Transgender Student Loses Big Scholarship Thanks To New Law

Just a week ago, the United States Department of Defense had officially kicked into action a new controversial law regarding whether transgender United States citizens are able to enlist in any of the five branches of the military.

Although the policy, which has strongly been supported by President Donald Trump, is effectively a ban on transgender people from entering the military, the Department of Defense stated last week that the new policy was not a ban.

Here’s a little information about how the policy works. People who were already enlisted in any of the five branches of the United States military before April 12, 2019, were able to remain in the ranks of whatever branch they were serving. According to the policy, they must have already secured a physician’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria, a mental condition in which males aren’t comfortable with being male and females aren’t comfortable with their female body.

The Department of Defense further allowed people who met the aforementioned conditions to serve whatever branch they’re in under whichever gender they prefer. They would also be able to continue receiving hormone treatments, an ongoing medication regimen that transgender people take to more convincingly appear as if they were born as the gender they’ve transitioned to, and surgery involving the reassignment of genitals.

However, the effective ban – don’t call it a ban to the face of any spokespeople with the United States Department of Defense, however – barred people with gender dysphoria who are also taking hormone replacement therapy or have already elected themselves to sexual reassignment surgery from enlisting in the military.

One of the many downsides to the recent enactment of military enlistment legislation is that some transgender people will lose their scholarships to college, such as Map Pesqueira, a student enrolled at the University of Texas at Austin.

Map had already secured a scholarship via the military, in which the Texan is enrolled.

However, thanks to the recent legislation from none other than the Department of Defense, Map could soon lose his scholarship, effectively forcing him to leave school.

Pesqueira, a 19-year-old who has lived in Texas since birth, is just two weeks away from finishing up his freshman year at the University of Texas at Austin. Map is also a member of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program, better known as ROTC. He received a three-year ROTC scholarship before graduating high school. Unfortunately, he’ll be disqualified from the program, and, therefore, the scholarship.

Attorney Michael Avenatti Faces More Than 300 years In Jail

The charges for attorney Michael Avenatti continue to mount and he has now been charged with the theft of millions of dollars from five past clients. He has also been charged with bank fraud, perjury, and income tax invasion as part of an indictment that includes 36 counts.

Avenatti is accused of pocketing settlement money that should have been paid to his clients. One of these clients is a former inmate who won a $4 million settlement from the county of Los Angeles. The former inmate was paralyzed after leaping from the second floor of a jail.

Prosecutors allege Avenatti only paid the client $124,000 of the $4 million settlement awarded to the client. The indictment alleges Avenatti funneled the rest of the money through multiple bank accounts including accounts for a coffee company and racing team owned by Avennatti.

The embattled attorney is also accused of using the majority of a $2.75 million settlement awarded to a second client to purchase a private jet for himself. The aircraft is now in the custody of federal officials.

Avenatti once represented adult film star Stormy Daniels when she sought to have a confidentiality agreement between herself and United States President Donald Trump voided.

Avenatti declared his innocence via Twitter and vowed to fight the charges against him. He says he is looking forward to the day the public will be provided with the entire truth pertaining to the charges against him.

A month ago, the state of California charged Avenatti with taking $1.6 million that belonged to a client and using false tax returns filed in Mississippi to access more than $4 million in loans.

Avenatti is accused of failing to pay personal income taxes for four years and not filing business taxes for his two law firms for the past three years. He has also not paid payroll taxes for his coffee shop even though none of the money seemed to trickle down to his employees.

The Los Angeles Times reports Avenatti could face up to 335 years in prison if he is convicted on all 36 counts in the indictment filed against him.

A New York Indictment filed against Avenatti a month ago alleges he attempted to extort Nike for millions of dollars. The allegation is that Avenatti threatened to reveal damaging information against the company if they did not provide him with monetary compensation for his silence.

Source: https://abc7news.com/michael-avenatti-could-face-333-years-in-prison-if-convicted/5243249/

Devin Nunes Is Suing Twitter For A Plot To Undermine The Republicans

Representative Devin Nunes is a California Republican. He has sued Twitter claiming he was smeared by their users three times. He stated the platform allowed the defamation due to a political agenda. The complaint was filed in Virginia in the Henrico County Circuit Court on Tuesday, asking for $250 million in damages. Devin Nunes repeated numerous Republican complaints concerning Twitter. He said republicans were being censored with shadow bans providing aid to their opponents. The complaint detailed three tweets he deemed objectionable.

