Monthly Archives: March 2019

SETTLEMENT: Texas A&M Held TitleIX Trial While Hospitalized Male Couldn’t Defend Himself

, , /

SETTLEMENT: Texas A&M Held TitleIX Trial While Hospitalized Male Couldn’t Defend Himself

Texas A&M should be avoided by college males. There are multiple lawsuits against the university for violating due process rights of students accused of sex. (SOS will not always say rape, as most Title IX accusations are not rape, they are consent sex regret accusations or ex-girlfriend accusations, or childish accusations over a consent kiss or hug)  Thankfully TAMU and John Doe have settled one particular case. This is the case where John Doe was put on suicide watch, then tried and convicted in absentia…Doe was a Texas A&M University cadet who was suspended following a sex charge he never got to see – because he was hospitalized. Doe’s federal lawsuit claimed that he was unable to “meaningfully defend himself” when Title IX investigators refused to reschedule a conduct meeting that would have revealed the specific accusations of his partner, with whom he had an open sexual relationship.“ According to the lawsuit, at all times John Doe was deemed guilty.”  “This extreme and severe sanction was not warranted in light of the lack of evidence.” When John was permitted access to a computer from in-patient treatment, he learned he had been found responsible on all charges: sexual contact, sexual abuse, dating violence and “Conduct Unbecoming a Cadet.”  I am so grateful for this settlement. SOS wishes great success and a productive harmonious life for this innocent John Doe. #blessings

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
SETTLEMENT SOON: White Accuses Black Male. No Sex. He Was Cleared by Police, MSU Expelled Him. Now MSU is Settling w Male.

, , /

SETTLEMENT SOON: White Accuses Black Male. No Sex. He Was Cleared by Police, MSU Expelled Him. Now MSU is Settling w Male.

Background on Mumphery’s lawsuit that is being settled: The lawsuit stated he completely cooperated with police, while the woman did not. It also claimed that the MSU investigator looking into the case cleared Mumphery, but the university had a predetermined outcome it wanted. “The Defendants believed that the easiest way to accomplish this was to ignore the due process rights of Plaintiff (who had graduated from Michigan State and was training in Florida) by repeatedly and systematically failing to give him notice of the appeal and subsequent renewed investigation,” Mumphery’s lawsuit said. MSU then kicked Mumphery off campus and barred him from coming back until 2019. The lawsuit noted the Detroit Free Press wrote an article on May 31, 2017, revealing the expulsion, and that led to Mumphery being cut from the Houston Texans football team.

“As a result of these due process violations, Plaintiff continues to suffer ongoing harm, including damages to his reputation, permanent loss of employment opportunities, and other economic and non-economic damages,” the 55-page lawsuit says. “In particular, the discipline imposed by Michigan State has permanently damaged his career prospects in his chosen profession, denied him the benefits of education at his chosen school after his career as a professional athlete is completed thereby damaging the post-athletic career he intended to pursue after his professional football career, and damaged Plaintiff’s academic and professional reputation.”…..My heart goes out to Keith Mumphery. He graduated, he’s innocent and his NFL career should never have faltered. I blame the junk science of ‘believe accuser’ and the Title IX extreme feminists who target college males out of revenge and spite. My love and prayers are for innocent Keith. #blessings. -Alice

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
ST. LOUIS NAACP Exposes TitleIX’s Racism: ‘The Denial of Due Process Disproportionately Impacts African American Men’

, /

ST. LOUIS NAACP Exposes TitleIX’s Racism: ‘The Denial of Due Process Disproportionately Impacts African American Men’

Law professors across the racial and political spectrum have no trouble acknowledging it. Now a Missouri chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is speaking up about the racism of the Title IX adjudication system. The St. Louis chapter of the African-American civil rights organization is supporting state legislation to make campus sexual-assault trials more fair to accused students.

It’s a brave decision for the group, which will undoubtedly face hostility from other progressive organizations that have tarred the legislation as harmful to alleged survivors of sexual assault. “The denial of due process at Missouri’s colleges disproportionately impacts African American men,” John Gaskin III, president of the chapter, wrote in a statement. “And that’s why we call for immediate due process reforms.”

The House and Senate bills would simply provide basic due-process guarantees for students that have already been imposed on colleges across the country by both federal and state appeals courts, including in politically progressive California. The House bill is being sponsored by a victim of sexual assault, who previously told The College Fix that it’s an insult to victims to “believe all women.”

thecollegefix.com-Greg Piper

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
COURTS RULING on Side of Students Accused of Sex & Against Universities. Here’s Why.

