Inside Rutgers Law: Rise of the Financial Pedophile
Inside the Rutgers Law School Scandal:
Rise of the Financial Pedophile
Of God, Man, and Social Paganism
Response to the recent American Bar Association sanctions of the Rutgers University School of Law at Camden has infused a national debate on the integrity, sincerity, and moral guidance of higher education, particularly in nexus with an arguably corrupt federal student loan program, a program to exploit financial minorities on a “for profit” basis.
At the same time, the American Bar Association sanctions sparked rancor: Why were the sanctions so cursory? After all, Rutgers falsified the admissions of individuals of undisclosed demographic backgrounds, exempting them from taking entrance exams, and quite likely, the falsifications did not stop there.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2013/12/aba_accreditationco.html
https://www.lawschooltransparency.com/documents/509_Enforcement/Rutgers_Camden_Complaint_12-31-2012.pdf
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/05/law-school-sales-pitch-doubles-down-on-the-getting-rich-rationale-for-law-school/2/
History sheds illuminating lights.
The Rutgers Law School at Camden did falsify, and has been falsifying going back decades, far more than admissions as the law school evolved from a higher education institution into something quite different: a bucket shop where money went in, swirled around with magical opaqueness, and emerged in the form of a “salary orgy” where virtually every faculty member became a dean or director, where adjunct professorships were little more than political patronage pension feeding frenzies, and all too often, a specific demographic of student was left holding the financial bill to fund the mill.
The Holy Financial Trinity:
Rutgers Law, Sallie Mae/Navient, the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/
If artificially inflating salaries, pensions and Social Security Retirement Trust Fund payouts were the goal, federal student loans were the means.
Let us recount.
https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings
https://www.internationalstudent.com/study-law/
In the nebulous depths prior to 1993, the Rutgers Law School at Camden began pursuing a curious business model. It began recruiting minorities with grade point averages as low as 1.5, a D plus grade point, on a rabid basis. It also began recruiting disabled individuals with promises that attending law school was an avenue of escape from economic exploitation, an avenue to achieve financial independence. The latter promise is particularly notable in that the legal industry is not only the nation’s leading proponent of economic relegation of the disabled, on behalf of insurance industry clients, but a world leader in forcing individuals with prior medical histories out of the American corporate work force, both domestically and internationally, through a variety of rubrics, not the least of which is “gap time in employment.”
That is what Rutgers Law officials, including school administrators who also were employees/senior legal counsels to the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey, promised: opportunity. Educational opportunity. Economic opportunity.
But as all classes of financial minorities quickly discovered, they were targeted as victims in a traditional “Bucket Shop” operation where the victim gives money to the proprietor in hopes of "opportunity", only to have the money used in ways never intended, with the financial minority receiving – at best – a dubious return for the investment.
Here’s how the Rutgers Law School scandal operated:
Financial minorities, minorities that include an entire panoply of other traditionally accepted “minorities”, Black, Asian, Native American, Openly Gay, and the Disabled, were ardently recruited to apply by the Rutgers Law admission’s office and 1st Congressional District of New Jersey staff members. Once enrolled, once accepting the Rutgers invitations, the promises of a better future disappeared as quickly as financial cockroaches running for cover from an illuminating light: everything was falsified, grades, transcripts, documents, examination procedures, courses taken, recommendations to the bar, government documents of every kind, in order to eliminate these financial minorities from any use – or any significant likelihood of use - of their law degree, even though they just had been wooed into pursuing that same degree.
Why the flop?
It is difficult to convey the rapidity in which Rutgers inverted from seducing financial minority acquiescence to be enrolled to a “We have to separate the students for our employer’s somehow” government document falsification rampage.
The entire methodology was annunciated quite proudly by the Dean of Students. And sorry, financial minority, tag, you are the means to the pension enhancing end.
By the way, and more on this point later, there were a lot of deans, directors, and "chairs of" at Rutgers Law School at Camden, an absolute cornucopia of deans, directors and "chairs of" following the adoption of the Bucket Shop modality. What was promised to be a financially lucrative higher education in the Admission Office solicitation letters was, in fact, a lucrative financial pillaging of the federal student loan program: the more that was raped from the federal loan program, the more money that became available to juice faculty and administrator salaries. Sprinkling the words ‘dean’, 'director' and 'chair of' in employment titles validated an ever increasing salary pillaging of state and federal funding, or perhaps more properly, $$$$ rape of public funding assets.
