Search Results for: ucsb

UCSB HID Federal Settlement From Judge In Title IX Due Process Loss, Drastically Lowering Its Penalty

, , /

UCSB HID Federal Settlement From Judge In Title IX Due Process Loss, Drastically Lowering Its Penalty

The University of California-Santa Barbara hid an agreement with federal regulators from a judge considering how to penalize the university for violating a student’s rights, according to his lawyer, Robert Ottilie. Ottilie asked for $465,000 in “private attorney general fees” about a month after UCSB signed the agreement with OCR. Instead, he got $5,000 on the basis that his client’s win did not help students at large.

The existence of the September 2018 “resolution agreement” with the Education Dept.’s Office for Civil Rights could have led the judge to award “John Doe” hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees. Instead, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle issued a mild chastisement to the taxpayer-funded institution for running an “arbitrary and unreasonable” Title IX proceeding. Ottilie said that the existence of the agreement shows that UCSB misrepresented the status of the federal investigation to Judge Anderle.

While the investigation found John innocent of the allegations, Ottilie said that his permanent record still reflects an interim suspension from the investigation’s launch in 2016. UCSB did not respond to queries from The Fix on the agreement, which Ottilie obtained through a California Public Records Act request. His appeal of the low fee award is scheduled to be heard by a higher California court this month.

thecollegefix.com-Poff

SETTLEMENT. CA COURTS Continue to Rebuke, Chastise UCSB for Sneaky Unlawful Acts Against Males

, , , , /

SETTLEMENT. CA COURTS Continue to Rebuke, Chastise UCSB for Sneaky Unlawful Acts Against Males

I am very happy for this settlement for this John Doe. But since 2016 California Judges have repeatedly chastised UC Santa Barbara for violating the due process rights of Title IX accused males, and scolded TIX staff for withholding evidence. UCSB has been found in contempt of court, and judges have “serious serious questions” for UCSB’S unlawful actions towards accused males. Below is a short list of court decisions against UC Santa Barbara.

UC Santa Barbra found in contempt of court: A judge in the Santa Barbara County Superior Court has found the University of California, Santa Barbara in contempt of court for failing to comply with a court decision regarding the rights of an accused student in a campus sexual misconduct proceeding.

UC Regents Found in Contempt Of Court, Expelled Student Allowed to Return to UCSB: Judge Donna D. Geck ruled the UC Regents failed to provide a fair hearing for the accused student, known in court documents as John Doe, in a Title IX investigation.

JUDGE Rebukes UCSB for Using ‘Trauma Informed’ Approach in Title IX Proceeding: UCSB Ordered to Pay Accused Student $31K. Judge Tara Desautels specifically faulted the “trauma informed” training that was used in the University of California-Santa Barbara’s proceeding against “John Doe.”

CA Appeal Have ‘Serious, Serious Questions.” UCSB Denies Due Process to Accused Male: “I read this record, and I was stunned at a university procedure which purports to be fair and equitable puts a kid [the accused was a freshman] who’s attempting to get a college education in the position of, essentially, a lawyer in a major sexual assault case.” -Justice Perren

Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Donna D. Geck found that UCSB hadn’t followed her earlier mandate to re-evaluate accusations against a male student based on evidence presented in court and in a campus hearing.

CA Court of Appeals is Angry at UCSB for Denying Due Process: “John was denied access to critical evidence; denied the opportunity to adequately cross-examine witnesses; and denied the opportunity to present evidence in his defense. UCSB denied John a fair hearing. We reverse.”  Appellate court decision.

UCSB’s Terrible Case Shows the High Cost of ‘Believe Women’: UCSB violated a basic rule of evidence, withheld key information from John until the day before the hearing, refused to let him question the accuser about that information, and then allowed its lawyer to render objections to John’s case. The court’s conclusion was stinging: “It is ironic,” said the court “that an institution of higher learning, where American history and government are taught, should stray so far from the principles that underlie our democracy.”

JUDGE Chastises UCSB’s Sandra Vasquez in a court order for concealing evidence in a Title IX investigation. Vasquez concealed two pieces of material evidence despite assuring the accused student that she had disclosed to him all information. Judge Thomas Anderle chastised Vasquez and her colleagues for violating the student’s due process rights and ordered the university to lift the suspension against him. (Vasquez is now Pitzer’s Dean of Students & TIX Coordinator) Because the UCSB student suffered “irreparable harm” at the hands of Vasquez and other officials, the judge explained, the student merited full judicial relief.

