I also haven't seen anybody apply the Mathews test to the due process claim.

lol

I love balancing factors.

[Jeffort]

Guys, LSAC is like a series of tubes. Sometimes these tubes get stuck.

It's not a dump truck.

I received an LSAC on Monday...but it had been sent on Friday.

Hah! I get your reference. It's a series of tubes! lol

Thank you Ted Stevens for your immortal comments about the internet. I love it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8

I hadn't thought about or watched that classic youtube in a while and it just made my day!

PS: incompetentia, is there enough evidence now that scores and disclosure files have been released by LSAC to prove whether or not there were two different versions of the LG section with the same games in different orders? I'm still holding to my promise about what I'll do if there were two different administered orders of the same games. Remember, the naked thing? That thread got locked so I'm asking here to make good on my promise.

[fosterp]

That said, the testing center is not a police station and the proctors are not police officers.

Thanks for pointing that out. D'oh!

BTW, the proctors are the test day LSAC police so to speak. They are the ones hired to monitor things and enforce the test day rules and procedures. The test centers are supposed to be secured/controlled environments.

You get it? Brain cloud lifting yet?

LSAT rules are not laws and the proctors are not law enforcement. Your analogy is bullshit, proctors are not going to respond in the same fashion to violation of rules as the judicial system will respond to criminals.

[Adjudicator]

if they didnt write you up for misconduct at the time then they can't punish you for it later

thats DOUBLE JEOPRDY

[incompetentia]

that was a good movie so i think your right

[AverageTutoring]

that was a good movie so i think your right

The way they applied double jeopardy in the movie was technically incorrect (or so I learned from wikipedia LOL, i'm going to make a great lawyer eh?), but for sure, a great movie.

[Jeffort]

That said, the testing center is not a police station and the proctors are not police officers.

Thanks for pointing that out. D'oh!

BTW, the proctors are the test day LSAC police so to speak. They are the ones hired to monitor things and enforce the test day rules and procedures. The test centers are supposed to be secured/controlled environments.

You get it? Brain cloud lifting yet?

LSAT rules are not laws and the proctors are not law enforcement. Your analogy is bullshit, proctors are not going to respond in the same fashion to violation of rules as the judicial system will respond to criminals.

Did you create your TLS account just to point out obvious stuff and say stupid things?

[ok123]

Just read this thread...I can't be certain, I don't care to elaborate why I think this, but I'm pretty sure I was in the room when the incident involving "sofie" occurred. However, there are a few differences in how we remember the event. I didn't complain to LSAC about what happened during during the test, but almost everyone else I talked to did complain. Whatever happened, it was disturbing and distracting enough that probably a third of the people in that room canceled their scores.

This is how I remember things:

First, when the directions were being given the proctors were interrupted several times by this weird, loud, static-y/electronic noise. They stopped to look for the noise, couldn't find it, and then continued with the directions. Then, right before the test started, a girl in the room suddenly said, "Oh I have my cell phone, but it's off." And the proctors said it was fine, they took it, and they put it on the podium at the front of the room. Several people I've spoken to remember some mention of a phone, rather than a music player. That's probably where the cell phone complaints are coming from. That being said, it didn't ring. The sound was more like a really static sounding intercom meeting a bad dial up connection. It was weird and distracting.

The noise happened again during the first section of the test on and off for 5-10 minutes before the girl again spoke up and said , "I'm sure if you take it [my electronic item] out of the room that noise will stop." This may be a coincidence, but once the item was removed from the room, we didn't have anymore noise issues. At the time, It seemed likely to a lot of people that the device was causing some sort of static interference with the intercom/microphone/ electronics in the room.

I think the main issue here is that she sort of called attention to herself as the source of the problem (regardless of whether this is actually the case) and the noise stopped after her electronic device (whatever it may have been) was removed from the test center. Our school is fairly small, and so if I had to guess, I'm betting that even though the proctors didn't know who she was and did not write her up, the numerous people who complained probably gave the LSAC her name, and given the large quantity of complaints (I know for a fact there were tons) they probably felt they had to do something about it, hence the hold/misconduct investigation on "sofie's" end.

It's honestly a rough situation all around, and it sucks to be on both sides of the issue.

[lakers3peat]

^^

Ugh, No. If an electronic device is powered to off, then there's no way it can be sending electronic signals or causing any interference with the intercom system. I know this because my phone makes the EXACT same sound with my computer's sub due to some weird bluetooth configuration or something. Anyways, when I turn off the phone, the sound never happens.


HOWEVER, it is possible that the actual culprit, after realizing that their phone being "all-off" could still cause static discharge, took the phone out of their pocket and turned it off when the proctors were leaving/taking the sucker's cell out of the room. That makes a hell of a lot more sense then the proctors taking someones phone out of the room and the noise stopping, even though the phone was already off.