More or less, Rutgers was no longer a law school, it was a private US Mint.
https://www.law360.com/articles/404015/rutgers-camden-s-recruiting-email-deserves-sanctions-suit
All you needed to complete the financial raiding of federal coffers was a pretext. The first pretext was financial minorities and access to their Social Security Numbers. The second pretext in validating higher salaries was a new and improved employment title: one is no longer a junior “Associate Professor”, one is now a “dean of ______________”. Just fill in the blank with whatever you want, it really doesn’t matter, as long as it 1. sounds impressive and 2. The imagery will dupe a naïve public.
Afterall, raping Sallie Mae really is a raping of the American People and their Congressional representatives, it certainly is a raping of federal legislation and student loan debt. So more to come on the “student loan to dean” bucket shop nexus.
The actual embezzlement process adopted by Rutgers were even more breathtaking.
The process: all law school grades were rigged based on the financial wealth of the parents and their past history of 1. Political patronage connections and 2. Financial patronage connections.
Motivation: the more you keep rich enrollee families happy, the more those families will likely donate back to Rutgers. Hence, even more money for falsified salaries which validates an even larger pillaging of public taxpayer funded pensions.
It is a neat system.
Hence, if you come from a wealthy family, or a politically active family, you receive “Dean’s List” worthy grades.
If you came from a non-wealthy family, or a family with no political track record, you receive Grade Point Averages circa a 2.7, a pedestrian grade point that will likely exclude you from meaningful consideration for 1. Law firm employment during law school, 2. Judicial clerkships after law school., 3. Large law firm/large government entity employment.
How exactly do you rig grades in law school?
Well, in fact, it is quite easy despite the regalia of university ethics codes. Perhaps it should be memorialized as the “Rutgers Method”.
First, you set up a “developmental admissions” system that targets financially lucrative/salary enhancing families and invite those families to send their children to your law school. Once admitted, you set up a “developmental admission” course curriculum where, based on demographics, the financially lucrative students are either assigned to, or are quietly advised, to enroll in specific courses with specific professors.
What happens next is even more fascinating, so pay attention: on the first day of class in such developmental admission tract classes, the professor informs the students that “Everyone is getting an A.” The declaration is quickly followed by a list of caveats, the primary caveat being a warning “not to embarrass” the professor by failing to show up to class. More realistically, the statement is a plea to the developmental admission students to do nothing that exposes to the outside world that their grades are being rigged, that their grades and resulting transcripts have no integrity.
As one would self-servingly guess, the developmental admission students eagerly agree. Every seat is filled.
Essentially, at Rutgers, you had an “nod and wink” indoctrination into the shadier side of legal practice: a “We’ve got a great thing going here, let’s not do anything to blow it,” secret society/political patronage world where integrity is always treated as an inconvenience.
Academic integrity was out the window at Rutgers Law, avarice and greed were decidedly inside the window and flourishing fast, with the matter reaching as far the United States Congress House Education Committee.
The enumerated caveats featured in the plea deal: Show up to class, make it appear that the seats are filled, and everyone gets an A. An “offer and acceptance” bargain if there ever was one. The consideration, the payoff for both sides, was just as interesting: the financially lucrative students received their As and financially lucrative employments, the families received an ego pleasing result, and quid pro quo, Rutgers received salary enhancing endowment donations to the law school as financial ‘thank you’ notes.
To validate the ruse, the professor would give open book, open note, open commercial study aid examinations with multiple choice questions so overbroad in nature that the process insured no one could get less than an A. (Sample examination question: “What Section of the Uniform Commercial Code addresses bounced checks?”)
Lickety Split, the financially lucrative students – falsified transcript in hand – were off to the Philadelphia/New York area’s most lucrative paying law firms and government employments, replete with a flurry of public announcement pride by the law firms at their newly hired “scholars” in all things legal machination.
In fact, more often than not, these same students never read the law books. As in ‘none’: no textbook at all was read during their entire three year career at Rutgers, certainly during a majority of their time at Rutgers Law at Camden.
Concurrent with the “everyone is going to get an A” financial curriculum, a curious series of events was unfolding over at the Rutgers-Camden bookstore.
While undergraduate texts were bought, sold, and furiously inked with highlighter delights, a wholly different fate awaited law books: What were originally sold in pristine publishing house plastic wrappers were returning to the book store as used books still in their pristine publishing house plastic wrappers.
Even when the wrappers were missing, evidence that someone at least exerted the mental prowess to paw off the plastic, the texts were as naked and immaculate as the moment they left the printing press floor: Not a crease could be found on the spine of the texts. Not just some of the texts, a lot of the texts, rows upon rows of “used” texts.
The volume of unread texts astonished even the bookstore manager. How many come back like this? “A lot,” he said pausing to roll his eyes in disbelief, “A lot.” He seemed almost exasperated at the sight of unread books.
