Regentgate: ATL's Exclusive Interview with Adam Key (Part 1 of 2)
Late last night, we conducted an interview (over instant messenger) with Adam Key, a 2L at Regent University School of Law who's now engaged in a public battle with the law school administration over free speech issues. For background on his story, in case you haven't been following it, see here and here.
We enjoyed our conversation with Adam Key, who impressed us as a highly articulate, intelligent, and thoughtful individual. Here's the first half of the interview; the second will appear this afternoon.
Thanks for agreeing to chat!
You're totally welcome.
What’s the current state of play between you and Regent? The last we read, they were making you undergo this mental health evaluation.
The current state is that Regent has suspended me and banned me from campus pending a forced psychiatric evaluation, but only by a physician approved by them. This move is reminiscent of tactics used by Hitler and Stalin to discredit those who opposed them with legitimate arguments by declaring them insane.
Wow, so they pick the physician? Seems pretty dubious. But are you going to agree – what choice do you have?
That's correct. Keep in mind, this is the same school that published law review articles relying on sources like Paul Cameron, the man kicked out of the American Psychological Association for deliberately falsifying data in order to further his cause. I would gladly consider an evaluation by a legitimate psychiatrist that is entirely unaffiliated with Regent.
However, as I have repeatedly emphasized, I will undergo this psychiatric exam after Regent forces Pat Robertson to undergo one. Truly, what's crazier... disagreeing with the administration, or hearing voices that tell you about hurricanes that don't happen, and the impending apocalypse?
Ha, excellent line (re: Robertson).
Yeah, I can't believe Pat thinks I'm crazy.
More after the jump.
But this does seem like a situation with loaded dice. Are you ready to be expelled over this?
I am willing to take this as far as necessary to defend free expression. If Regent decides to expel me, they will send a resoundingly clear message that they are not a legitimate academic institution and never will be. In The Culture of Conservative Christian Litigation, Dr. Hans Hacker mentions an interview with Jay Sekulow about Regent, in which Sekulow says that he worries about Regent students' future as attorneys because they are incapable of thinking like the opposing side. If Regent expels me, this fear will be realized.
In terms of coverage of the controversy, what facts or themes do you think have been overlooked?
A lot of people have missed the point about my First Amendment argument. I realize that Regent is not a state actor and I never tried to imply that it was. My First Amendment argument rests on ABA Standard of Accreditation 211(c), which states that religious law schools are permitted to enact policies "only to the extent that these policies are protected by the U.S. Constitution" and that they must be "administered as though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution governs its application." Regent, as an ABA school, agreed to this policy and thus cannot enforce anything that infringes on the free speech rights of students.
A fair point. Any indication that the ABA might follow up on this?
I’m filing an official complaint with the ABA.
And what about your possible lawsuit – what’s happening on that front?
I’m currently preparing to file suit
What’s the basic gist of the lawsuit?
Regent's also been leaking my private information. Jason Wermuth, my former roommate, has been posting on almost every blog and new story about this that I have had previous incidents with Regent and that they were monitoring me because of that.
Wermuth is an inquiry counselor for Regent and as an employee of the university, FERPA applies to him as well. It would be the same if the Dean or Pat had been releasing my private information. The basic gist is breach of contract, inducement to fraud, etc., as well as the privacy issue.
Are you representing yourself? Or maybe you could find a public interest group that might take on your case?
I have an attorney, though until we file, his name is staying out of the press
Okay, let me play devil's advocate. It's no secret that Regent is conservative, founded by Pat Robertson, etc. Why did you decide to go there, when there are so many other law schools?
I decided to go to Regent because, at the time I applied to law school in late 2005, it was the only ABA accredited Christian law school. Others schools like Pepperdine (which I also got into) and Baylor have religious affiliations, but are not "Christian law schools," per se. I didn't go there because of Pat Robertson, I went there because I wanted a legal education balanced with a Christian perspective. Instead, I'm getting an education in how evil so-called Christians can be to those who are different from them.
It does seem that Regent has thrown a fit over this. Do you regret your decision to go to Regent?
Honestly, I don't. For all the horrible things that have happened at Regent, there are a lot of good things going on there. Despite the general impression people have of the students, Regent law has some of the brighter minds that I've met. It really could be a great law school, if only the faculty would stop bowing to the will of Pat and respect the diversity of student opinion instead of rejecting it.
