.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:54 pm
.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=200465
Just report what you know, so long as its the truth. If your UG gave you a warning for drugs, and you don't remember it, you might want to look into that.nachosrgood wrote:First, thanks for reading, much appreciated. This is a throwaway account, but anyway here is the question.
So, I know the advice is disclose, disclose, disclose... but I received a dorm violation freshman year (noises and an empty souvenir bottle hanging up high were the official charge). I think there was some issues with "pre-ponderance of evidence" but to be honest I can't remember 100% what exactly I was written up for... Anyway I have contacted my the appropriate department of my school and they said I had no record. Then I pressed further and the said oh, I received a warning for "drugs" (um WTF I was not aware of anything like that being on the record!!), but it had been expunged from my record. I assume I can't leave this to "it has been expunged from my record," because clearly they could still access that somehow...
So I need the TLS sage advice. I am thinking I should press the respective office for disclosing to me everything on record, so that I can disclose that. I am afraid of missing some important information as I write my disclosure (alcohol I could see being on there but "drugs"!?! WTT). So should I press the office to disclose exactly what I received a warning for?
Or of course I could go the extreme and not disclose because it has been expunged... Though as I mentioned earlier, it clearly has not been completely removed from this public university's records, not to mention how unnecessary of a risk it is.
Thoughts? The sooner the better because I want to make a decision before the holiday weekend.
Preponderance of the evidence means "more likely than not." That is, there's a 51% chance you had drugs according to the school.nachosrgood wrote:they had no direct evidence but gave the warning because of a preponderance of evidence (alcohol I could see being on there but "drugs"!?! WTF).