expulsion from school

[Anonymous]

You can appeal. If you are in MCPS I suggest Rene Sandler as a possible attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nephew faced similar a expulsion hearing after his dad packed his lunch and included a butter knife for his laughing cow cheese & crackers. The school did take it very seriously even though my BIL was there to tell them he didn't even think that a butter knife would be illegal as he didn't typically pack lunches. Their recommendation was expulsion from the local middle school and enrollment in an alternative school. SIL & BIL checked into that school and it had serious criminals there. Like, kids who'd been to juvie, been in so many fights that they were kicked out or seriously wounded someone, etc. So they enrolled him in a private school instead. This was about 2 years ago. They even hired a good lawyer as well, but he said that schools are taking weapons found on campus more seriously than ever.

That's not a knife or a weapon, it is a condiment spreader. I would have switched schools too. Ridiculous.

+1

I would have bankrupted the county so fast.

Sure you would have.

How would you know? Or have any idea?

Wow, you are so cool.

Answer the question.

DP. I'll answer. Because the chances of an individual being able to bankrupt the County, especially when the kid was technically in violation, are slim to none. Could someone have been persistent enough to get the decision overturned? Of course, but I'd bet that the chance of you getting bankrupt in that pursuit would have been much higher than the county going bankrupt. Also, even if you were able to bankrupt the county (which is nonexistent), it definitely wouldn't be a fast process.

So what if it is not a "fast process"? It can be done. "Technically in violation" is a potentially broad term. There are lawyers that specialize in this type of thing - and they don't just work for the county.

Yes, there are lawyers who specialize in this type of thing, but there is a big difference between getting a decision overturned and "bankrupting the county so fast." Bankrupting the county isn't happening, fast or slow, especially when the county has a colorable argument that the student was in violation. And I do understand that "technically in violation" is a broad term, which is why I acknowledged that the decision possibly could have been overturned with persistence. I don't think the original poster took issue with the possibility of getting a lawyer to help to appeal the decision. I think the poster, and I, take issue with the ridiculousness of saying you'd bankrupt the county so fast, and doubling down when challenged on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nephew faced similar a expulsion hearing after his dad packed his lunch and included a butter knife for his laughing cow cheese & crackers. The school did take it very seriously even though my BIL was there to tell them he didn't even think that a butter knife would be illegal as he didn't typically pack lunches. Their recommendation was expulsion from the local middle school and enrollment in an alternative school. SIL & BIL checked into that school and it had serious criminals there. Like, kids who'd been to juvie, been in so many fights that they were kicked out or seriously wounded someone, etc. So they enrolled him in a private school instead. This was about 2 years ago. They even hired a good lawyer as well, but he said that schools are taking weapons found on campus more seriously than ever.

That's not a knife or a weapon, it is a condiment spreader. I would have switched schools too. Ridiculous.

+1

I would have bankrupted the county so fast.

Sure you would have.

How would you know? Or have any idea?

Wow, you are so cool.

Answer the question.

DP. I'll answer. Because the chances of an individual being able to bankrupt the County, especially when the kid was technically in violation, are slim to none. Could someone have been persistent enough to get the decision overturned? Of course, but I'd bet that the chance of you getting bankrupt in that pursuit would have been much higher than the county going bankrupt. Also, even if you were able to bankrupt the county (which is nonexistent), it definitely wouldn't be a fast process.

So what if it is not a "fast process"? It can be done. "Technically in violation" is a potentially broad term. There are lawyers that specialize in this type of thing - and they don't just work for the county.

Yes, there are lawyers who specialize in this type of thing, but there is a big difference between getting a decision overturned and "bankrupting the county so fast." Bankrupting the county isn't happening, fast or slow, especially when the county has a colorable argument that the student was in violation. And I do understand that "technically in violation" is a broad term, which is why I acknowledged that the decision possibly could have been overturned with persistence. I don't think the original poster took issue with the possibility of getting a lawyer to help to appeal the decision. I think the poster, and I, take issue with the ridiculousness of saying you'd bankrupt the county so fast, and doubling down when challenged on that.