Why do you think Regent is flipping out over this? Why can't they just laugh it off – or ignore it – and move on? Isn't this making them into a bit of a laughingstock?
Regent is all about image. They have a certain idea of what Christians should look like – i.e., Republican – and totally reject everything else. Anyone who is different is a threat and they try to crush it in order to preserve their appearance.
The problem is, what they're doing has backfired. When the picture was only on Facebook (and was only up for a few days), maybe a handful of my friends even saw it. Now the image they were trying to get rid of has been broadcast internationally, and in the process, the administration has been exposed for its fascist policies.
One factual question. News accounts seem very focused on the Facebook thing. But did you also send the photo out over the university listserv?
Yes, I did send it out over the listserv. In fact, the media has largely missed that part of it. When I was originally threatened about the Facebook picture, I was told to take it down because it was not in an academic context. I wrote an academic critique of the school's policy on obscenity as being overly broad, citing examples from Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostle Paul that would be banned by their policy. I sent this critique out over the listserv, along with the picture.
Then, even though I met their standard of an academic context, I was threatened with sanctions including suspension and expulsion if I did not publicly apologize for criticizing Pat and university policy and promise to never do it again.
So you turned to the listserve after you were threatened about the Facebook posting?
Correct. Honestly, I might have been willing to apologize over the offense caused by the picture, but I was not going to cede my right to express disagreement with Pat or the university. Our right to criticize our leaders is fundamental, both as Americans and as Christians.
I have an easier time understanding their concern over what goes out over their listserv. But what business do they have policing student Facebook pages? And why would they bother -- don't they have better things to do?
You would certainly think they would have better things to do than troll through Facebook accounts looking for objectionable expression. They feel that their Code of Conduct covers our entire lives, both public and private, and that we must submit to their massive inspection at any time. By that logic, Regent could show up at my house and demand to search through my things to make sure I wasn't in possession of any literature they didn't like. This past summer, I published a book critical on megachurch Pastor Joel Osteen. If Regent's theory holds true, they could demand I apologize for publishing the book if they found it objectionable.
As far as their listserv, it is used for student debate topics all the time, and the university doesn't attempt to censor those students. It was the viewpoint, not the listserv, that they found objectionable.
*************
The rest of the interview will be posted in the afternoon. So check back soon!
Update: The second half of the interview is now posted here.
Earlier: Regent Law School in the News Once Again
Regent Revisited: Tattooed Dude Suspended Pending Psychiatric Evaluation
(97) Comments
Adam - why don't you apply to another law school? are you afraid you won't get in? news flash - you will never be a lawyer. No firm would ever hire you because this is such a bad legal argument. Its interesting you won't disclose the name of your attorney, I doubt you found one to take your case.
first?
I officially feel bad for AK. Everyone understands that Pat and Regent are pretty conservative, but who could really expected this sort of inquisition over a triviality? Ridiculous.
btw - not all the bad posts have been from your former roommate. I posted one because I just think you are stupid.
Wow, he is actually dumber than I had previously thought he was.
Adam, just admit it, you hired Lowell "the Hammer" Stanley.
Looks like a reasoned and articulate interview, unlike the comments in response.
I still think it's pretty ridiculous that everyone is accepting Key's story as if it is the Gospel truth (pardon the pun). It seems that everyone is giving Key his martyr trophy for winning a debate with a party that is legally bound not to respond.
The guy sounds pretty bright to me. The ABA argument looks sound. And from a PR perspective, he's right -- Regent has turned this into a firestorm that does not reflect well at them at all. Looking through their students' Facebook accounts. That is creepy.
11:29, I disagree. Key was way more intelligent and well-spoken than I was expecting.
(But I probably have unfairly low expectations of Tier 4 students.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yj2PPWFXFw
Well, I guess the comments demonstrates the students[sic] at regents have found the internet.
The ABA standard seems pretty clear, it's about time we stopped Regent from tarnishing the meaning of accreditation.
Agree that Key was way more intelligent and well-spoken than I was expecting as well.
I am going to agree with 11:31. I think that Key showed himself to be far more articulate than the previous posters. They must just be disappointed about being rejected by even a TTT like Regent (or bitter about the life they bought with their education elsewhere).