Devin Nunes cited tweets including crude jokes regarding his person, accusations of criminal acts and overall criticism. The complaint states the tweets falsely said he brought his family shame, one tweet was a cartoon image of Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and President Trump engaged in a sexual act and another stated his high school believed he would one day commit treason. Dozens of additional tweets were listed in the complaint. The Republican strategist Liz Mair was singled out for two parody accounts he stated were conducting a vicious defamation campaign.

According to the law, internet platforms including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are protected from liability despite what the users publish. This is in accordance with the Communications Decency Act, section twenty. Devin Nunes is attempting to prove the tweets were part of a plan by Twitter to undermine the Republicans. He has been a target for abusing his authority to protect President Trump and was involved in the investigation regarding Russia by the House.

The complaint stated the tweets caused Devin Nunes pain and suffering, interfered with his investigation regarding Russian corruption and involvement in the Presidential election of 2016, influenced the Congressional election of 2018 and Twitter did nothing. Twitter refused to comment regarding the lawsuit. The claim Twitter was shadow banning was repeated by Devin Nunes. This is when a platform enables an individual to post, but others are unable to view the post. This makes the post invisible. This political phrase was established in July regarding prominent conservatives.

The assertion of shadow banning is still being used by numerous individuals including President Trump as proof of conservative bias. The unintended impact of the lawsuit was an increase for the parody account of Devin Nunes. Prior to the lawsuit there were roughly 1,200 followers. This increased to 46,000 on Tuesday after the lawsuit was filed and is continuing to grow rapidly.

College Admissions Scams

At least 50 people are being charged in the far-reaching, $25 million college admission scandal including attorneys, celebrities and athletic coaches from prestigious universities. This is the largest college admissions scam to have ever been prosecuted by the DOJ. Wealthy parents have attempted to try to fraudulently buy their children’s way into colleges and universities where they would never have been accepted otherwise.

It’s alleged that parents paid millions of dollars between 2011 and 2018 to obtain phony athletic credentials so their children could gain admission. In some of the cases, the children, none of whom are being prosecuted, were presented as having athletic credentials for sports they never even played. Staged pictures of children participating in sports they didn’t play were taken and submitted with their applications. The athletic fraud is only half of the scheme.

William Singer, an employee of a non-profit organization called The Key, allegedly accepted bribes from parents under the guise of charitable donations to help underprivileged children go to college. Others, more competent than the applicants took the admissions tests for these children to ensure their success for acceptance. Accomplishing this involved various roundabout and sophisticated, deceptive plots. One of the schemes was to have the children tested by someone at The Key to discover a learning disability that would give the student extra time for the admissions tests over several days, during which time the proxy would take the tests resulting in the guaranteed, excellent scores paid for by their parents.

Needless to say, many athletic coaches and parents who participated in these fraudulent schemes are losing their jobs and positions of importance, or at least being placed on leave until the matter is adjudicated. Along with the firings, spokespersons from several prestigious universities including Yale, Stanford, The University of Texas at Austin, and Georgetown have made public statements of disappointment in their athletic directors involved to help distance their institutions from the scandal.

Read More: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/morrie-tobin-college-admissions-scam

No Swift Homecoming For American-Born ISIS Bride

Hoda Muthana, 24, left the U.S. when she was 20 to join the Islamic State in Syria and now she wants to return with her 18-month-old son. She left the University of Alabama, telling her parents she was going to a school event and using money meant for tuition, she caught a flight to Istanbul instead. Once inside ISIS-controlled territory, Muthana tweeted she would burn her passport soon, since she didn’t need it anymore.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says Muthana is not a U.S. citizen and has no legal right to return. Ahmed Ali Muthana, Hoda’s father, claims Trump, Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr are unconstitutionally taking away her citizenship rights. The Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America are assisting him in his fight to get his daughter and grandson home.

While Muthana was born in the U.S., her father was a Yemini diplomat. If he was an active diplomat when she was born, Muthana isn’t entitled to birthright citizenship. Instead, she would be a Yemeni citizen. Muthana claims her father left his post months before she was born. Both Hoda and her father say the matter was settled back in 2004 when she obtained a passport.

Once in Syria, Muthana incited violence against Americans via Twitter. She says she regrets believing ISIS propaganda and will face justice. Alabama Sen. Doug Jones says he wants Muthana to return to the U.S. so she can stand trial for crimes against the U.S.; she is out of reach of the U.S. justice system in Syria, where Muthana now lives in a refugee camp.