Are you this literal in your sex life? How is that working out for you? LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nephew faced similar a expulsion hearing after his dad packed his lunch and included a butter knife for his laughing cow cheese & crackers. The school did take it very seriously even though my BIL was there to tell them he didn't even think that a butter knife would be illegal as he didn't typically pack lunches. Their recommendation was expulsion from the local middle school and enrollment in an alternative school. SIL & BIL checked into that school and it had serious criminals there. Like, kids who'd been to juvie, been in so many fights that they were kicked out or seriously wounded someone, etc. So they enrolled him in a private school instead. This was about 2 years ago. They even hired a good lawyer as well, but he said that schools are taking weapons found on campus more seriously than ever.

That's not a knife or a weapon, it is a condiment spreader. I would have switched schools too. Ridiculous.

+1

I would have bankrupted the county so fast.

Sure you would have.

How would you know? Or have any idea?

Wow, you are so cool.

Answer the question.

DP. I'll answer. Because the chances of an individual being able to bankrupt the County, especially when the kid was technically in violation, are slim to none. Could someone have been persistent enough to get the decision overturned? Of course, but I'd bet that the chance of you getting bankrupt in that pursuit would have been much higher than the county going bankrupt. Also, even if you were able to bankrupt the county (which is nonexistent), it definitely wouldn't be a fast process.

So what if it is not a "fast process"? It can be done. "Technically in violation" is a potentially broad term. There are lawyers that specialize in this type of thing - and they don't just work for the county.

Yes, there are lawyers who specialize in this type of thing, but there is a big difference between getting a decision overturned and "bankrupting the county so fast." Bankrupting the county isn't happening, fast or slow, especially when the county has a colorable argument that the student was in violation. And I do understand that "technically in violation" is a broad term, which is why I acknowledged that the decision possibly could have been overturned with persistence. I don't think the original poster took issue with the possibility of getting a lawyer to help to appeal the decision. I think the poster, and I, take issue with the ridiculousness of saying you'd bankrupt the county so fast, and doubling down when challenged on that.

So which is it, "not happening" (sic) or a "slow process" (sic)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nephew faced similar a expulsion hearing after his dad packed his lunch and included a butter knife for his laughing cow cheese & crackers. The school did take it very seriously even though my BIL was there to tell them he didn't even think that a butter knife would be illegal as he didn't typically pack lunches. Their recommendation was expulsion from the local middle school and enrollment in an alternative school. SIL & BIL checked into that school and it had serious criminals there. Like, kids who'd been to juvie, been in so many fights that they were kicked out or seriously wounded someone, etc. So they enrolled him in a private school instead. This was about 2 years ago. They even hired a good lawyer as well, but he said that schools are taking weapons found on campus more seriously than ever.

That's not a knife or a weapon, it is a condiment spreader. I would have switched schools too. Ridiculous.

+1

I would have bankrupted the county so fast.

Sure you would have.

How would you know? Or have any idea?

Wow, you are so cool.

Answer the question.

DP. I'll answer. Because the chances of an individual being able to bankrupt the County, especially when the kid was technically in violation, are slim to none. Could someone have been persistent enough to get the decision overturned? Of course, but I'd bet that the chance of you getting bankrupt in that pursuit would have been much higher than the county going bankrupt. Also, even if you were able to bankrupt the county (which is nonexistent), it definitely wouldn't be a fast process.

So what if it is not a "fast process"? It can be done. "Technically in violation" is a potentially broad term. There are lawyers that specialize in this type of thing - and they don't just work for the county.