"Adam, just admit it, you hired Lowell "the Hammer" Stanley."
There can be only one "Hammer," and that is Jim "the Hammer" Shapiro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zToHQ8oQvgA
Good interview- seems like a bright guy.
Stupid responses, however- some people here are more interested in throwing spitballs than engaging in intelligent dialogue.
Lowell "the Hammer" Stanley is a permanent edifice in the minds of anyone who watched television in Hampton Roads during the nineties. And I would take him over any other "Hammer"
After all, when Joynes & Bieber split up and went to court over their "If you're hurt" jingle, who did Bieber hire?
That's right, Lowell "the Hammer" Stanley.
I'm certainly no Regent / Pat Robertson fan, but a couple critiques of Adam Key's arguments:
1. Published law review articles citing Paul Cameron. I assume that Regent's law review is student edited. I don't see what responsibility the school's administration has for allowing a student journal to publish an article citing that.
2. Though I can understand his criticism of the school choosing the psychiatrist - I am always a little apprehensive about people making Hitler/Stalin comparisons just because that seems so intellectually cheap. Same, fascist policies.
3. There is nothing respectable about taking a position that you won't undergo psychiatric evaluation till Pat Robertson does. That's the kind of argument that stops people from taking you seriously.
4. ABA 211.c applies to admission and hiring of staff. It doesn't mention discipline and school policies post-admission.
5. The allegation that it is his former roommate posting those comments may prove tough to prove. Plus, it really is only derivative of his real issue - his belief in freedom of speech.
6. This claim that what he sent to the listerv was okay because it was attached to some semi-scholarly work just doesn't hold. I don't want to be spammed by it no matter how scholarly it is. Your right to spam me is not fundamental, neither as Americans nor as Christians.
Am I right to think that this kid waived his First Amendment rights by signing the Regent Code of Conduct? I'm not sure he even gets to the ABA accreditation standards.
What the hell is an inquiry counselor? That sounds pretty creepy to me. And the vagueness of these prior incidents Regent is trying to point a finger at, coupled with the weirdness of a psych exam with a guy of their picking, just makes them even creepier. I like Key's First Amendment argument, and I think Regent's a little scared of it setting a precedent--thus all the hijinks.
11:50 - Joynes & Bieber split up? I had no idea....... LOL
12:02 - no.
Adam Key to 190!!
He sounds like someone who is the victim of a classic right-wing religious right hit job. More power to him - fight the power.
Okay, many of us find Regent distasteful, and others do not. That's not the point.
How bright was it to choose this school? We all know what it is like. If that "fits" for you, choose it. If not, go somewhere else.
I don't know why some of the commenters are so harsh on this guy. He's clearly bright and willing to take a stand for what he believes in. Maybe that's what so threatening to people -- someone who wants to speak his mind? How bizarre!
Win or lose, he is exposing some of the problems that happen when religious fundamentalism intersects with the rule of law -- you get some type of pseudo authoritarian fear of dissent. It's an important lesson to recall in these times.
I am impressed by this guy. Someone needs to stand up to theocratic teaching of the law. Imbuing a legal education with Christian principles in not objectionable -- it can even be desirable. But putting all other perspectives or ideologies out in favor of one is not only irresponsible and a failing of your duty to your students who should be exposed to all faces and theories in the law, it is also incredibly dangerous.
Who better to take these guys on than someone amidst their ranks?
With any bit of luck, this will prompt the ABA to take a closer look at Regent and other ideology-based schools (and hopefully at their accreditation criteria in general).
As Adam's former roommate, I can tell you that you are all wrong about his lawyer. I know that Adam wants to keep it a secret, but he's hired the Law Tigers (http://www.lawtigers.com/). Although primarily a motorcycle law firm, they were impressed by his "ink." Sorry to blow the secret.
11:59, thank you.
Key sounds great. Despite being a big liberal Jew I've spent time at Regent and Christian Broadcasting Network and they do indeed spend a great deal of effort on appearances. But it's kind of like Tammy Faye Baker's face- the more cosmetic/superficial you slather on the more people suspect you've got something you feel you need to hide.