To repeat: No highlighter marks, no names written on the books, the cover ink unsoiled and unfaded by any human handling. Row upon row, course name upon course, from first year fundamentals to third year electives. The law books were not read. Nor was there any attempt to read them.
Now loop back to that Business Law professor telling everyone on the first day of class that they will be receiving an A as long as “you don’t embarrass me by not showing up to class.” At Rutgers Law in Camden, keeping up appearances is everything not withstanding any threat of American Bar Association sanctions.
Or even subsequent Congressional review.
Owning your own US Mint in the form of a federal subsidy program is simply too good to resist for the corrupt legal mind: the rape of Sallie Mae/Navient, with or without consent by Sallie Mae/Navient.
While Rutgers Law at Camden was eventually required by the American Bar Association to publish an apologia for its misbehaviors on the Rutgers Law main webpage for one calendar year, the culture at Rutgers was hardly momentary or passing, certainly not fleeting under the harsh gaze of ABA sanctions.
Why?
Because there was an inverse component to the Bucket Shop raiding of the federal student loan tills that was, and is, permanent and on-going on an unending basis.
Rutgers is a series of embezzlement operation nested eggs, each egg must be examined separately, for each egg has a separate federal funding embezzlement component. Then, as a collective, the nexus of the embezzlements is identified.
Here is how the embezzlement operation worked. Rutgers was no longer a law school, it was an embezzlement operation: everything else, like most embezzlement operations in a financial rape, is merely procedural window dressing to fool the public.
When embezzling money, the public corporation is your ruse: your real business model is stealing money. The corporation is simply the means to do it.
It should come as no surprise to the reader that the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey – simultaneous to the Rutgers raping of the federal student loan program - was littered with such corporate ruses. And one must remember that all of the above, all of what follows concerning Rutgers Law, was designed and implemented by two key components: 1. A senior legal counsel to the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey and, vicariously, the House Education Committee and 2. A senior member of the American Bar Association.
That is not a misprint: That which was sanctioned by the American Bar Association was designed, implemented and concealed from the American Bar Association by American Bar Association staff members and a Congressional committee staff member as identified circa December 2012. (Not surprisingly, in a historical twist, shortly after the confession, that same House Education committee member resigned their Congressional seat mid-term with glee, fleeing the capitol with an abandon not seen since the British invasion in 1814. In 1814, the matter was referred to as the Bladensburg Races. Two hundred years later, one has the Sallie Mae Races with the finish line – integrity- nowhere in sight.)
If there was question as to why the American Bar Association did not handle the Rutgers Law scandal more severely, with a more thoroughly documented public investigation, there is a plausible reason: thine enemies are of thine own household.
The only outstanding question is whether the American Bar Association knew before initiating an investigation, or later discovered, that its own staff members were responsible for the Rutgers scandal?
Plausible explanation: Like one family member discovering the crimes of a sibling or parent, generally, the public never finds out, certainly not any prosecuting authority.
The American Bar Association suddenly unheard and unsaw? It suddenly forgot how to frame a legal question? The questions appear valid not withstanding any filibustering of thoroughness from the ABA.
One word does seem apt in whether the American Bar Assocation knew or reasonably should have known that its own staff members were involved in crafting the Rutgers Law scandal: probably.
So, you have a two-pronged attack on integrity originating from within Rutgers that perverted higher education into a financially lucrative salary/pension mill that exploited the nation’s minorities for profit: 1. The 1st Congressional District of New Jersey staff and 2. American Bar Association staff.
A Salary and Pension Mill: Now that’s an interesting concept that, regardless of Ivy League pedigrees, or perhaps because of them, a professor would find such a mill hard to resist, especially a “something for nothing” salary and pension mill. And therein shapes up the second part of the grade, transcript, dean’s list riggings at Rutgers: remember the admission office solicitation letters holding out Rutgers Law School at Camden as an escape from poverty?
Well, with yet another wink and a nod, Rutgers Law was an escape from poverty but not for the prospective students receiving the solicitation letters. All poverties are relative, more for me means less for you, and one must not appear to be a career failure in light of one’s Ivy League cohorts: if nothing else, the latter is compelling social status motivation for Rutgers Law employees far outstripping Tony Robbins.
The Salary and Pension Mill was funded by exploiting financial minorities: you woo financial minorities into admission, force them to apply for federal student loans, rig the yearly tuition to whatever suits your financial appetite, and then walk away with 1. The cash via salaries and 2. Juiced pensions based on the juiced salaries which, in turn, are dutifully reported to the IRS as actual income, thus yielding a second tier embezzlement operation: juiced Social Security Retirement Trust Fund payouts.
