Monthly Archives: June 2018

AS ‘Believe the Victim’ Scandals Engulf England, US Investigations Embrace #StartByBelieving

, , , /

AS ‘Believe the Victim’ Scandals Engulf England, US Investigations Embrace #StartByBelieving

Alison Saunders was a crafty prosecutor who rose through the ranks of the English Crown Prosecution Service, and was named director in 2013. Saunders’ top priority was to prosecute sex assault cases more aggressively, promising a one-third increase in prosecuted cases by 2015.  Saunders’ solution can be summed up in a eight words: “affirmative consent,” “believe the victim,” and “hide the ball.” Alarm bells began to sound last December when media accounts revealed a growing number of rape cases in which police failed to disclose crucial evidence to defense counsel. One article lamented, “the number of aborted trials, often at the 11th hour, has soared by 70% in the past two years.” In response, Alison Saunders doubled down, embracing the “believe the victim” ideology, by which investigators are told to blindly “start by believing” the complainant’s story. But this tactic failed and the most devastating revelations revealed that police had been “trained to hide vital evidence” exonerating the accused. On April 2, Police Commissioner Cressida Dick announced the London police were being ordered to abandon its practice of believing all sex crime complainants, explaining, “Our job is not all about victims. Our job in investigations is to be fair, to be impartial, and when appropriate to bring things to justice.”.. Ironically, here in the United States, a ‘believe the victim’ movement is growing and gaining support.  If there is any doubt about the “convict first, ask-questions-later” mindset of the #StartByBelieving proponents, consider this recent admonition by a campus sex investigator: “[Accusers] need the college- and you as its representative- to unequivocally state upon receipt of the allegations, ‘I believe you. I believe that what happened was unacceptable and a violation of our policy, and we will bring you justice.’”

ifeminists.net By E. Everett Bartlett

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
2ND LAWSUIT for OLE MISS. Accused Male Claims He’s a Victim of Gender Bias.

, , /

2ND LAWSUIT for OLE MISS. Accused Male Claims He’s a Victim of Gender Bias.

John Doe filed a lawsuit against the University of Mississippi alleging he was a victim of gender bias in the university’s disciplinary process, becoming the second former student to accuse the university of gender discrimination this year. According to the lawsuit, Roe visited Doe’s dorm room in March 2017,  where the two engaged in sexual relations. Roe then accused John Doe of assault. According to the lawsuit, “When interviewed about her [alleged] assault, Jane Roe said that she did not initially believe she was raped but her friends told her that he was,” and that “Roe asked the officer to delay contacting John Doe about her allegations until after a sorority party, because she thought she might see Doe at the party that evening.”  The Title IX office interviewed Doe, and he claimed the accusation was false and the sex was consensual. The lawsuit states that the Title IX investigation did not accept key pieces of evidence that Doe brought forth and the investigation was biased against him. The lawsuit also claims Doe was “denied basic procedural due process and was not allowed to subpoena witnesses or cross-examine other witnesses. According to the lawsuit, in the fall of 2017, the University Judicial Council ruled that Doe was “responsible” for violating the university’s sexual misconduct policy and suspended him from Nov.  2017, through August 2018. Doe appealed the suspension ruling, but his appeal was denied and his suspension was increased to an expulsion from University of Mississippi.

thedmonline.com By Taylor Vance

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
LAWSUIT: UM ‘Complicit in Victimizing’ the Accused. Fball Players Sue UM Over ‘Discriminatory’ Punishment.

, , /

LAWSUIT: UM ‘Complicit in Victimizing’ the Accused. Fball Players Sue UM Over ‘Discriminatory’ Punishment.

Nine black football players are suing the University of Minnesota for racial and gender discrimination, claiming in their lawsuit that UM discriminated against them by punishing them for what they say was consensual sex with a white female student. The complaint asserts that the males engaged in consensual sex with the female in 2016, but her mother reported it to police as a sexual assault. Although no criminal charges were filed, the university accused 10 Gophers football players of sexual misconduct after its own investigation. Five students were expelled or suspended, while the others were cleared on appeal. The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court, asserts that the university trampled the civil rights of the accused football players, all black males, during UM’s investigation into the alleged rape of a white female student  The lawsuit asserts that the woman initiated the sexual encounters, and that she changed her story multiple times.  The lawsuit claims that the U “willfully and maliciously” turned the players into scapegoats through a biased investigation that deprived them “of the most basic due process and equal protection rights.”  “Race discrimination also played a central role,” according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit says the young men suffered “severe emotional distress and financial damage” as a result of “being falsely cast as sex offenders.” The lawsuit also says UM and top administrators, including President Eric Kaler, “were complicit in victimizing” the accused students.

twincities.com By Verges startribune.com By Lerner & Olsen

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
NEW SURVEY: Vast Majority of College Students Want Due Process Rights