Hey 11:50, did you know that Lowell "The Hammer" Stanley is not actually the dude in the commercials? The commercial dud is an actor who I've hear plays "The Hammer" across the country. The real Lowell Stanley is supposedly black. I could probably do a simple internet search and confirm, but I've just wasted enough time trying to look up Ralph Reed's address to see if it was really his house we smoked up behind once.
I would think that adherence to the ABA standards is unwaivable--it's inherent in just being a law school. Otherwise, any school that wanted could just circumvent them with appropriate waivers. It just completely undermines the credibility of any school if you cannot criticize the administration as a student.
Joel Bieber went to Richmond to ply his trade. Now it's Joynes and Gaidies, although they're still embarrassing.
"Kalfus & Nachman? Lets settle this one."
thanks 11:59. All the other posters keep proclaiming free speech (which is great), yet none of you have addressed any of 11:59's contentions.
11:59 - regarding your point 6:
At my school you had to sign up to get the listserv emails, and almost all of them were inflammatory political debates and criticisms of school policy. If you didn't like getting flooded with spam you could take yourself off (or not sign up at all). I suspect Regent is the same way. It's not like he sent an unsolicited email to the whole school.
The numbskulls calling AK a moron are probably astroturfers from Regent.
AK, good luck!
OMG- we could do a thread of Lovell The Hamer commercials. Get yourself over to YouTube and look these gems up now. "The Hammer kicks them in the ***!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WbfENMXKs0
Godwin's Law, and only in the second question! Impressive.
I'd also be happy to see him hire Marcari, Rusotto and Spencer, and "put a few good men to work."
I personally love the hurt line
Below is the text of ABA 2.11. I'm not sure that it means a school can't pass a speech code that violates the first amendment, but it's a decent/creative argument. Key strikes me a fairly smart, but this was a stupid thing to get into a fight about.
Standard 211. NON-DISCRIMINATION AND EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
(a) A law school shall foster and maintain equality of opportunity in legal education,
including employment of faculty and staff, without discrimination or segregation on the
basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability.
(b) A law school shall not use admission policies or take other action to preclude admission
of applicants or retention of students on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, age or disability.
(c) This Standard does not prevent a law school from having a religious affiliation or
purpose and adopting and applying policies of admission of students and employment of
faculty and staff that directly relate to this affiliation or purpose so long as (i) notice of
these policies has been given to applicants, students, faculty, and staff before their
affiliation with the law school, and (ii) the religious affiliation, purpose, or policies do not
contravene any other Standard, including Standard 405(b) concerning academic freedom.
These policies may provide a preference for persons adhering to the religious affiliation or
purpose of the law school, but shall not be applied to use admission policies or take other
action to preclude admission of applicants or retention of students on the basis of race,
color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability. This Standard
permits religious affiliation or purpose policies as to admission, retention, and employment
only to the extent that these policies are protected by the United States Constitution. It is
administered as though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution governs its
application.
(d)Non-discrimination and equality of opportunity in legal education includes equal
opportunity to obtain employment. A law school shall communicate to every employer to
whom it furnishes assistance and facilities for interviewing and other placement functions
the school’s firm expectation that the employer will observe the principles of nondiscrimination
and equality of opportunity on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin, gender, sexual orientation, age and disability in regard to hiring, promotion,
retention and conditions of employment.
I'm from the Norfolk area and went to school not far away. Recently received a request for a referral there. I looked up everyone I knew- parents of friends, members of the synagogue, writing professors, etc. And they are ALL personal injury lawyers. What gives? Is the Norfolk area an absurdly dangerous place?
I also came away impressed with Adam, although the Hitler reference was a little (okay, way too) much.
12:26--yes
11:59 and 12:02:
Agreed that some of the legal arguments are weak, but you both miss the point. Simply filing suit and getting media coverage calls attention to Regent's policy, which I think many citizens would find abhorrent. The public has the perception that their rights to free speech and expression apply in these sorts of contexts (i.e., Internet speech and academic speech). Key may lose the (legal) battle, but there is a good chance that he will win the (public perception) war.
Bravo Key!
He's the idiot for going to Regent's in the first place - um DUH, if you aren't a wacko right wing religious nut, don't go there.
Huffman and Huffman - the Brothers-in-Law.