Britain is facing the same dilemma as ISIS bride Shamima Begum, who ran away to Syria at age 15, wants to return. She also has a child she wants to raise in Britain, however. British authorities revoked Begum’s citizenship. Unlike Muthana, Begum’s father supports his country’s decision.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/22/rule-by-tyranny-american-born-woman-who-joined-isis-must-be-allowed-return-lawsuit-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dfb49a7f409a

Judge Awards Senator Rand Paul $580,000 In Civil Judgment

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky received a favorable judgment in a civil court decision on Wednesday. The case stemmed from a dispute between Rand and a neighbor which resulted in the neighbor tackling Rand from behind. The Senator suffered six broken ribs as a result of the tackle, twice developed pneumonia, and suffered a hernia from the coughing. A civil court award Rand $580,000.

The judgment against neighbor Rene Boucher, a retired anesthesiologist, includes punitive damages of $375,000.

Boucher admitted to tackling Paul while the Senator placed a pile of brush somewhere near the line which divided the properties of the two men. Boucher’s explanation for the November 2017 incident was he felt Paul was attempting to get back at him because he once trimmed trees located on Paul’s property. Boucher explained he trimmed the trees because they grew over onto his property.

Boucher said he removed a brush pile left by Paul the day before the incident. He explains he burned himself while setting the pile on fire with gasoline. Boucher says he was experiencing severe pain when the altercation took place with Senator Paul.

Boucher was arrested after the incident and charged with an attack against a member of the United States Congress. He served 30 days in jail for the offense and was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine as part of a sentence.

A lawyer for Boucher said he would appeal the civil decision against his client.

Paul said during an interview with Bowling Green Daily News the verdict reflects the type of society in which Americans want to live. He says the verdict also speaks to the need for individuals to develop conflict resolution skills. Paul said conflicts can be resolved without violence. The Senator applauded the jury for helping to get this message out to Americans.

Guidelines for California Sexual Harassment Law Raises Some Confusion

Me Too and other associated movements have brought significant light to instances of sexual abuse in the entertainment industry. Substantive charges like those levied against producer Harvey Weinstein and actor Kevin Spacey have turned a scrutinizing eye towards the protection of entertainment workers. Given how centralized the film industry is in Los Angeles, it may come as no surprising that departing Governor Jerry Brown of California has taken measures to protect younger entertainers working in film, TV, and other associated industries.

A law signed by Governor Brown, identified as AB 2338, includes provisions that require all minors – aged between 14 and 17 years of age – to receive sexual harassment prevention training before being provided with an entertainment work permit. The work permits, which are issued by the California Labor Commissioner, will also be denied if the parents or guardians of minors can’t demonstrate they’ve received the proper training as well. The Department of Labor Standards Enforcement has released parameters for enforcing the new law, but some feel that there are ambiguities that need addressing.

Three points of contention have been identified as requiring clarity or revision. The first is that minor workers are exempt from training if they’re only applying for ten day work permits. The second concern is the guidance for 13 year olds scheduled for their next birthday while they’re covered by an existing work permit. They may either apply for a permit that expires on their 14th birthday rather than extends for the full six months, or they may preemptively provide proof of sexual harassment training as long as they’re older than 13 years and six months in age. Both of these concerns raise questions about the effectiveness of the law in regards to these issues, since it could leave youth in these two groups vulnerable to sexual harassment. The complexity of the rules for applicants on the cusp of age could also make the standards of the law more complex to enforce than necessary.

The final point of contention is in regards to a lack of resources to properly enforce the new restrictions. The DSLE requires that all training meet the minimum requirements outlined by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. in DFEH Form 185. Such training can only be provided by third-party vendors, but there appears to be a shortage of such vendors, and there is still a lack of clarity regarding what vendors are approved and what the designated length of such trainings be.

There’s time to resolve the issue. Despite being put into effect at the beginning of the year, the Commissioner will not begin enforcement of the law until June 30. Regardless, some measures may have to be taken to ensure that the law can be properly implemented.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Truck Drivers

The trucking industry is going through various changes. There is a massive shortage of qualified drivers, and most trucking companies struggle to remain profitable. The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of truck drivers. The court ruled that truck drivers can sue trucking companies for labor violations.in a report by Business Insider, the vast majority of truck drivers are considered independent contractors. Contractors typically have fewer legal rights than employees. However, with the recent ruling, truck drivers will now have more options for receiving recourse for the actions of trucking companies.