, , /

COURTS RULING on Side of Students Accused of Sex & Against Universities. Here’s Why.

 

Nearly a year after having what he claimed was consensual sex and she claimed was assault, the two Aquinas College students were back together, this time separated by a curtain. For 50 minutes they appeared in front of a panel of college employees. In a 10-minute opening statement, the male student defended himself against charges he had sexually assaulted the female student. The female student offered no opening statement. A few questions from the panel later, the hearing was done. Six days later the male student was expelled. Ten months later he filed a federal lawsuit. Several months after that, Aquinas settled the lawsuit. Those involved are barred from talking about the case by the agreement. In filing, the Aquinas student joined a growing tide of male students, accused in campus proceedings of sexually assaulting fellow students, who have lodged federal lawsuits against their schools, alleging discrimination and violations of their due process rights.

“It’s the end of the beginning,” said Andrew Miltenberg, an attorney who represents accused students. Big universities including the University of Southern California, Pennsylvania State University and Ohio State have lost. Smaller schools, including Hofstra University, Boston College and Claremont McKenna College have also been on the losing end of decisions. Another group of schools, including Northwestern University, Dartmouth College and Yale have settled lawsuits. “I still think there’s a lot of confusion out there on what needs to be done (by universities) and there was a need for courts to step in because universities, on their own, weren’t going to get (to fair due process) on their own” Miltenberg said.

Growing number of lawsuits: In 2011, the Obama administration issued what became known as the “Dear Colleague” letter, demanding colleges up their game when it came to sexual assault complaints. Schools also switched to a single investigator method and trauma-informed processes. The single investigator model works by having a single university employee or outside expert interview the accuser, the accused and any witnesses separately and then write up a report. Both sides often have a chance to review the report, but can’t ask each other or witnesses questions.  Since the “Dear Colleague” letter, there have been 319 federal cases in which some action has been taken. Universities have lost 137 decisions, mostly motions to dismiss the lawsuit. They’ve won 119 times. They have ended cases with confidential settlements 63 times. Those numbers don’t count the cases filed and still working through the system. The estimate is one federal case is filed every two weeks. That also doesn’t count cases filed in state court systems.

Case study – University of Michigan: Perhaps the most cited recent ruling in court cases is a lawsuit stemming from the University of Michigan and an appeals court ruling. “Today, we reiterate that holding once again: If a public university has to choose between competing narratives to resolve a case, the university must give the accused student or his agent an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses in the presence of a neutral fact-finder,” the court wrote. “Due process requires cross-examination in circumstances like these because it is ‘the greatest legal engine ever invented’ for uncovering the truth. Without the back-and-forth of adversarial questioning, the accused cannot probe the witness’ story to test her memory, intelligence, or potential ulterior motives.”

The impact of the cases: Students getting expelled for sexual assault accusations felt branded and that they would suffer reputation harm that would last well past college. So when they saw flaws, they began to sue and courts began to question procedures. Universities are definitely aware of the court trend, Miltenberg said. He is finding he can draft a complaint listing a number of issues, present it to the university before filing and have universities tell them to slow down the process and work with them to get a fair hearing.

freep.com D. Jesse

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter

, , , /

EX-USC KICKER Sues. While Playing w Girlfriend a ‘Third-Party Non-Witness’ Accused USC Kicker & Got Him Expelled 2 Credits Shy of Graduating

Former USC kicker Matt Boermeester has filed a lawsuit in United States District Court, alleging the school ruined both his academic and athletic careers when he was expelled from the university after a “third-party, non-witness filed a false report” about a supposed altercation between him and his girlfriend in early 2017. The lawsuit includes seven causes of action, including selective Title IX enforcement, breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and represents the latest step in Boermeester’s ongoing legal battle with the school. In 2017, Boermeester, who remains two classes shy of graduation, sued for his expulsion to be overturned in superior court, but the attempt was unsuccessful.