AK should go on the Colbert Report.
Lat, perhaps you will recall Jacoby & Myers. They now call themselves "America's most familiar law firm," whatever that means.
AK is considerably smarter than most of the commenters here.
12:26 - You assume that because there are a glut of personal injury lawyers, it must be a dangerous place. You imply that the fact that it is dangerous causes more PI practices to be set up.
I contend that the PI practices are CAUSING the danger. You know TTT grads are dangerous thugs, they move there, start causing crime, and set up a practice.
I think Adam Key is amazing and hot! He is so smart - I can't believe he isn't at Harvard - they sure missed out.
There is no "courage" or "dignity" in being a weird, super-religious fat TTT moron who is clearly unable to express a clear argument even when asked favorable, softball questions.
Go find a job at a convenience store and disappear so no one has to see your fat ass again.
This is nothing but proof that the retarded, drooling animals who attend TTTs have no business ever becoming lawyers.
Wow, isn't really cute when these TTTs get into fights? It's like when apes fight over a watermelon or some fried chicken. So cute.
RE: 12:38
Key is a religious nut himself. He just happens to be one smart enough to realize how frickin stupid Pat Robertson is. See youtube.
Adam Key to Colbert Report!
Wow, isn't really cute when these TTTs get into fights? It's like when apes fight over a watermelon or some fried chicken. So cute.
11:59 is right on all counts.
This guy is a mixed bag. As they say on Project Runway, the idea is good but the execution is poor. But, at the end of the day, I give the benefit of the doubt to anyone going after Regent and Robertson.
We need more, not less references to Hitler. Maybe if the spectre of fascism were raised more often, we wouldn't be ruled by self-deluded morons like Jeff K. News flash: your daddy is more important than you are. Get over it.
I thought Key was going to sound like an assclown, but what he's saying actually makes sense for the most part.
The only thing that's weird is his explanation why he wanted to go to Regent. If he's a left-leaning Christian (yes, they do exist, trust me), there are plenty of other law schools he could have gone to in order to get a legal education with some Christian underpinnings, as opposed to the indoctrination that Regent and Liberty offer. Just what was he expecting, anyway, at a place like Regent?
At least the Catholic law schools (OK, excepting Ave Maria) invite free inquiry and offer some level of religious underpinning if you want to take such classes. There are plenty of third-tier Catholic schools the guy could have gotten into, viz. Catholic U., Duquesne, any of the Loyolas, etc.
11:59 = Pat Robertson!
Adam Key and Alan Kennedy Schafer should have a fight to the death. AK v. AKS.
Correction, Key is not a "left-leaning Christian." He is the Public Relations director of straightpride.com: http://www.straightpride.com/mailer/mail.cgi?flavor=archive&id=20050121155134&list=straight
As to the limitation of 211(c) to hiring and admission that 11:59 suggests, the rule clearly states that the fist amendment principle applies to the retention of students as well:
"This Standard permits religious affiliation or purpose policies as to admission, retention, and employment only to the extent that these policies are protected by the United States Constitution. It is administered as though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution governs its application."
Not saying it is a great argument, but the notion that this rule does not apply to post-admission application is simply incorrect.
this kid is my hero.
Standard 405(b) applies only to faculty hiring.
For reference:
(b)A law school shall have an established and announced policy with respect to academic freedom and tenure of which Appendix 1 herein is an example but is not obligatory.
I can think of no better client for the go-getters at Bangle cubed.
12:17 is probably correct. And certainly I don't pretend to know anything about Regent. If you opt into that kind of shennanigans of a list serv, then you probably have Key's spam coming to you. I don't know what Regent's policy on policing that list serv is.
1:42 Reading 12:26's posting of the actual code section, you are right that my point #4 is much more debatable, since the code does mention policies regarding "retention". Whether that's retention of staff or students is unclear, and like you mention, it is still unlikely Regent's actions here would be a violation - since the standard is unconstitutionality.
12:17 is probably correct. And certainly I don't pretend to know anything about Regent. If you opt into that kind of shennanigans of a list serv, then you probably have Key's spam coming to you. I don't know what Regent's policy on policing that list serv is.