Sallie Mae/Navient was the cash cow embezzlement target, financial minorities were simply vehicles upon which to raid Sallie Mae/Navient coffers.
Quite plausibly, the matter unfolded with a high level of mutual complicity, an equal ‘wink and a nod’, as the business model that profited Rutgers Law also profited the staff at Sallie Mae/Navient: rigging law school salaries benefitted not just the law school in raiding pension funds – the public employee retirement systems – but the more that Rutgers Law embezzled money from the student loan program, the more money that Sallie Mae/Navient could claim on its books as accounts receivable, which in turn, allowed Sallie Mae/Navient to boost their own salaries and hire more of their own friends and family as employees, and thus, juice their own pensions and familial wealths.
A real estate mogul could not plan it any better, legally, as after all, real estate is an area of law where money is simply made to disappear as well. Wink. Nod.
Since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you will notice two stark phenomena: a surge in unemployed disabled Americans, particular those with student loans, and a surge in staff size at Sallie Mae/Navient, all commensurate with the surge in 'dean/director/chair of' positions throughout the nation.
Of course, much like real estate transactions, all of the above behavior is then laundered through ‘just make it up’ salaries and dutifully recorded via IRS tax returns that spin Social Security Retirement Trust fund payouts faster, and in larger denominations, at an ever increasing pace, while Social Security Disability applications spike upwards as a result.
It is a curious connection.
Who would have guessed: a simple good intent of the American People becomes financially perverted in ways and means that would, comparatively, make a sexual Pedophile blush in admiration of the ease, fluency and financial masturbatory delight, in this case financial as opposed to sexual, but prurient just the same.
Legal maxim: One embezzlement operation begets another.
Or as they said in the old days, there’s more where that came from, let’s exploit it before anyone finds out.
The Rutgers embezzlement operation was a Win-Win for all financial entities involved.
Essentially, running a law school is no longer an endeavor of higher education, running a law school is – more realistically – like owning your own US Mint: you fix the tuitions, which dictate the federal student loan amounts, you fix the job titles, which validate higher salaries, which in turn validate higher public employee pensions, which in turn validate higher Social Security Retirement Trust Fund payments. What better way to validate higher salaries than to make everyone a “dean” of something, mostly a dean of just about anything?
By the mid-1990s, and ever since, you had a 'dean/director/chair of' virtually every academic concept. Only having a dean/director or chair of “who gets out of bed on the left side, versus the right side” would surpass the Rutgers Method in inanity.
And what better way to perfect the Rutgers Method than to hire graduates of your own law school, who never read the books and never studied for any examination by their own admission, but miraculously appeared on every dean’s list each semester?
Dean.
Director.
Chair of ______________.
Yes, academic Virginia, there is a Santa Claus: his or her job title is more aptly Dean of Quid Pro Quo. And darn, my back is financially itchy.
And if you are an unemployed Ivy League graduate with slim prospects, or a lowly non-Ivy League law school graduate with even slimmer prospects, nipping into a law school - any law school - as an employee to become 'dean/director/chair of' something in life, as opposed to being just another unemployed lawyer, well, one would quickly dispense ethics in favor of social acceptance of peers?
Selling ones soul not for the whole world but 'Professor of ________' is.financially profitable, as in your ticket to multi-million condo units at the Ayer Building in Philadelphia. All you have to do is print the money.
http://www.theayer.com/
Law school is your printing press.
It's not long before previously unemployed Mr. or Ms. Ivy League grad is donning US Mint Green trench coats and luring starry-eyed aspirants into the dark back alleys of higher education: "Pssst, come here little law school hopeful, have I ever got a deal for you."
Yes, indeed, the Rape of Sallie Mae?
The matter reaches a feverishly in-grown and masturbatory pitch with the admission of international students, many of whom cannot read, write, or comprehend English. The matter was standard practice at Rutgers.
As long as the seats were filled, as long as money is being minted, who cares what happens to the people filling those seats?
In the explosion of 1. law schools and 2. law school enrollments over the past 50 years, all questions are valid. And it does add plausible validation for the usury side of why law schools and law school enrollments continue to rise. Or is it just so much financial thuggery?
If the nation needs so many lawyers, why not teach law in elementary school, high school, and at the undergraduate level and make everyone versed in law, much like reading and writing?
All across the nation, law school personnel are panicking at the simplicity of that notion: you are not getting rid of law schools, you are killing a cash cow that buys their clothes, homes, vacations, and self-esteem.
And there is no better cash cow in life than a fat cash cow. And you are the one making the cash cow fat.
