WTF?

May as well post this here as anywhere. But wanted to say, Lat, that you do a really good job with this site. It's pretty cool to see someone take such a huge chance and have it both (apparently) work out and (apparently) be leading to even more interesting things. I have no idea why so many of the commenters here are little biotches, but I assume it's water off a duck's back.

And I say this as someone who thought you went way too far sometimes with UTR's intrusiveness (and still sometimes verge in that direction), and indeed swore it off entirely at one point because I thought you'd treated someone so badly. I don't know whether your reasons for this shift are legal or the result of changing POV over time, but the shift is definitely for the better. Not an easy balance to strike, I am quite sure.

One, two, THREE!!!!!!!

The fact that theocratic holes like Ave Maria, Liberty, and Regent can get ABA accreditation speaks volumes about the gaping holes in the accreditation process. The ABA is ultimately responsible for the Loyola 2Ls of the world.

One of the big allegations in the suit is that the law school covered up a priest's involvement with child pornography. Fancy that...

"The suit also alleges that certain staff used their positions and law school resources to obstruct a criminal investigation into a priest's alleged involvement in sex offenses, including possession of child pornography, and that Professor Safranek reported this to law enforcement.

"This lawsuit is the latest debacle in the collapse of Ave Maria School of Law. This past summer nearly 1/2 of the faculty fled or were removed from the school. Approximately 40 first year students transferred to other law schools (out of a class of 135), and the quality of the incoming class continued to decline. Dobranski was forced to hire a slew visitation professors and adjuncts to keep the school afloat."

Those allegations caught my attention, too.

Of course, the Complaint fails to mention that the "whistleblowing" resulted in any prosecution or investigation whatsoever, or even that the alleged misconduct was shown to have happened.

As one court put it, chicken little was not a whistleblower.

The distinguished senior senator from PA, who once supported the magic bullet theory of the Kennedy assassination, is actually pretty funny.

"the Complaint fails to mention that the "whistleblowing" resulted in any prosecution or investigation whatsoever, or even that the alleged misconduct was shown to have happened."

What? Most statutes that protect from retaliation don't require that the underlying bad conduct actually have happened or was prosecutied, just that the whistleblower reasonably believed that something bad was going on, reported it, and was retaliated against.

9:47,

You're right: Litigation or prosecution need not follow. That the authorities did nothing (or so it seems), however, makes the belief of wrong-doing seem less reasonable and less likely to have had an objective basis.

It's almost a Rule 11 standard. And it seems with the Bork claims that "I had probable cause to suspect wrongdoing b/c my boss wouldn't tell me what was going on," mixed with apparently an erroneous legal conclusion about tax law, may not meet that standard.

RE: Some undergraduates earn cash by selling their class notes

I can tell you from personal experience this is already occurring. Well, at least from people I know at STU Law, CUA, UM, and FIU. Facebook is more than just a social network!

10:47 -- Check out the Mich whistleblowing law. To me, it doesn't seem like they even need an objective basis, like for Title VII retaliation. They just have to believe that the claim is true.