1:42 Reading 12:26's posting of the actual code section, you are right that my point #4 is much more debatable, since the code does mention policies regarding "retention". Whether that's retention of staff or students is unclear, and like you mention, it is still unlikely Regent's actions here would be a violation - since the standard is unconstitutionality.
Do any of you think that maybe this was part of AK's "master plan" all along? Maybe he went to Regent just so he could have the opportunity to sue and publicly embarrass Regent? It's brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant!!! Mahahaha!!!
Way to go plus-sized tattoo guy!
This guy's argument is completely worthless. He is quoting the standard completely out of context. I give him zero chance that his ABA complaint or lawsuit will be effective. Here's the full standard:
"(c) This Standard does not prevent a law school from having a religious affiliation or purpose and adopting and applying policies of admission of students and employment of faculty and staff that directly relate to this affiliation or purpose so long as (i) notice of these policies has been given to applicants, students, faculty, and staff before their affiliation with the law school, and (ii) the religious affiliation, purpose, or policies do not contravene any other Standard, including Standard 405(b) concerning academic freedom. These policies may provide a preference for persons adhering to the religious affiliation or purpose of the law school, but shall not be applied to use admission policies or take other action to preclude admission of applicants or retention of students on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability. This Standard permits religious affiliation or purpose policies as to admission, retention, and employment only to the extent that these policies are protected by the United States Constitution. It is administered as though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution governs its application."
The key section - "This Standard permits religious affiliation or purpose policies as to admission, retention, and employment only to the extent that these policies are protected by the United States Constitution."
This guy made fun of Pat Robertson, for whom I have no love, who is the leader of this religion. If the policy of not making fun of the leader of the church is not a "religious affiliation or purpose policy" I don't know what it is. Furthermore, a religious institution is under no obligation under the First Amendment to allow a student to make fun of the religion's leader. Get out of the press, you loser. Go find a real law school. Quit trying to be an attention-grabber.
Do any of you think that maybe this was part of AK's "master plan" all along? Maybe he went to Regent just so he could have the opportunity to sue and publicly embarrass Regent? It's brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant!!! Mahahaha!!!
Way to go plus-sized tattoo guy!
While I agree with the majority of comments about the responses being articulate and coherent, I can't help but question the "interview over IM" approach. The opportunity to write, revise, proof, and spell check is too great. For all we know, the guy was using to Google to come up with witty remarks to Lat's questions. Can you imagine taking a deposition over IM? There is a reason that no one takes depositions by written interrogatories; who wants a deposition with answers crafted by the witness's attorney?
2:33, how old are you?
If you print out a 10 page Word document and distribute it to yourself, does that qualify as having "published" a book?
Regent's in serious trouble. This kid is smarter than the school's entire faculty.
This guy is not winning any public relations war -- suit or no suit.
First, no one cares.
Second, he's obese, heavily tattooed, claims to have published a book, and thinks he's living under the second coming of the Third Reich because he can't post what he wants on Facebook. Public relations war over.
Check out Key's book - I think you can download a copy from youtube. I'm surprised he did not try to get Lat to repent for his sins over the IM . . . seems he does that to just about everyone else.
Anonymous 2:12 is spot on about this guy's specious ABA standards argument. I love in particular how Key focuses on one part of the first amendment-free speech-conveniently forgetting that other part about freedom of religion. The trustees and the administration have every right to restrict affiliation with their institution based on their principles, as long as the reasons/principles do not fall into those categories (race, gender, religion, etc.) clearly listed in the ABA standards. So, the school can definitely have a code of conduct that draws from religious principles; it could not reject an applicant simply because he or she was not a member of the religion.
As for the alleged public relations "fiasco" resulting from this, I highly doubt it. The insular crowd at Regents could really care less what others think of them, and there will be plenty of religious lemmings willing to apply to that school.
Pat Robertson and his crowd have made their fortune building theirs into a "citadel of virtue," or a bulwark against a heathen society. They would love the attention that a lawsuit brings, showing that they aren't giving in to secularizing forces.
ATL needs to increase its coverage of Hampton Roads personal injury lawyers!
The guy most folks think is Lowell "the Hammer" Stanley is an actor named Van Harris.
Kalfus & Nachman spent a bit more and got Robert Vaughn--yes, the Robert Vaughn--to do their pitches.