Yes, there are lawyers who specialize in this type of thing, but there is a big difference between getting a decision overturned and "bankrupting the county so fast." Bankrupting the county isn't happening, fast or slow, especially when the county has a colorable argument that the student was in violation. And I do understand that "technically in violation" is a broad term, which is why I acknowledged that the decision possibly could have been overturned with persistence. I don't think the original poster took issue with the possibility of getting a lawyer to help to appeal the decision. I think the poster, and I, take issue with the ridiculousness of saying you'd bankrupt the county so fast, and doubling down when challenged on that.

So which is it, "not happening" (sic) or a "slow process" (sic)?

Keep doubling down on you ridiculous comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bringing a lawyer to the school board meeting is a waste of money, OP. They'll tell you that you and the attorney should have at the school board hearing.

PP above. I still don't understand why OP threw her kid to the wolves at the school board meeting and is just now lawyering up.

Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe OP didn't grasp that grown adults wouldn't get the difference between a 4 inch pocket knife locked in a car and a weapon brought into school to harm others. Maybe she should have understood given the atmosphere we have around violence in school, but I don't think she was throwing her kids to the wolves. She should still hire a lawyer who specializes in this area and has significant experience with the specific school district to see if there is anything that can be done to mitigate the results. That's the best she can do at this point. OP, if you're still on the thread, good luck and post back if you're able to have any of the decisions overturned.

They know the difference. But they don't care. Very likely, they are not permitted to care. The rules are clear, they have to apply them.

If the schools were allowed to make distinctions between "weapons brought by good kids who intended no harm" and "weapons brought by bad kids who intended harm", then the resulting higher expulsion rate for certain minorities relative to whites and Asians would cause loud screams of outrage. If the schools are forced to choose between stupid, blanket zero-tolerance policies and "appearing racist", they will pick the former every time. This is another benefit of glorious diversity, yay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nephew faced similar a expulsion hearing after his dad packed his lunch and included a butter knife for his laughing cow cheese & crackers. The school did take it very seriously even though my BIL was there to tell them he didn't even think that a butter knife would be illegal as he didn't typically pack lunches. Their recommendation was expulsion from the local middle school and enrollment in an alternative school. SIL & BIL checked into that school and it had serious criminals there. Like, kids who'd been to juvie, been in so many fights that they were kicked out or seriously wounded someone, etc. So they enrolled him in a private school instead. This was about 2 years ago. They even hired a good lawyer as well, but he said that schools are taking weapons found on campus more seriously than ever.

That's not a knife or a weapon, it is a condiment spreader. I would have switched schools too. Ridiculous.

+1

I would have bankrupted the county so fast.

Sure you would have.

How would you know? Or have any idea?

Wow, you are so cool.

Answer the question.

DP. I'll answer. Because the chances of an individual being able to bankrupt the County, especially when the kid was technically in violation, are slim to none. Could someone have been persistent enough to get the decision overturned? Of course, but I'd bet that the chance of you getting bankrupt in that pursuit would have been much higher than the county going bankrupt. Also, even if you were able to bankrupt the county (which is nonexistent), it definitely wouldn't be a fast process.

So what if it is not a "fast process"? It can be done. "Technically in violation" is a potentially broad term. There are lawyers that specialize in this type of thing - and they don't just work for the county.

Yes, there are lawyers who specialize in this type of thing, but there is a big difference between getting a decision overturned and "bankrupting the county so fast." Bankrupting the county isn't happening, fast or slow, especially when the county has a colorable argument that the student was in violation. And I do understand that "technically in violation" is a broad term, which is why I acknowledged that the decision possibly could have been overturned with persistence. I don't think the original poster took issue with the possibility of getting a lawyer to help to appeal the decision. I think the poster, and I, take issue with the ridiculousness of saying you'd bankrupt the county so fast, and doubling down when challenged on that.

So which is it, "not happening" (sic) or a "slow process" (sic)?

Keep doubling down on you ridiculous comment.

No answer? Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He should never have agreed to open his car. What is this??