Strike

The port in Los Angeles is one of the largest ports in the world. In recent weeks, the port has started to endure multiple shipping issues. With the tariffs from China having an impact, companies are buying inventory from other nations. The port cannot handle all of the additional goods coming in. As the port gets congested, truck drivers have to wait in line to drop off their products. During this waiting period, truck drivers typically do not receive compensation. Most truck drivers are compensated based on how many miles are driven.

Workers at the port recently threatened to go on strike. If workers do strike, it will be a terrible time to do so. Some truck drivers have threatened to take legal action against trucking companies if the labor laws are not changed. In many cases, truck drivers are going on routes and getting paid less than minimum wage.

Other Issues

Other issues are impacting the trucking industry. Autonomous vehicles are starting to become a reality. Many young people do not want to become truck drivers because autonomous vehicles could drastically change the industry. Trucking companies cannot pay truck drivers more because of declining profits.

Executives of trucking companies need to act quickly to prevent any legal damages from the recent ruling. Companies must start paying truck drivers fairly to avoid legal action in the future.

Man Wants Free Burger King For Life Settlement Upheld

A free $7.89 meal every week is nothing to laugh about, especially when it’s time for lunch or something more than a midnight snack. To an Oregon man who was locked inside of a Burger King washroom for an hour and claims to have a life expectancy of 22 more years, that time has been calculated to be worth $9,026.16. Oh, he also suffered a small cut on his hand that didn’t require any treatment when Burger King employees gave him a fly swatter to try and unlock the bathroom door with. The man must be somewhere around 48 years-years-old. His lawyer estimates a diminished life expectancy of about five years as a result of his client’s frequent consumption of burgers.

According to Time, the “wrongfully imprisoned” man claims that the manager of a Burger King in Wood Village made him a settlement offer sometime around the middle of December in 2018. Although the specifics of the offer haven’t been disclosed, it was something in the nature of free food for the rest of his life. Apparently, the man accepted the offer. That deal worked out for a about a couple of weeks, but when Burger King’s regional manager learned of it, he rejected it. The “prisoner” has now filed a lawsuit involving the value of those lost meals. The amount in controversy was calculated that one burger would cost $7.89 per week. Whether that’s a Whopper meal or a Whopper Junior meal has yet to be disclosed. Nor has the size of the drink or fries, if any.

The man’s lawyer says that his client was presented with a settlement offer that he accepted. His position is that a deal was made, but who the deal was made with is what this case turns on. Was it made with Burger King’s franchisee, or was it made with Burger King? Did the manager who purportedly settled for free food for life even have authority to offer a settlement? Was there any valid settlement at all? Is being locked in a bathroom for an hour even worth more than $9,000?

New Green Car Law Makes It Safer For Pedestrians

Green cars are often praised for being a good thing. They are clean, do not make a lot of noise and are better for the environment than traditional cars. However, there have been safety concerns raised. When the green car travels at 20 MPH or less, they cannot be heard. That is why they present a danger to pedestrians.

Kevin Clinton works for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. He stated that accidents are much more likely to occur when there are green cars in urban areas. However, a new law will make it safer for pedestrians. In July 2019, every green car that is sold in Europe will be required to make a noise when they are traveling at a low speed. Every existing car will need to be fitted with a noisemaker by the year 2021.

James White works for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. He agrees with this new law because he is worried about the visually-impaired people who walk the streets daily. Studies have shown that a pedestrian is 40 percent more likely to be hit by a green car. Many visually-impaired people use guide dogs, and it gives them a false sense of security.

There are currently 140,000 electric vehicles in Britain. In 2013, there were only 3,500 green cars. It is estimated that nine million electric cars will be on the road by the year 2030. Politicians have stated that electric cars are the vehicles of the future. They agree with the law that will make electric cars produce more noise.

Sally Longford works for the Nottingham City Council. She stated that they are hoping that 8,000 more green cars will be on the road by 2020. She also stated that she looks forward to seeing more policies implemented that will make the roads safer for pedestrians.