Of course, as he will be happy to tell you, Don Marcari (Marcari, Rusotto & Spencer) was played by Tom Cruise in "A Few Good Men." So I guess he wins.
Interesting. If all these people that are praising AK knew him, they'd know he's not the way he's claiming himself to be...a defender of free speech. He's a complete hypocrite who has had this plan to further destroy the school name for a while. Crazy what some people will do for attention. In the end, though, justice will reign, and he'll be exposed for who he really is.
"You would certainly think they would have better things to do than troll through Facebook accounts looking for objectionable expression. " Wow, AK, that's a mighty gutsy expression you have, especially since you constantly "troll through Facebook accounts looking for objectionable expressions!" Weren't you the one last year who tried to shut down a student's facebook group because you thought that he or she should "confront his/her brother about the problem before making a group about it on facebook?" Did you not subsequently warn that this group would be reported to the honor council if not shut down? And then did you not, shut it down yourself? Did you not harrass fellow students through the internet or staulk their pages looking for all sorts of juicy things to get them in trouble? Sure ya did...just be honest about it.
If Regent is such a bad law school and has clearly let its religiosity usurp it's role from teaching any sort of legal education, then how on earth did it beat out other schools, like Harvard, Yale, and Chicago in the national moot court and negotiations championship? Clearly, these students are getting one hell of an education regardless of whether there's a biblical basis behind the education.
Regent Law students
your leader has the power to heal
your leader receives "words of knowledge"
your leader made himself rich off of gullible followers
your leader can leg press 2000 pounds
your leader talks to God
your leader hears from God
your leader shows off and brags about his good works and superhuman abilities on his very own tv show
your leader can make pancakes and shakes yummy and nutritious
your leader helped his healer obese holyman son cheat on his wife with a stalker whore
your leader is a prophet, a statesman, a patriot, a religious leader, a powerful businessman, an attorney, and a descendent of royalty
who does that adam think HE is to disrespect your leader?
correction
he was never an attorney
he was never able to pass the bar
he is a fruitcake and belongs in a home for the mentally ill
he uses tv abusively
his healings and words of knowledge stop when the hour is over
it is all a ploy to bring in money
to exploit the people out there whose faith is real
Go Adam! It sounds like he is an awful lot brighter than the folks he is up against -- not to mention his detractors on this site. I hope Regent is exposed and punished for the sham that it is when all is said and done, and he can transfer to a serious law school.
adam,
call that number say the sinner's prayer then send them some money so you can get gordon's cd about how to be blessable while getting blow jobs from a whore
I just graduated from Regent Law in May.
I know Adam personally and he's a total freak. The guy has major problems with authority gets into conflicts all the time. He caused problems at his undergrad and is doing the same at Regent.
He's an attention seeking weirdo. Key is pretending that this is about a facebook photo, it's not.
It was one of my close friends who heard him talking about having a gun in his car.
Not only that, last year he asked a student to hold his gun while he lived in the Regent Village.
And he's way too pushy and aggressive with women -- in a bad way. Girls at the school are afraid of him.
For example, prior to even getting to Regent Key messaged a number of girls (whom he had not even met) telling them that "I've been praying about it and God wants us to date each other." Strange?
Lastly, I'm an agnostic democrat. If I made it through three years without getting into any trouble at Regent for my dissenting views, anyone can.
Regent's rep is bad enough. I don't need attention whores like Key dirtying the name of my alma mater any more.
Here's what Adam Key wrote after he got dumped:
Efficient breach theory basically states that if you're in a contract and you see a contract you'd rather be in, it's ok to break your contract if the new one lets you make enough to still profit after paying damages. Essentially, if you're willing to pay for it, you can break any deal, no matter how much damage breaking the deal will cause.
This is all well and good when it contract law because it is supposed to be cold and unemotionless. The thing is, what kind of person do you have to be to do something like that? What kind of morals do you have to be to back out on something when the other party is relying on you?
Contracts are on thing, but when this happens in a relationship, it's worse: much much worse.
So far all of you who care enough to read this, and I'm guessing you're the one's who've been asking anyway, this is how I'm doing: I'm a mix of some very raw emotions right now. Losing the relationship and companionship we had makes me really sad. I won't lie, I miss her. I miss being with her. I miss the looks she used to give me when I'd done something nice and that girly laugh she'd make when things were romantic.