Pretty sure the search was legal since it was on school property, they are allowed to patrol with drug dogs, dog alerts.

In my day the school had an ACLU guy give a presentation to senior classes about our civil rights including search and seizure. Back when we had rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bringing a lawyer to the school board meeting is a waste of money, OP. They'll tell you that you and the attorney should have at the school board hearing.

PP above. I still don't understand why OP threw her kid to the wolves at the school board meeting and is just now lawyering up.

Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe OP didn't grasp that grown adults wouldn't get the difference between a 4 inch pocket knife locked in a car and a weapon brought into school to harm others. Maybe she should have understood given the atmosphere we have around violence in school, but I don't think she was throwing her kids to the wolves. She should still hire a lawyer who specializes in this area and has significant experience with the specific school district to see if there is anything that can be done to mitigate the results. That's the best she can do at this point. OP, if you're still on the thread, good luck and post back if you're able to have any of the decisions overturned.

They know the difference. But they don't care. Very likely, they are not permitted to care. The rules are clear, they have to apply them.

If the schools were allowed to make distinctions between "weapons brought by good kids who intended no harm" and "weapons brought by bad kids who intended harm", then the resulting higher expulsion rate for certain minorities relative to whites and Asians would cause loud screams of outrage. If the schools are forced to choose between stupid, blanket zero-tolerance policies and "appearing racist", they will pick the former every time. This is another benefit of glorious diversity, yay!

Because if a non-Asian minority had a jack knife it couldn't possibly be for any reason other than to assault/rob/kill somebody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nephew faced similar a expulsion hearing after his dad packed his lunch and included a butter knife for his laughing cow cheese & crackers. The school did take it very seriously even though my BIL was there to tell them he didn't even think that a butter knife would be illegal as he didn't typically pack lunches. Their recommendation was expulsion from the local middle school and enrollment in an alternative school. SIL & BIL checked into that school and it had serious criminals there. Like, kids who'd been to juvie, been in so many fights that they were kicked out or seriously wounded someone, etc. So they enrolled him in a private school instead. This was about 2 years ago. They even hired a good lawyer as well, but he said that schools are taking weapons found on campus more seriously than ever.

That's not a knife or a weapon, it is a condiment spreader. I would have switched schools too. Ridiculous.

+1

I would have bankrupted the county so fast.

Sure you would have.

How would you know? Or have any idea?

Wow, you are so cool.

Answer the question.

DP. I'll answer. Because the chances of an individual being able to bankrupt the County, especially when the kid was technically in violation, are slim to none. Could someone have been persistent enough to get the decision overturned? Of course, but I'd bet that the chance of you getting bankrupt in that pursuit would have been much higher than the county going bankrupt. Also, even if you were able to bankrupt the county (which is nonexistent), it definitely wouldn't be a fast process.

So what if it is not a "fast process"? It can be done. "Technically in violation" is a potentially broad term. There are lawyers that specialize in this type of thing - and they don't just work for the county.

Yes, there are lawyers who specialize in this type of thing, but there is a big difference between getting a decision overturned and "bankrupting the county so fast." Bankrupting the county isn't happening, fast or slow, especially when the county has a colorable argument that the student was in violation. And I do understand that "technically in violation" is a broad term, which is why I acknowledged that the decision possibly could have been overturned with persistence. I don't think the original poster took issue with the possibility of getting a lawyer to help to appeal the decision. I think the poster, and I, take issue with the ridiculousness of saying you'd bankrupt the county so fast, and doubling down when challenged on that.

Are you this literal in your sex life? How is that working out for you? LOL.