Hence, the proliferation of law schools as Bucket Shops, the very best, most elite of Bucket Shops.
In many cogent senses, the matter is not much more than immature fifth grade children running amok in a financial candy store. Except most of them are law school graduates, many of them from Ivy League law schools.
(As an aside, the proliferation of dubious Top 40 Under 40 lists for lawyers and Superlawyer directories in the nation’s impoverished media operate much the same way with much the same artificial divorce between reality and financial profit. Essentially, you buy such listings. And who is the media to question the financial hand that feeds them?)
It is worthy to recount: The Rutgers Method was funded by whom?
Well, Sallie Mae/Navient superficially but, more realistically, the nation’s financial minorities: the poor and politically unaffiliated. The financial minorities experience the opposite fate of the developmental admissions: it is the developmental admissions who get the excellent grades thanks to the exam rigging methodologies, it is the developmental admissions who form the bulk of the dean’s list, it is the developmental admissions who successfully navigate an often secret-society qualification process for the law review, it is the developmental admissions who receive the exemplary employer references.
Why? Well, just look at their grades! The fact that the grades are rigged is not much consequence: a grade is a grade, a transcript placed in interstate commerce is a transcript placed into interstate commerce. The financial minorities lose out.
And financial minorities usually lose out permanently as the interstate commerce nexus with transcripts is a ‘unto death do you part’ reality. Once created, regardless of how, a transcript is permanent, including all the falsified grades.
What happens to financial minorities post-graduation? A fate that would make Sallie Mae/Navient giggle with glee: unemployment or substantial gaps in employment.
The more unemployment, the more profit for Sallie Mae/Navient through delayed repayments, which means more interest compounds, which gives Sallie Mae/Navient more ability to pay higher salaries, which means higher pensions, which means higher payouts from the Social Security Retirement Trust Fund. And more ability to hire friends and family at Sallie Mae/Navient to exploit the ‘get rich quick’ scheme.
Sound familiar? It should.
https://www.ed.gov/
Sallie Mae/Navient’s track record in employing the disabled, much less disabled lawyers, is telling. And pathetic. In fact, the employment rate is a national disgrace.
The matter becomes downright chummy when you factor in that law school personnel and Congressional District employees run hedge funds: Sallie Mae/Navient would make a plum of a client in such a case.
In fact, Rutgers Law employees were employed by hedge funds.
The notion of “Quid pro quo” becomes a mutual financial back scratching at a furious pace, a concept not unknown to the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey. As you will see at the conclusion of this piece, what transpired at Rutgers is abundantly illuminated by simultaneous embezzlement operations by 1st Congressional District of New Jersey corporations who also embezzled federal funding with the help of the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey staff. And they did so simultaneous to setting up the financial pedophile raping of Sallie Mae/Navient.
In sum, the developmental admissions go on to financially lucrative employments in the public and private sector: Attorney General offices, federal intern positions, the US Department of Justice, state Insurance Commission offices. In sum, what happens to financial minorities? Unemployment. Financially lucrative unemployment that benefits Sallie Mae/Navient and Rutgers employees who also are employed by hedge funds.
Fancy that.
So, in sum, the American Bar Association cut short its investigation before the public could find out?
Well, a thorough investigation would have yielded interesting results, not the least of which is all the information presented herein: The United States Department of Education attorney staff knew about the contents of this document in September 1993 and, again fully, in May 1995.
Sallie Mae/Navient knew about the contents of this document – wait for it – in December 1996.
Not only did Rutgers negatively rig the grades and transcripts of financial minorities to exclude them from competitive employment in interstate commerce, which in turn juiced the profits of Sallie Mae/Navient, the same entity that provides a significant portion of Rutgers daily financial lifeblood, Rutgers also denied transcripts to those same financial minorities should they become unemployed post-graduation.
That is not a misprint.
No job, no ability to repay a student loan, no transcript for you.
What, exactly, can you not do post-graduation without a transcript? Apply for employment commensurate with your education.
Which, of course, circularly maximized Sallie Mae/Navient profits via interest compoundment because how do you apply for employment without a transcript, even if the transcript is adulterated?
Catching on?
https://edworkforce.house.gov/
In one complaint brought before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator Arlen Specter in 2008, Rutgers went so far as to deny a disabled American a transcript for almost 10 years from 1999 through the fall of 2008. According to Senator Specter’s staff, Rutgers adamantly espoused its right to refuse transcripts to people who could not repay a student loan – the fact that the individual was a disabled American and unemployed as a result of Rutgers own grade rigging hands was a non-fact in Rutgers’s eyes.