Why did Sandra Vasquez Destroy an Innocent Low Income Minority Male at USCB?  “The University has made a decision to deny John Doe the opportunity to enroll in the any of the first three quarters of his freshman year. But instead of making that decision based upon the facts, the law, and in fairness, it has decided to do it their own way.” Judge Anderle

READ Numerous Judgments against UCSB for Denying Due Process -Alice True

UCSB Ruined an Innocent Male’s Life With a Shameful TitleIX Process. UCSB Got a Slap on the Wrist.

, , /

UCSB Ruined an Innocent Male’s Life With a Shameful TitleIX Process. UCSB Got a Slap on the Wrist.

The University of California-Santa Barbara suspended an accused student based on physical abuse claims that his non-student accuser recanted before the Title IX investigation started.

It did not lift the “interim” suspension, which prevented “John Doe” from starting his freshman year, until a judge ordered it to let him back on campus with no restrictions in spring 2017. Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle said the university’s conduct through the process was “arbitrary and unreasonable.” Yet the public university will pay Doe less than $5,000 for the trouble it has caused him since fall 2016. In an Oct. 23 order, Anderle flatly rejected a motion by Doe’s attorney for nearly $465,000 in “private attorney general fees” under California law. The statute is intended to reward plaintiffs who enforce “an important right affecting the public interest” that helps a “broad class of citizens,” as if they were acting as attorney general.

thecollegefix By Jeremiah Poff

COURT RULING: UCSB- A TERRIBLE College Case Shows the High Cost of ‘Believe Women’

, , , /

COURT RULING: UCSB- A TERRIBLE College Case Shows the High Cost of ‘Believe Women’

 A California state court of appeals handed down a decision in a case against the University of California–Santa Barbara that should remind us all of the high costs of a rush to judgment. It should remind us all of the value of due process. So, let’s review — the university violated a basic rule of evidence, withheld key information from John until the day before the hearing, refused to let him question the accuser about that information, and then allowed its lawyer to render objections to John’s case. The court’s conclusion was stinging: “It is ironic,” said the court “that an institution of higher learning, where American history and government are taught, should stray so far from the principles that underlie our democracy.” From coast to coast, accused students — typically men punished for sexual assault with barely a chance to defend themselves — are filing lawsuits containing often-shocking claims. Judges, accustomed to the value of due process, often find themselves stunned at the unfairness of campus proceedings. And if you think that wrongful convictions for sexual assault aren’t serious because the men don’t go to prison, well then talk to the young men whose careers and reputations are shattered before they’ve had a chance to build a life. We cannot have our culture believe that the way of the university is the way forward for our nation. The guiding principles should be clear. Respect women and hear their claims. But “believe women”? No, believe evidence, and give every accused a fair opportunity to defend his liberty, his education, and his career.

nationalreview  By David French

UCSB: She Said He Assaulted Her. Witnesses IN THE ROOM Said It Didn’t Happen. He Was Suspended. By Ashe Schow

HUGE WIN For John Doe: CA Court of Appeals is Angry at UCSB for Denying Due Process

, , , , /

HUGE WIN For John Doe: CA Court of Appeals is Angry at UCSB for Denying Due Process

            John Doe Won! 

Below is the first paragraph from the CA Court of Appeals published decision:

“Due process – two preeminent words that are the lifeblood of our Constitution. Not a precise term, but most everyone knows when it is present and when it is not. It is often most conspicuous by its absence. Its primary characteristic is fairness. It is self-evident that a trial, an adjudication, or a hearing that may adversely affect a person’s life must be conducted with fairness to all parties. Here, a university held a hearing to determine whether a student violated its student code of conduct. Noticeably absent was even a semblance “of due process. When the accused does not receive a fair hearing, neither does the accuser.”

In closing the CA Appeals Court wrote:

The (UCSB) Committee reached a significant finding based on nothing more than speculation. We question the committee’s expertise to arrive at this startling conclusion. It is ironic that an institution of higher learning, where American history and government are taught, should stray so far from the principles that underlie our democracy. This case turned on the Committee’s determination of the credibility of the witnesses. Credibility cannot be properly decided until the accused is given the opportunity to adequately respond to the accusation. The lack of due process in the hearing here precluded a fair evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility. In this respect, neither Jane nor John received a fair hearing. The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to grant John’s petition for a writ of administrative mandate. John is awarded costs on appeal.”

 simplejustice By Scott Greenfield READ the Court’s Published Decision 

 

 

JUDGE Holds UC Santa Barbara in Contempt. Orders UCSB to Reinstate Innocent John Doe.