Meh, probably better than the aggressive "bankrupt the county so fast" PP's sex life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nephew faced similar a expulsion hearing after his dad packed his lunch and included a butter knife for his laughing cow cheese & crackers. The school did take it very seriously even though my BIL was there to tell them he didn't even think that a butter knife would be illegal as he didn't typically pack lunches. Their recommendation was expulsion from the local middle school and enrollment in an alternative school. SIL & BIL checked into that school and it had serious criminals there. Like, kids who'd been to juvie, been in so many fights that they were kicked out or seriously wounded someone, etc. So they enrolled him in a private school instead. This was about 2 years ago. They even hired a good lawyer as well, but he said that schools are taking weapons found on campus more seriously than ever.

That's not a knife or a weapon, it is a condiment spreader. I would have switched schools too. Ridiculous.

+1

I would have bankrupted the county so fast.

Sure you would have.

How would you know? Or have any idea?

Wow, you are so cool.

Answer the question.

DP. I'll answer. Because the chances of an individual being able to bankrupt the County, especially when the kid was technically in violation, are slim to none. Could someone have been persistent enough to get the decision overturned? Of course, but I'd bet that the chance of you getting bankrupt in that pursuit would have been much higher than the county going bankrupt. Also, even if you were able to bankrupt the county (which is nonexistent), it definitely wouldn't be a fast process.

So what if it is not a "fast process"? It can be done. "Technically in violation" is a potentially broad term. There are lawyers that specialize in this type of thing - and they don't just work for the county.

Yes, there are lawyers who specialize in this type of thing, but there is a big difference between getting a decision overturned and "bankrupting the county so fast." Bankrupting the county isn't happening, fast or slow, especially when the county has a colorable argument that the student was in violation. And I do understand that "technically in violation" is a broad term, which is why I acknowledged that the decision possibly could have been overturned with persistence. I don't think the original poster took issue with the possibility of getting a lawyer to help to appeal the decision. I think the poster, and I, take issue with the ridiculousness of saying you'd bankrupt the county so fast, and doubling down when challenged on that.

So which is it, "not happening" (sic) or a "slow process" (sic)?

Keep doubling down on you ridiculous comment.

No answer? Interesting.

Not PP but give it up. No one cares about this but you two and it’s degenerated into a stupid pissing contest that forces everyone to scroll 25 feet past the nonsense. You don’t sound intelligent or respectable, you sound petty and annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bringing a lawyer to the school board meeting is a waste of money, OP. They'll tell you that you and the attorney should have at the school board hearing.

PP above. I still don't understand why OP threw her kid to the wolves at the school board meeting and is just now lawyering up.

Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe OP didn't grasp that grown adults wouldn't get the difference between a 4 inch pocket knife locked in a car and a weapon brought into school to harm others. Maybe she should have understood given the atmosphere we have around violence in school, but I don't think she was throwing her kids to the wolves. She should still hire a lawyer who specializes in this area and has significant experience with the specific school district to see if there is anything that can be done to mitigate the results. That's the best she can do at this point. OP, if you're still on the thread, good luck and post back if you're able to have any of the decisions overturned.

They know the difference. But they don't care. Very likely, they are not permitted to care. The rules are clear, they have to apply them.

If the schools were allowed to make distinctions between "weapons brought by good kids who intended no harm" and "weapons brought by bad kids who intended harm", then the resulting higher expulsion rate for certain minorities relative to whites and Asians would cause loud screams of outrage. If the schools are forced to choose between stupid, blanket zero-tolerance policies and "appearing racist", they will pick the former every time. This is another benefit of glorious diversity, yay!

No, the blanket zero tolerance policy is as a result of all the "mentally ill" white boys who have shot up schools, nothing to with diversity.

[Anonymous]

Petty and annoying is whomever turned this into a race thing. Once again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should never have agreed to open his car. What is this??

Pretty sure the search was legal since it was on school property, they are allowed to patrol with drug dogs, dog alerts.

In my day the school had an ACLU guy give a presentation to senior classes about our civil rights including search and seizure. Back when we had rights.

+1

Close in NVA high schools don't even have lockers, because lockers were such a grey area, legally.

[Anonymous]

The school is outrageous. Lawyer up.