I'm also unbelievably angry. Choosing another guy over me is going to be an ego blow anyway, but you don't make that choice when you're in a relationship. It's one thing to be attracted to someone else when you're in a relationship, it's another to act on it. I knew she had a crush on this guy way back when, and that she still had feelings for him, but we had talked about this literally about 2 weeks before the break. I asked if she'd rather be with him, and she said no. Somehow, over Christmas break, that all changed.
People keep telling me, at least she didn't cheat on you, as if thats supposed to make me feel better about the whole situation. She'd never been in a relationship before me, and after 3 or 4 months, the only kissing we ever did was me kissing her on the cheek or forehead. So, for her, this is as close to cheating as you can get. Emotional unfaithfulness hurts just as much as physical. I invested a lot of myself into the relationship, and she threw it all away without much ado.
It's not fair, nor is it right to do that to people. Before we dated, I chased after her for weeks. She finally told me to just be her friend, so I moved on. It was only when I was flirting with another girl that she suddenly decided she liked me. The whole relationship, I was all about making her happy. As Krista put it, if she's expecting she'll ever find another guy who would do half as much for her as me, she'll be sadly mistaken.
She wouldn't even tell me the truth as to why she wanted to break up. She said she felt like she was mean to me, that she didn't like who she was in the relationship. So, wanting to do what was best for her, we ended things. Less than 2 weeks later, we were at Starbucks and I noticed she was back to being really nice. I asked what happened, since she told me that being around me brought out her worst side, and she couldn't explain. Several hours of talking later, it finally came out: She wanted to be with this other guy, so Adam had to go.
If she was willing to lie to me about the reason for the breakup, I don't know if anything else in the relationship was true either. Everything she said, every time she told me she cared about me or that I was good to/for her, were those all lies too?
What kind of person can sit there, watching me bend over backwards to try to make them happy, and then abandon me for someone else before the relationship was even over. And I can't even be mad at the guy, because she never told him I existed.
We were in a relationship. We'd met each others parents. I'd told her I loved her. And, despite all that, I was thrown away for some guy she wanted more.
Want to know the worst part?
Despite everything else, I still love her.
if a recent graduate is proud of his alma mater
that's good
it's just that the founder of the school doesn't live what he preaches and has a dubious reputation himself and unfortunately he is the person most people think of when that place is mentioned
that's all
those of who know adam should just let it take its natural course
Regent's rep is bad enough. I don't need attention whores like Pat Robertson dirtying the name of my alma mater any more.
they might have started out sincere but someplace in between they became manufactured and that became the norm
$$$maybe when they realized how healings and words of knowledge increased income$$$
anyway they stopped being human then
they're like aliens
so creepy no soul weirdos
are you proud patty pat?
gordon's a fat dupe patty pat.
its a shame you dont teach morals patty pat.
you teach hate
gordon's a fat dupe patty pat.
its a shame you dont teach morals patty pat.
you teach hate
they might have started out sincere but someplace in between became manufactured and that became the norm
maybe when they realized how healings and words of knowledge could be used to manipulate their enemies into calling their toll free number and confessing their sins over the wiretapped phone so that the next day they could pounce on them and shame them publicly and have something to use against them if they still refuse to bow down
anyway they stopped being human then
they're like aliens
so creepy no soul weirdos
the "indwelling spirit" is nothing but a marketing slogan for them
a term to use
the mainstream media doesn't have a clue how crooked and hypocritical these people - Pat Robertson and the rest on that show - how deceptive they really are how they run a scam without anyone doing a damn thing about it
it makes me sick to hear all those intelligent journalists giving that piece of garbage Robertson credibility
pat robertson and the others are sleaze
prayer and healing increases the giving
it keeps the money coming in
they appeal to faithfuls to people whose faith is real
no one is watching them
no one cares that they are thieves and liars and cheats
you cannot even ask a reasonable question without being smeared and accused of being in opposition to god ALLLLLLLLLMIGHTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Hot Lips Michele Bachmann's from MN6 renamed Alma Mater failed university too.
"Jiffy Law", your Law Degree in 30 minutes or the oil change is FREE.
Thanks for the interview, TRANSFER!