 

Another Texas Execution this Week

A San Antonio man who had just turned 38 was executed earlier this week in Texas in connection with the murder of a 29-year-old Lubbock woman who had been stuffed naked into a new suitcase that had been purchased at a local Walmart. CBS News reports that both surveillance videos and an investigation into the debit card used to purchase the suitcase were traced back to the convicted murderer. Rosendo Rodriguez, III purchased the suitcase, and a barcode label that was sewn into the suitcase traced the purchase back to him. Workers at a Lubbock landfill found the suitcase and the victim’s body parts stuffed inside. She may have been jammed into the suitcase when she was still alive. At the time, Rodriguez had been in Lubbock for training as a Marine reservist. The victim was 10 weeks pregnant.

Rodriguez also confessed to the sexual assault and murder of a 16-year-old girl. Her mummified remains were found in another suitcase in the same Lubbock landfill about a year earlier. Rodriguez was subsequently labeled the “suitcase killer.” He was described by the Lubbock County District Attorney as “very cold-blooded and very calculated.” Rodriguez was the fourth convict in Texas to be executed in 2018. He was the seventh in the United States. A spokesman for the Office of the Texas Attorney General remarked that the final appeal of Rodriguez was a “last ditch effort.” Rodriguez purported that he killed his last victim in self-defense after having consensual sex in a hotel room where she pulled a knife on him. Regardless of the fact that the evidence in the case showed about 50 blunt force trauma wounds to the victim, Rodriguez persisted in his defense.

In the penalty phase of the case, five women testified as to Rodriguez raping them, and jurors also heard about his confession to murdering the 16-year-old who he encountered in an online chat room. Rodriguez died defiantly with his last words consisting of a seven minute statement proclaiming his innocence. He was pronounced dead 22 minutes after being administered a powerful sedative known as pentobarbital. The U.S. Supreme Court denied his final appeal shortly before he was executed.

 

Stormy Daniels Files Suit Against Trump Over Confidentiality Agreement

Pornstar Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, filed a lawsuit against United States President Donald Trump on Tuesday declaring that a prior confidentiality agreement between the two has no merit because it is not signed by Trump.

Daniels is referred to as Peggy Peterson, while the president’s moniker is David Dennison in the agreement. Trump chose not to sign the agreement in order to provide the opportunity to deny knowledge of the agreement if ever needed.

Daniels accepted $130,000 from Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen who says she used his own money to pay Daniels. The revelation by Cohen is said by Daniels’ lawyers to mean that there is no binding agreement between the two parties.

Lawyers for Daniels argue that even if their client was obligated contractually by the agreement the terms were breached when Cohen commented publicly on the matter.

Cohen, while speaking to the New York Times on February 13, said that neither the Trump Organization or members of the Trump administration had paid back the money to him that he had given Daniels. Cohen did not say whether Trump or anyone else had repaid him however and has been on record with complaints that he had not been reimbursed.

The suit points out that Cohen made no denials of a sexual relationship that took place between Trump and Daniels because to do so would have been to make false statements.

Attorneys for Daniels point to what they term as a “bogus arbitration proceeding” that was held at the end of February without Daniels’ knowledge as evidence of an ongoing attempt by Cohen to gain her silence by intimidation. The result of the hearing was Cohen obtaining a restraining order against Daniels that prohibits the adult film star from providing details of her relationship with the president or filing a lawsuit over the matter.

Michael Avenatti, a lawyer that has recently taken up the cause of Daniels, says that he does not the order that was granted at the February 27th hearing to be a valid one.

The suit includes a copy of the original contract that was signed by Daniels and Michael Cohen, who signed as a representative of Essential Consultants, the company established by Cohen to facilitate the money transfer to Daniels.

George Cohen, a professor specializing in legal contracts, says that the legal issue is whether or not the contract was to be made valid only through a signature from both parties. And if so, did the signing of the agreement by Essential Consultants happen while the company acted as an agent of President Trump.

Allegedly Drunk Horse Rider Taken Into Custody

In yet another drunk driving on a horse case, a 29-year-old Placentia man who was celebrating his birthday was arrested earlier this week for drunk driving after riding his horse down a freeway in Long Beach. California Highway Patrol officers were summoned to eastbound Highway 91 by motorists, but the horseman exited the highway at Downey. He was apprehended on Bellflower on his white Arabian. The cowboy agreed to field sobriety testing at the scene of the stop. After two tests with a portable testing device, the man’s blood alcohol content was determined to be somewhere between .19 and .21. Both are more than twice the legal limit. As reported by USA Today and the Associated Press that the horse named Guera was released to the man’s mother who arrived at the scene shortly after his arrest.

