Is Cornell Law's question 23 in violation of NY HRL 296.16? Forum

[bilbobaggins]

Figuring out the "success rate" would be a pain in the ass on lexis.

[justonequestion]

...

[kalvano]

Before Kalvano rides me further for failing to account for previous iterations of the subject matter, I've taken the time to search this forum for anything that might be relevant.

I believe I specified any applicant in the entire history of law school admissions, so I'm going to need you to do a little more research, mmmkay?

[justonequestion]

...

[kalvano]

You only looked on here to find previous discussions. I didn't specify only on here. So if you want me to shut up and leave you alone, you'll need to research my actual claim.

[justonequestion]

...

[kalvano]

Can you restate your actual claim please?

No. It's like one page back, you lazy bastard.

And have you given up on the notion that 0L's are in no position to ponder the law because they don't know as much as legislators and whoever?

No.

[justonequestion]

...

[kalvano]

Let me ask you something, is your sarcasm meter just completely broken or are you just deliberately ignoring the siren?

[justonequestion]

...

[kalvano]

Can't beat sarcasm by acknowledging it. It can only be beaten by taking it at face value.

I bet you are tons of fun at parties.

[12262010]

failed to state a claim and that's a 12(b)(6), bitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBTba2J6OKI

[justonequestion]

...

[kalvano]

Booyakasha, you wouldn't happen to be an English major, would you?

I was.

[12262010]

Booyakasha, you wouldn't happen to be an English major, would you?

huh?

[justonequestion]

...

[12262010]

going to need the citations so I can look at the context.

[capitalacq]

going to need the citations so I can look at the context.

you're clearly just trying to buy time

[12262010]

going to need the citations so I can look at the context.

you're clearly just trying to buy time

don't white knight the tard. you're also not "required" to divulge information to a law school, since you're not required to apply.

[kalvano]

Well then, would you care to explain what the bolded sections of the following mean, repasted here for your convenience:

(j) Destruction of records of arrest pursuant to subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) shall be accomplished by permanent obliteration of all entries or notations upon the records pertaining to the arrest, and the record shall be prepared again so that it appears that the arrest never occurred. However, where (1) the only entries on the record pertain to the arrest and (2) the record can be destroyed without necessarily affecting the destruction of other records, then the document constituting the record shall be physically destroyed.

It means records are supposed to be destroyed. But it doesn't say what the qualifying circumstances are in which records are supposed to be destroyed. If you've been arrested for something, that never really goes away

Upon the termination of a criminal action or proceeding against a person in favor of such person, as defined in subdivision two of section 160.50 of this chapter, the arrest and prosecution shall be deemed a nullity and the accused shall be restored, in contemplation of law, to the status he occupied before the arrest and prosecution. The arrest or prosecution shall not operate as a disqualification of any person so accused to pursue or engage in any lawful activity, occupation, profession, or calling. Except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of a superior court, no such person shall be required to divulge information pertaining to the arrest or prosecution.

I know what you want to hear based off the section you bolded, but you missed an important qualifier.

Except where specifically required or permitted by statute

[justonequestion]

...

[kalvano]

The latter quote is from NY CPL 160.60, there presented in its entirety. No ambiguities or loopholes or anything except for the "otherwise mandated by another statute" clause.

The former is from CA PL 851.8; you don't need to look at the context. Subdivisions a, b, c, d, and e basically dictate under which circumstances such a record will be be obliterated or physical destroyed. If you think it'll help, here it is: http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/851.8.html:

So what you're saying is the rest of the law doesn't matter, only the section you chose to buttress your argument.

Back to what I was saying about 0L's...

The latter quote is from NY CPL 160.60, there presented in its entirety. No ambiguities or loopholes or anything except for the "otherwise mandated by another statute" clause.

Also, good grief, a little reading comprehension would be helpful for you:

Except where specifically required OR permitted by statute

"Or" means the two are not intertwined.

[12262010]

A familiar tune. Once an applicant does decide to apply, is he or she then "required" to divulge information, given the legal context?

you "decide" to apply. thus, you "decide" to divulge the information.

[justonequestion]

...

[capitalacq]

going to need the citations so I can look at the context.

you're clearly just trying to buy time

don't white knight the tard. you're also not "required" to divulge information to a law school, since you're not required to apply.

im not white knighting, i'm just wondering why you'd take the effort to respond