, , , /

JUDGE Holds UC Santa Barbara in Contempt. Orders UCSB to Reinstate Innocent John Doe.

The University of California-Santa Barbara (UCSB) has been found in contempt of court after it violated a court order to re-evaluate its findings and punishment against a male student accused of stalking a female student.

The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department found no evidence that John was responsible for anything Jane claimed, but UCSB’s Title IX investigator, Quillen, conducted an investigation anyway. John has maintained that UCSB failed to provide him with the evidence against him, including a copy of a timeline prepared by Jane documenting his alleged stalking. John said in his lawsuit that he presented evidence “that he was elsewhere in his own class at certain times and his smartphone location information contradicted Jane Roe’s claim at other times.” Despite this, and the fact there was no corroborating evidence for Jane’s claims, Quillen determined, by the preponderance of evidence, that it was more likely than not that John stalked Jane. He was expelled. John appealed, arguing the investigation wasn’t fair, the decision was unreasonable based on the evidence, that there was new evidence, and that the punishment was disproportionate to the findings. His appeal was denied. So John sued.

Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Donna D. Geck, found that UCSB hadn’t followed her earlier mandate to re-evaluate accusations against a male student based on evidence presented in court and in a campus hearing, instead of just what was included in a campus administrator’s report. In finding that the school violated its mandate — by copying word-for-word its original findings against the male student but adding a single sentence at the top claiming it reached the identical conclusion based on the additional evidence — Geck ordered the school to vacate UCSB’s decision against the student and reinstate him.

dailywire.com By Ashe Schow

CA APPEALS ‘Serious, Serious Questions.” UCSB Denies Due Process to Accused Male

, , /

CA APPEALS ‘Serious, Serious Questions.” UCSB Denies Due Process to Accused Male

Last week, a three-judge California appellate panel heard the first of at least five appeals in campus due process cases against the University of California-Santa Barbara. Oral argument came before Justices Arthur Gilbert, Steven Perren, and Kenneth Yegan, each of whom seemed dubious about UCSB’s handling of the case. At one point, Justice Gilbert acknowledged that “we’ve really tipped our hand” in revealing the panel’s “serious, serious questions” about the due process given to the accused student. Justice Perren was the most skeptical of the university’s actions. He noted that, “I read this record, and I was stunned at a university procedure which purports to be fair and equitable puts a kid [the accused was a freshman] who’s attempting to get a college education in the position of, essentially, a lawyer in a major sexual assault case.”  UCSB’s lawyer pushed back on this point, claiming that Perren had minimized the trauma of the victim. This point brought a strong rejoinder from Perren, who noted that “your argument assumes its conclusion”—that the accuser was, in fact, a victim. Much of the hearing focused on what would happen if the court sided with the accused student. Justice Gilbert raised this early on, wondering what would happen if the court just decided UCSB denied due process—and what occurred if the court found there was no substantial evidence of guilt at all. Justice Yegan, meanwhile, focused on the appearance of unfairness—noting that the university was, in effect, investigating and judging itself, instead of choosing to have an outside adjudicator. He also worried about the unfairness of a process in which the accused student’s lawyer could not speak, but the university’s counsel could. The university’s lawyer, Jonathan Miller, defended the procedures by repeatedly claiming that mandates from Title IX and OCR required the university to adjudicate sexual assault claims. But nothing from OCR requires (as happened here) the accused student to have a silent lawyer or not to be able to gather and present expert testimony.

academicwonderland.com  By KC Johnson

JUDGE REBUKES UCSB for Using ‘Trauma Informed’ Approach in TitleIX Proceeding. Ordered to Pay Accused Student $31K

, , , , /

JUDGE REBUKES UCSB for Using ‘Trauma Informed’ Approach in TitleIX Proceeding. Ordered to Pay Accused Student $31K

Administrators in California public colleges should sit up and take notice of a new ruling out of the state Superior Court against the University of California regents. Not only were they ordered to pay $31,000 to an accused student in a Title IX proceeding, but Judge Tara Desautels specifically faulted the “trauma informed” training that was used in the University of California-Santa Barbara’s proceeding against “John Doe.” This approach to investigating sexual violence, commonly used in Title IX proceedings nationwide and increasingly in police investigations, has come under fire from neuroscience researchers and legal experts as unscientific and biased against accused people. It essentially tells investigators and adjudicators to view inconsistent and shifting explanations by accusers as evidence they were victimized.

thecollegefix.com By Greg Piper

1 2 3