, , , /

NEW SURVEY: Vast Majority of College Students Want Due Process Rights

  • A new survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education finds that a vast majority of college students support fundamental due process protections in campus disciplinary hearings in order to ensure they are fair. Most top college and universities, however, fail to provide them.
  • 85 percent of respondents think students accused of misconduct should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but only 30 percent of top schools guarantee this vital protection.
  • Colleges argue that due process can be minimal because hearings are merely “educational.” Students overwhelmingly disagree, with 84 percent responding that the primary purpose of a campus disciplinary hearing is to provide justice and protection to students on campus.

theFIRE.org

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
SAIF KHAN. Jury Found Him Innocent. Next Step. Yale Finally Lifts His Suspension

, , /

SAIF KHAN. Jury Found Him Innocent. Next Step. Yale Finally Lifts His Suspension

On June 7, Yale College Dean Marvin Chun informed Saif that he could re-enroll in classes as early as this summer. “Because the criminal proceedings against you have ended and you have been found not guilty, I am removing your suspension. You, therefore, are eligible to enroll in Yale summer session if you wish to resume taking Yale courses. The removal of your suspension does not impact your case before the UWC, which will be adjudicated pursuant to the UWC Procedures.”  Cynthia Garrett, Director of FACE  and advisor to Khan responded, “Yale lifting his suspension, his interim suspension, it’s like a Pyrrhic victory.  Yes, you can take classes, but obviously they are aware from the previous how many years that he doesn’t have the money to take classes, nor does he have the money to live on Yale’s campus or anywhere else in the Yale area. He is again depending on the kindness of others.”

yaledailynews.com By O’Daly

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
A WIN For the Falsely Accused. CA Judge Orders Chico State to Set Aside Expulsion of Male

, , /

A WIN For the Falsely Accused. CA Judge Orders Chico State to Set Aside Expulsion of Male

On May 30, 2018 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant entered judgment against California State University, Chico and ordered the university to set aside the expulsion of an accused male student resulting from a faulty Title IX sexual misconduct investigation.   In the ruling granting the student’s court appeal, Judge Chalfant found that the university gave the student inadequate notice of the charges and “Chico State failed to follow fair procedure, and CSU policy in not providing [the student] with the evidence against him, and an opportunity to rebut it, before making a decision on his guilt.”  In addition, Chico State failed to give the student the opportunity to pose questions to the complainant or other witnesses. Chico State initiated their Title IX investigation in August 2015, when Chico State students Jane Roe and her then boyfriend accused John Doe of sexually assaulting Ms. Roe seven months earlier.  In February 2015, Jane Roe began dating her boyfriend but also engaged in sexual activity with a guy who was not her boyfriend, ie: John Doe. Roe and Doe had sex at an off-campus party, in a laundry room and outside in an alley.  After having sex, Jane gave John her cell phone number and stayed at the party with her friends.  Months later when Roe’s boyfriend heard rumors about the sexual encounter, he confronted his girlfriend, Roe.  Jane Roe [lied] and told her boyfriend, “I was raped by John.”  The boyfriend “threw a hissy fit” and initiated the Title IX investigation of John Doe.  Jane Roe told the Title IX investigator that she had been incapacitated by alcohol at the party, but regained capacity at some point while performing oral sex on John Doe in the alley outside the party house.  Jane Roe also claimed she had secretly recorded the encounter, but when asked to produce the recording, she said the recording had been deleted.   John Doe v.  Trustees of Calif. State Univ., Los Angeles Superior Court case no. BS167261

20180412 PT Order Granting

Writ20180604 Judgment

Mark M. Hathaway and Jenna E. Eyrich, Werksman Jackson Hathaway & Quinn  represented the student, Petitioner.

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
JOHN DOE Exposes GW’s Abuse & Misdeeds in Reply Brief. “GW’s desperation here is palpable.”

, , , , /

JOHN DOE Exposes GW’s Abuse & Misdeeds in Reply Brief. “GW’s desperation here is palpable.”

Newly obtained evidence in Title IX-related litigation against George Washington University suggests that the school does not understand that a rideshare vehicle does not pick you up the instant you book the ride. The key question in GW’s investigation into Jane Roe’s allegations against John Doe, and the resulting due-process lawsuit filed by Doe, was how intoxicated Roe was as they returned to his room in an Uber trip. In a filing last week, ahead of Wednesday’s scheduled hearing on summary judgment motions, Doe said the university’s newly provided evidence of Roe’s own phone records reveals its “spectacular misreading” of those records. “Ms. Roe’s phone records confirm in stunning detail everything that Mr. Doe has said from the beginning and erase whatever residual doubt there might be about whether Ms. Roe was incapacitated and whether she has told the truth about that night,” the reply brief states. The school’s response to Doe’s claims that his appeal was wrongly rejected also revealed that GWU has been judging appeals by the wrong standard for “at least six years.”  The years of errors by the appellate officer suggest that if the court rules in Doe’s favor, “the judge will need to provide clear guidance on how GWU should proceed, since the university can’t be counted on to follow its own rules,” Prof. KC Johnson said.  GW also did not ask for the phone records during Doe’s hearing and only used them after Doe filed suit, according to the brief. “GW’s desperation here is palpable,” the brief states. “No school produces a declaration affirming that it has processed six years’ worth of appeals contrary to a federal judge’s reading of its code, or goes hunting for phone records that undermine the accuser in the process it is defending, unless it has no other choice.”

