Broken Legal System Paradigm (B.L.S.P.) © 2021
To: United States of America
Memorandum for Admittance
Juris Doctor programs in 2014. All offers were initiated by schools reaching out, there were no
law school solicitations on my part.
Thomas Jefferson Law School *Guaranteed Scholarship (CA)
University of Colorado Law School (CO)
University of Miami Law (FL)
Florida Coastal Law School
FIU College of Law
St. Thomas Law School (Virgin Islands)
Suffolk Law School (Boston, MA)
Tulsa Law (OK)
Wayne Law (Michigan)
Michigan State Law
Valparaiso Law (IN)
William & Mary Law School (VA)
Capital University Law School (OH)
University of Iowa College of Law
Cincinnati Law
Mississippi College School Of Law
Due to an eight (8) year processing time for veterans affairs and social security multiple
permanent and total disability cases, with no family support, while living homeless and out
of my Jeep, I was unable to pursue my dream of becoming a Juris Doctor.
Recently trying to reapply at The University of Nevada Law School in 2020, I was denied for
a peculiar requirement. A professor of law and admissions director Dr. Wall told me that this “old” LSAT
(which was only 1 year past the deadline criteria) score would no longer be accepted because it was more
than 5 years old from the original October 2013 test date. Wall stated, in writing: This policy is an
American Bar Association requirement for certified program admissions. However, history demonstrates
that various legislation has been enacted by entities over time, serving little purpose other than to
implement barriers to the entrance by those in positions of power with agendas.
Yet in our modern and progressive era, many schools and jurisdictions will allow you to admit to a
JD program without requiring any admissions tests like the LSAT, or GMAT, or GRE. In California,
Vermont, Virginia, and Washington for example where ere they have no ABA requirements for law school
admission, one could graduate law school online and be eligible to sit for the respective state bar.
To take this concept one step further, D.C., Oregon, Washington State, Utah and Louisiana are the other
jurisdictions that already offered a full bar exam waiver. JD students are able to practice law now without
taking the bar in Wisconsin, as long as they have attended in-state law school, and additionally in other states
because coronavirus has shut down all test-taking centers. After a certain variable by-state period of time, regardless
of how or where one obtained a bar license: reciprocity and limited practice laws initiate.
Right now, the legal system across the country has re-designed itself such that one could eventually
practice in a jurisdiction through reciprocity that has requirements the attorney never had to meet.
This phenomenon could exist as far back as not taking an LSAT for admission, in the attorney’s
originating jurisdiction. The reality of modern times is upon us: institutions across our country will
eventually need to adapt, in order to keep up with the admission, barring, reciprocity, and
limited practice model I have presented.
The reasoning behind the amendment to policy is that: a citizen’s freedom in the pursuit of life,
liberty, and happiness through education - shall not be hindered due to an administrative
requirement, according to our Constitution and liberties vested within.
Throughout my extensive research, I have been unable to deduce what purpose this 5 year
LSAT deadline policy serves. Why does this archaic requirement remain in effect more as an
administrative obstacle than realistically serving any utilitarian system? My conclusion is
drawn from a recent audit of the test itself: the LSAT has not changed in any drastic ways
for more than 10 years. The time constraints, testing procedure and environment,
categories of questions, and overall grading rubric to evaluate a student’s logical,
deductive, reading, writing, mathematical skills and general fitness for law school
admission remains the same.
Clearly, the barriers to entrance intentionally and maliciously created by the
American Bar Association as a systematic means to preclude any citizen
(including protected categories such as disabled Americans) from practicing law,
is a form of constitutional rights violation. This constitutional violation of
civil rights exists because a barred attorney is considered a public position.
Creating systematic barriers to the entrance for a public position, which is unique to the
law profession amongst many other professions required to certify at the federal and state levels,
is unconstitutional specifically in our contemporary world: several jurisdictions have lowered
and eliminated their barrier to entrance requirements with continued success
in terms of accessibility.