Non-payment is non-payment.
“Rutgers does not recognize disability related unemployment as a valid reason for non-payment,” said New Brunswick campus executives.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/
But, shhhhh, the non-payment also artificially inflated salaries and pensions at Sallie Mae/Navient which, in turn, paid Rutgers staff salaries, which in turn, inflated Rutgers pension payouts, which in turn, inflated everyone’s Social Security Retirement Trust Fund payout….everyone, of course, except the disabled American. Including salaries in New Brunswick.
Funny how it works.
Or is that more aptly, fun how it works?
The parade of horribles gets worse, most especially when it is financially lucrative for it to do so: that disabled Rutgers enrollee who relied upon Rutgers’s admission letters promising academic integrity and a chance for a better future? That person, as direct result of the transcript denials, was forced to reapply for Social Security Disability: not for an artificially inflated Retirement Trust Fund payment, but a paltry Social Security Disability Trust Fund payment based on, you guessed it, years of non-employment compounded by Rutgers University.
The Rutgers Law graduate went on to suffer medical impact of the transcript denial.
Because of the lack of funds, the Rutgers graduate was forced to eat three meals per every 10 day period of time.
Starvation is a well-known cause of diabetes.
If you guessed that the disabled Rutgers graduate contracted Type II diabetes, you get a gold star.
In short order, other complications set in as well, likely shortening the life expectancy of the disabled Rutgers graduate by several decades, not years, but decades, to an age not associated with mortality in the United States in almost 100 years.
Particularly aggressive heart disease is a well-known impact of diabetes regardless of any dietary attentiveness.
So, the public loses in every direction plausible: the federal student loan program is perverted into a financial pedophile operation in which everyone financially profits but the financial minority.
The comparison to the Jerry Sandusky/Penn State culture is shockingly eloquent: Sallie Mae/Navient/Rutgers, and quite likely numerous other “higher education” industrial components, are a land where the victims, whether sexual or financial, are always bad people, portrayed in made up stories by the legal industry of every odious fault and flaw, so much the better to protect a livelihood, whether euphoric sexual or financial jollies for the day.
There are smiles and then there are Jerry Sandusky smiles, at Rutgers, there are a lot of Jerry Sandusky smiles. The above photograph captures the ambience quite well.
https://www.salliemae.com/
Not surprisingly, a Rutgers faculty member was recently convicted of being a pedophile, and like Rutgers Law at Camden adjuncts, the Rutgers pedophile was sentenced to jail.
Symmetry never spoke so well.
Embezzlement, Ponzi Scams, and Bucket Shops never had it so good, all with a blind stamp of federal approval from Congress via the Senate or House education committees who deftly turn a blind eye because their own staff members are profiting from the mill: committee members were married to Rutgers personnel.
Small world.
The world gets smaller when Rutgers Law can influence federal agency hiring of its graduates i.e. hire developmental admission Person A, do not hire financial minority Person B, just look at the (rigged) transcripts.
Person A is not likely to question nor challenge the Rutgers Method, Person B, through sheer intellectual tour de force, is far more likely to question everything. So, who would you want as federal legal counsel? All too often, Rutgers intervenes: Person A wins. Understand why?
And so our higher education system, certainly the nation’s law schools, spin out of control.
What is left on our hands now is simply an integrity mess, so much financial vomit on the floor after a drunken binge of US Mint green, a Penn State fraternity party on steroids. Dead bodies, albeit financial, and all.
It is worthy to repeat: Who shows up as legal counsel for federal agencies? Answer with remarkable alacrity: Developmental admissions, if not former Rutgers employees.
In fact, former Rutgers Law at Camden executives are now federal agency “attorney advisors”. Feel free to guess what they are likely advising, especially in light that the former Rutgers Law executive now has at least two separate public pensions, one from the State of New Jersey via the Sallie Mae/Navient rape, and another from the federal government.
Oh.
And what do they advise federal agencies to do? Keep the pension mills going?
The matter even perverts the normative notion of a “scholarship” under the Rutgers Method: scholarships, by and large, go to the developmental admissions. The financial minorities are thrown to the self-serving avarices of Sallie Mae/Navient: do you see why? Doing so maximizes everyone’s profits from the financial mill. Insulating developmental admissions from the mill preserves and protects the law schools ability to seduce parental endowment donations as a ‘thank you’ for launching the career of junior/juniorette.
The bottom line goal of the Rutgers Method is to rack up as many government pensions as possible in the least amount of time AND to make those pensions as lucrative as possible: the quality of work performed is not relevant. Nor is the quality of the education dispensed.