See KC Johnson’s @GWtweets case (a) GW appeals officer has consistently used wrong standard (b) GW had access to even more exculpatory evidence (c) GW’s new evidence confirms accuser/key witness lied.

gwhatchet.com By D.Grace  thecollegefix.com By M.Keller

 

 

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
SETTLEMENT: DUKE Hands Lewis McLeod His Degree, and Lewis is now an Alumni!

, , , /

SETTLEMENT: DUKE Hands Lewis McLeod His Degree, and Lewis is now an Alumni!

Duke student, Lewis McLeod has finally been given the degree he earned four years ago. Lewis was accused of sexual assault one semester before he was set to graduate. The alleged incident took place in the fall of 2013 following a night of drinking, as so many of these accusations do. Lewis maintained the sex was consensual, while the accuser claimed she was too drunk to consent. The accusing female went to police, but after an investigation, they declined to file a report. So then she went to Duke’s student conduct office and filed a report. At the time, Duke’s misconduct policy stated that an individual “incapacitated due to alcohol” cannot freely consent to sex, but that “being intoxicated does not diminish one’s responsibility to obtain consent.” In practice, however, being intoxicated, rather than incapacitated, appears to be all the university needs to find one student responsible for sexual assault. In testimony during McLeod’s lawsuit, Duke Dean Sue Wasiolek said the senior was tried under a new expulsion rule that hadn’t been written down yet and was the result of a calculated activist campaign. She was asked during testimony if two students were both incapacitated under Duke’s policy, whether that would be mutual rape. Wasiolek replied: “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.” She also said giving McLeod his degree would damage the university’s reputation.The trial date was repeatedly pushed, until February 2018 when Duke settled with McLeod, finally giving him his degree and expunging his record. As author and professor K.C. Johnson noted on Twitter, however, the damage has already been done: “Duke’s actions: (a) cost him a job; and (b) forced him to leave the country [because] he lost his visa.”

thefederalist.com By Ashe Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
INNOCENT. Grand Jury Does Not Indict Baylor Athletes Accused Of Sex Assault. Facts Matter.

, , , /

INNOCENT. Grand Jury Does Not Indict Baylor Athletes Accused Of Sex Assault. Facts Matter.

Two Baylor University football players accused of sexual assault against fellow students were cleared Wednesday by a McLennan County grand jury. A statement from McLennan District Attorney Abel Reyna said “After carefully considering the evidence, the grand jury determined that there was not sufficient evidence to proceed to trial” Reyna stated. “We commend the grand jury members for their diligent work and we agree with and respect their decision.” According to the statement, the evidence reviewed included Baylor’s Title IX Investigations, police reports, witness statements, and victim interviews. A Baylor spokeswoman Wednesday said the players’ status with the team remains unchanged.

wacotrib.com By Phillip Ericksen

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
GOOD GUY Jack Montague: Update

, , , /

GOOD GUY Jack Montague: Update

Jack Montague was a true scholar-athlete, an Ivy Leaguer and star point guard recognized for his brains, skills and leadership.  Montague’s was a case that never should have been brought. The accuser was unwilling to file a complaint herself- despite strong pressure from Yale’s Title IX officials. So Yale’s Title IX officials filed the complaint themselves—ignoring their own procedures.

For those of us with sons who have lived through the cancerous virus of a TitleIX accusation I can tell you that I admire and respect Jack Montague for persevering through his Yale injustices.  Jack is a survivor, and in spite of the disturbing and illegal treatment he is receiving from Yale, Jack will succeed. In a court of law facts and evidence do matter, and his Truth will be heard and he will win. Below is an update with regards to his pending lawsuit.

Lawsuit Update:

Trial was set to begin in February but was pushed back due to the discovery period lasting longer than expected. In March, a U.S. District Judge denied Jack’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which would have allowed him to return to his studies at Yale while the case progressed. The court concluded that the harms Jack claimed as “irreparable” are actually quantifiable and can be remedied through monetary compensation, therefore his request for reinstatement lacked urgency and was not sufficient for an injunction. Jack’s attorney, Max Stern, said he was satisfied with the reasoning and looks forward to trial.

Trial was then unofficially scheduled for this summer but has since been moved to the first week of October. Yale has applied for summary judgment in an attempt to remove or clarify some of the claims that Jack and his legal team can use during trial.

In the meantime, Saif Khan, a Yale student suspended on rape allegations, was found not guilty in a criminal court case in March. This ruling will seemingly weaken the credibility of Yale’s sexual assault panel and bolster the allegations made by Jack’s team. Also, this case was decided by a jury, providing even more confidence to Jack and his team since his case will be a jury decision as well.

-Post by Alice True

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
1 2 3