Particular prejudice and discrimination are shown in my case because I am a Veteran Affairs
and Social Security rated 200% combined, permanent, and totally disabled combat veteran:
due to my inability to work, I can never fully utilize the degree beyond the joy education brings.
This form of abusive institutional behavior is discrimination against a disabled person when
my sole purpose for seeking the degree is the pursuit of a dream that enriches my extremely
diminished qualify of daily life. As a VA loan homeowner, I am medically unable to move or
physically pursue my law school dream anywhere other than Nevada, which only has one
law school for the entire state.
Since multiple disabilities are the direct result of 12.5 years of federal service in the
United States Department of Defense, including 15 months in a Warzone; the
protections granted to accommodate a disabled person must extend to any public
or private institution. University programs operating within, while representing
degrees and access to the same parent jurisdiction state / federal public positions
are constitutionally required to make reasonable accommodation of admission
for a disabled combat veteran.
The final piece of this discrimination deals with COVID. When the pandemic hit,
universities stopped accepting students and applications. This type of freezing of the higher
education system dictates the implementation of some type of toll: meaning that my LSAT
cannot logically continue to extinguish, while the parent organizations are unable to fulfill
the application request due to pandemics. Once schools opened back up, they glossed over
this situation and tried to force another test on unwitting students, rather than doing the right
thing: which is to honor the previously valid tests. As admitted verbally by the director of
Boyd Law admission, I am the sole proprietor of this situation: which makes the argument
for granting a reasonable exception due to covid all that more tangible and available to a
single person.
So, to show good faith in the system - I took the LSAT-Flex, an online covid-inspired version -
eight (8) years later this June 2021 - and passed with the same score of 140.
I notified Dr. Wall immediately about this updated LSAT;
Wall then invited me to apply for this year, reassuring me that there were a few spots left
for the fall semester.
Now that Dr. Wall has succeeded in sending me on a ten (10) month easter egg hunt,
for an American Bar Association required he fabricated about UNLV needing and existing
at the LSAC, ABA, and state bar level - Wall personally sent me a denial letter stating only:
as a second-year Ph.D. Student, 100% disabled veteran from West Point: USMA with a top 15%
Bachelors of Science in Leadership Management / Computer Science Engineering,
who passed the LSAT twice, a first-generation, Denver Public High- Schools Honorary Alumni,
An asian-American immigrant who is also in summer school at Oxford University:
I failed to meet the standards of competition, and somehow 2 out of 3 undergraduate students
were simply better than me? Or deserved to be included based on a broader range of diversity?
It is not possible that anyone in the class has more experience and diversity because no one is
from the West Point: USMA Class of 9/11, or any other class from West Point seeking a
J.D. at UNLV this 2021 year. After completing the requirements of UNLV, having no other
options as a disabled person to study Law, legally UNLV should have been included me
simply on my background, resume, and diversity requirements.
In conclusion, all U.S. jurisdictions should reciprocate and lower with the goal of eliminating
their entrance barriers, thus quantifiably increasing each citizen’s ability to gain a publicly
taxed and resourced license. It is constitutionally illegal to prohibit a 100% P&T disabled veteran,
who has met all of the academic admission requirements, from obtaining a law school diploma,
and eventually barring certificate - in a state with only one law school and across the country.
Please feel free to send any questions, comments or concerns directly to my email.
For certified documents, please mail to:
OFFICE OF CAPTAIN GRANT MITCHELL SAXENA, USA, RETIRED
ATTN: Western Region
7190 W. Sunset Blvd, 100E
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Best Regards,
Captain Grant Mitchell Saxena, U.S.A., Retired
Captain Grant Mitchell Saxena, U.S.A., Retired
West Point: U.S. Military Academy 2005
Airborne Ranger, Purple Heart, Bronze Star
100% Permanent & Totally Disabled
Comments
Post a Comment