The Rutgers Method is a zero-sum game where everything is a sum, or a zero, depending on one’s financial background.
And if you read the historical Rutgers Law School application documents, the applications are more financial disclosure forms than anything else, with a particular emphasis on not just “Who’s your financial Daddy/Mommy?” but who their employers are and what job titles they hold, an entire family financial history.
Not surprisingly, the Rutgers Method repeats the gambit post-graduation. For a small financial donation, Rutgers graduates were promised an “alumni yearbook” that was really no yearbook at all: in actuality, the yearbook publishers promised Rutgers that the yearbook would be used to financially investigate each and every alumni subscriber, providing Rutgers with a financial investigation report of each alumnus’s net worth, right down to monitoring on-going financial transactions and credit card purchases by the alumni.
Why? The answer should have a familiar developmental admission ring: to aid Rutgers in “targeting” the next generation of financially lucrative developmental admissions.
Fancy that.
Who would have guessed.
Small world.
The Rutgers Scandal was far more than the mysterious admission of people who never took the legally authorized LSAT entrance examination as the American Bar Association investigation discovered: the American Bar Association had a “protect our own” motivation, certainly an appearance of impropriety, in limiting its conclusions. A vested interest.
And what about that American Bar Association staff member? Well, he was a Rutgers dean who went on to a second public pension funded by the taxpayers of a wholly different state where he became a “dean” at yet another law school, drafting with him – quid pro quo style – all sorts of State of New Jersey pension raiders from Rutgers, from lowly adjunct professors upward to former United States Department of Justice attorneys
Who would have guessed.
The Rutgers Method is so lucrative that United States Department of Justice attorneys “retire” with a federal pension, nip into Rutgers as political appointed adjuncts to collect a State of New Jersey pension, only to find themselves across state lines financially bathing in a State of Pennsylvania pension. And all that is additional to any private practice profits.
https://www.justice.gov/
Financial fun is the best kind of fun, especially when it is taxpayer funded, that is a legal maxim as well.
Meanwhile, the employment rate for disabled Americans with law degrees is 0.002 percent in the private sector and even lower, below 0.0001 percent with any state government or the federal government, especially inside the United States Department of Justice.
Multiply the employment rate by the amount of federal student loans borrowed and you have a more realistic value for a law school education obtained by a financial minority. A student loan inflated by years of non-employment, much of it inflicted unilaterally by the Rutgers Method, topping $90,000.00 yields an actual economic benefit amount of $12.00 in the public sector, $180.00 in the private sector, if you look solely at the disability employment rate.
Other minorities fare somewhat better but, nonetheless, all discrepancies are relative: one should compare developmental admissions versus the worst of financial minorities.
Financially, you cannot get much worse than being labeled “disabled” by the legal industry.
Conclusion: It’s good to be the financial King, it’s good to be the developmental admission. It’s bad to be a financial minority. Bad, very bad. The worst kind of bad is disabled bad.
That disabled American who made the mistake of accepting Rutgers’s promise of academic integrity, taking out student loans to fund an escape from poverty, and contracted diabetes at the hands of Rutgers withholding transcripts?
He’s now dying.
He may live, he may not.
As one physician said recently, he could die as soon as tonight, tomorrow, a minute from now.
He could live to 90. But there are no guarantees of anything. All medical bets have been terminated. There is no life expectancy. None.
And so it goes at an age that was an average mortality almost 100 years ago.
Funny how it works, no?
In law, dying declarations are given an enhanced degree of veracity. So be it.
And what was that in the title about God, Man and Social Paganism?
Well, you already have the avarices of man and the social paganism, the financial cannibalism of higher education roasting victims over a bonfire of pension vanities, a cookout of financial minority meats, like the Amazonians of old butchering unsuspecting Spanish explorers for so much dinner. Now, it’s just dinero.
God? Well, it depends on how you spell it and interpret it. Spell it with a little ‘g’ and you entertain concepts like right and wrong, integrity, doing the right thing despite all other considerations, sans any theological component.
And you get a different sort of law as well: the Law of I. Not the law of the Constitution, not the criminal code even though there is plenty of that at play herein, not even any morals and tenets of religious faith.
Real law is often harrowingly simple: what will I do today. Not what anyone else does or advocates. What will I do. What will I advocate.
Like it or not, the Law of I is the supreme law of the land, every other law is after the fact remediation.
All too often, out on the legal playgrounds, in the law firms, the law of the land is not much more than: Because I can, Because I don’t have to, Who is going to catch me, and an accusational “You can’t prove that!”
The latter is a four-corner rotation, spin and guess which corner the dishonest legal entity is standing on now, and oh I’m sorry, you always seem to guess wrong.