The rider was booked, charged with drunken driving on a horse and jailed with a bail of $10,000. The California Motor Vehicle Code section 21050 provides that while riding an animal on a highway, the rider is subject to the same legal duties and obligations as the driver of a motor vehicle. The rider must maintain control of the animal at all times. If the animal becomes spooked, and it runs out into traffic, the rider can be held liable for any resulting accidents or injuries. Riding a horse on a roadway while intoxicated or impaired by drugs poses an unreasonable risk of harm to everybody around.

In 2017, a Florida woman who was riding a horse on a public roadway was taken into custody for drunk driving. The law on whether a person can be arrested for driving drunk on a roadway while riding a horse varies from state to state. Had the facts of either the California or Florida case arisen in Montana, the rider might not have been taken into custody. That’s because Montana requires a person to be operating or otherwise in physical control of a motor vehicle. Devices that are moved by animal power are specifically excluded. Any defenses asserted in the California case will certainly be interesting.

Major Law Firm Facing Discrimination Suit

Above the Law recently reported that a top 100 law firm is being sued by female shareholders for discrimination. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart has been sued for $300 million in damages based on claims that male shareholders of the firm make at least $110,000 in profits per partner more than the female shareholders. Other stunning allegations in the complaint include that even though women make up more than half of the associates at the law firm, women only make up 32 percent of the shareholders.

Dawn Knepper, a nonequity shareholder at the firm, initiated the purported class action suit against the firm and is represented by Sanford Heisler Sharp. This firm has taken a stand lately against large law firms that are accused of discriminating against women. Ogletree is represented by Nancy Abell of Paul Hastings. Ogletree maintains that the suit is meritless and that it will be able to defend against all of the claims lodged by Knepper and other potential class members. This suit is garnering even more headlines lately because Ogletree was recently recognized as having a thriving labor and employment practice across its many offices. The nature of this discrimination suit could have a negative effect on how Ogletree is perceived among its peers and potential clients.

Many of the other allegations in the complaint relate to a claimed pattern and practice of overlooking or undervaluing women in terms of promotion potential or pay increases. The lawsuit claims that the male shareholders at Ogletree consistently ignore the contributions that women shareholders and associates make to the firm through excellent lawyer skills and commitment to professional development. The complaint also states that women are not recognized at Ogletree for the business and clients that they bring to the firm at the same level that men are compensated and acknowledged.

In the wake of more public outcry against sexual harassment, it remains to be seen whether more gender discrimination suits against employers will start popping up in the months to come. It is likely that many firms are testing out the waters in this new climate of hostility toward gender discrimination and harassment.

Cooley Law School Loses Bid to Hide Criticism

Senior U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow denied Cooley Law School’s recent request for a gag order preventing the American Bar Association (ABA) from criticising the law school. Cooley representatives asked the federal court for an order preventing the ABA from claiming that Cooley’s admissions policies fall below ABA standards. Judge Tarnow said that not only did the ABA not break any rules by publishing the opinion, but they have to publish the opinion in order to comply with Department of Education rules.

The ABA says that they’re happy with the judge’s decision. They say that their opinion is important so that students can have the information they need in order to make the best decisions about their education. They also say that most students are going to make the same decision about their education whether or not they read the ABA’s opinion.

Cooley Law School has undergone significant changes in the past decade. They recently joined up with Western Michian University to call themselves the Western Michigan University Cooley Law School. They expanded to locations in Grand Rapids and Auburn Hills. On their website, they say that it’s their goal to give students the tools that they need to succeed.

The ABA disagrees. They say that Cooley doesn’t admit students that have a reasonable chance of passing the bar. Cooley graduates are quick to point out that sometimes, students with low GPAs and standardized test scores make great lawyers. Authorities say that’s not enough. They say that for every student who beats the odds, there are other students that leave with a mounting pile of debt and no diploma in hand. They also say that graduates of Cooley Law fail to find employment in the legal field at a high enough rate to justify Cooley’s high tuition costs.

At this point, the ABA hasn’t taken any formal action against Cooley Law. They have the option to revoke Cooley’s status as an ABA-approved school. The opinion might be the first step in that direction. Critics say that the revocation would be a welcome first step to ensuring that aspiring lawyers with poor credentials aren’t taken advantage of for tuition dollars.

On the other hand, many Cooley grads say they’re fortunate that Cooley was willing to admit them when other law schools wouldn’t. They say the school provides minority access to a legal education and helps expand the reach of legal services to the poor and underprivileged. Judge Tarnow says that his decision is final.