The legal industry is a world, all too often, where people who espouse integrity are dismissed and pilloried as naïve morons who “just don’t get it”: they are “crazy” and “nut jobs.”
And in finality, the four-corner legal rotation holds up a simple declarative roof upon which the vast majority of the nation’s law firms, lawyers and law schools predicate their daily behavior: “Just make it up.” Documents, affidavits, depositions, court room testimony: it does not matter because who, exactly, is going to stop you?
And there you have Rutgers, and Rutgers Law at Camden, by any other name.
Now you have the Inside Story on the Rutgers Law Scandal.
The future is yours. I suggest you invoke the Law of I.
And if you don’t think any of this is possible, just a few thousand feet from the Rutgers Law School at Camden front door was a different financial entity also doing business with 1st Congressional District of New Jersey staff members. It was called the American Dredging Company. And it killed people.
For money.
Federal money.
You can read about it, the cases are listed on the internet. In conjunction with Great Lakes Dredge and Dock of the Chicago area, American Dredging rigged federal contracts to embezzle national defense money from Congress.
Sound familiar?
When reading the cases just be aware: the cases were rigged, American Dredging and its attorneys lied in the cases. How? It falsified documents.
American Dredging masqueraded as a dredging company solely to access Congressional funding, it over inflated its bids in cohort with other dredging companies, and skimmed the difference as free cash.
It’s like owning your own ATM.
Essentially, the money just disappeared. Or so they hoped.
Evolution turned out to be a cruel twin for both American Dredging and Rutgers.
Curiously enough, an impressive portion of that American Dredging embezzled funding ended up back in New Jersey, at a 1st Congressional District of New Jersey political party connected bank named Commerce Bank, which in turn, cross-wired account statements so that money deposited in Account A would actually end up in Account B.
Essentially, money just disappeared at Commerce Bank because Commerce Bank never produced a written monthly statement reflecting any electronic transaction in either account. But if you asked verbally, Commerce Bank employees were more than happy to tell you where the money went…..tax free.
The Commerce Bank magic show eventually was shut down, but not before a “computer failure” supposedly erased all the Bank’s records shortly before a deadline to transfer those records to another out of state bank.
Ponder, ponder. Think like a lawyer on that series of events, go ahead, I dare you.
Private accounts were not the only accounts cross-wired at Commerce Bank, so were business entity trust funds mandated by law. That money, too, disappeared. You are cordially invited to think like a lawyer on that topic as well, especially if you are in the legal industry.
And it didn’t stop there.
Money was not the only thing that the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey organized crime empire made disappear.
On the night of November 23, 1991, in the middle of the Sallie Mae/Navient Rape empire building, the bid rigging and cost cutting to maximize embezzled federal funding killed three people in one night in the State of Florida.
The profits from those arguable felony murders ended up where? Anyone, anyone?
In New Jersey.
In the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey.
And not just in Commerce Bank accounts or Commerce Bank stock purchases. After a plausible denial gap time, the money ended up in political action committee (PAC) campaign funds of United States Senators and House Representatives spread all across the country, not the least of which was the elected representative from the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey who had family members as executives at Rutgers School of Law, Camden and employed at hedge funds.
Small world, indeed.
At least now, as a result of this article, it will be a more educational small world, a somewhat higher form of education than previously understood.
No signature appears on this document. There is too much criminal stalking and too much making up fabricated documents with fabricated statements by too many law firms, especially political patronage law firms, that plaintively get filed with political patronage appointed/elected judges who fail to question integrity far too much.
I will just leave you with an incident that transpired more than a decade after all the above played out, that will have to suffice.
And so it came to pass that the American Racketeer father lay dying. And in his final moments, the American Racketeer father turned to the Honest Lawyer son and issued one final dying declaration: Thine enemies will be of thine own household.
As the American Racketeer lapsed into and out of consciousness, the Honest Lawyer son wiped a tear from the father’s cheek. And when the American Racketeer was at long last gone, the Honest Lawyer son paused and lingered upon that final thought, a little more, a little more.
All words escaped him, save one.
“Truly.”
Valediction: “And after a long pause, the honest child surveyed all that he saw and said to the supposedly parental world of Democritus: Exactly how many graves are there between here and integrity?”
In the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey, and likely many other such districts in the history of humanity, there is a concise answer.
By the way, the lawyer for an American Dredging Company executive who authored the federal embezzlement operation that killed three people in one night? The American Racketeer?
He is an adjunct law professor at Rutgers Law-Camden.
Who would have guessed that? Not the ABA.
Small, small world, indeed.
http://www.philly.com/