USC initiated an investigation into the incident involving Boermeester and his girlfriend, former USC tennis player Zoe Katz, after a USC student told his roommate he saw a physical altercation between the couple out his window late one night. The roommate told his father, USC men’s tennis coach Peter Smith, about the incident and Smith reported what he was told to the school, as required by law. The couple who is still together insisted that they were just playing around and that nothing untoward happened. USC saw things differently and reached out to Katz to help her. Administrators in the school’s Title IX office allegedly told Katz she was a victim, even as she denied being one. She said one administrator told her, “I’m sorry that you feel that way” when she denied being attacked by her boyfriend. School officials, according to Katz, claimed she had battered wife syndrome and just couldn’t see that she was a victim. Boermeester and Katz, who remain in a relationship, both vehemently denied the university’s conclusion. Boermeester was never arrested, nor was he the subject of a police investigation.

“I want to be very clear that I have never been abused, assaulted or otherwise mistreated by Matt,” Katz said in the statement. “He is an incredible person, and I am and have been 100% behind him. Nothing happened that warranted an investigation, much less the unfair, biased and drawn out process that we have been forced to endure quietly.”

“What happened to Matt Boermeester at USC should terrify anyone who believes in the right to due process and innocent-until-proven-guilty,” said Matt’s attorney Andrew Miltenberg. “Based on nothing more than a third-party report by a non-witness – essentially a rumor that was easily and repeatedly disputed – a star athlete lost his education and his future career in the NFL. “By subscribing to anti-male stereotypes and insisting that the girlfriend of a football player must somehow be a victim, [Means] and USC officials have made a complete mockery of the Title IX process. The process my client was forced to endure and the end result was nothing less than abusive” said Miltenberg. READ Federal Lawsuit: Boermeester v USC, et al

espn.com -Bonagura dailywire.com -Schow usatoday.com -Perez

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
DUE PROCESS Group Kicks Off Campaign to Expose Flaws of ‘Start by Believing’

, , /

DUE PROCESS Group Kicks Off Campaign to Expose Flaws of ‘Start by Believing’

Plaintiffs in due-process lawsuits against colleges for biased Title IX proceedings are rarely named. They tend to proceed under a pseudonym such as John Doe. As a result, it has been challenging for advocates of due process to personalize the issue for the nation’s students, parents and lawmakers, who have the power to impose statewide rules on disciplinary adjudications. Now one due-process group is seeking to personalize the issue of kangaroo courts that railroad students accused of sexual misconduct. Stop Abusive and Violent Environments published a Change.org petition to convince U.S. Attorney General William Barr to revoke Justice Department funding to “Start by Believing” programs, which have thus far received nearly $9 million in federal grants.

SAVE’s petition highlights the case of Matt Rolph, who was cleared of sex crimes by a jury in 2014 but ruled a rapist by Hobart College months earlier. The college “decided to make an example of him” by conducting a fake investigation, SAVE writes in the Change.org petition. It didn’t record interviews, review “innocence-proving text messages” sent by his accuser, obtain records supporting the accuser’s “claim of medical problems caused by the incident,” or “resolve inconsistencies among witness statements.” The jury exonerated him in less than a day, and a court let his Title IX claims go forward against the college in 2017. But Rolph is “just one of the many thousands of Americans who have been victimized by “victim-centered’ investigations,” SAVE writes:

“Start By Believing” tells investigators to investigate cases from an “initial presumption” of guilt, to slant their report to “corroborate the victim’s account,” and to even make sure the sexual encounter does “not look like a consensual sexual experience.” A longer web resource on Start by Believing explains how the techniques used in biased investigations are contrary to “long-established investigative ethical codes,” ignore the well-documented bias against men in the criminal justice system, and amount to “near-religious teaching,” in the words of a Harvard law professor.

thecollegefix -Greg Piper

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
SETTLEMENT: SO HAPPY For Falsely Accused & Innocent Victim Jason. MuskingumU Settled.

, /

SETTLEMENT: SO HAPPY For Falsely Accused & Innocent Victim Jason. MuskingumU Settled.

I have spoken with Jason’s mom in the past which is why I am so pleased to finally see that a settlement agreement has been reached! Muskingum University knew Jason was innocent, yet he was expelled. I can only hope and pray that Jason continues to be successful and will live in peace. -Alice

For background on this case that was settled: ‘The complaint filed by Schaumleffel’s attorney, Eric Rosenberg, claims two women made false allegations against Schaumleffel after he engaged in consensual sexual activity. The lawsuit claims Muskingum University conducted a bias investigation into the allegations and, as a result, Muskingum University improperly and unlawfully expelled Schaumleffel, despite knowing he was falsely accused…the university ignored evidence proving his innocence, including a polygraph test and text and social media messages between Schaumleffel and the two women. Because of the allegations, the complaint states Schaumleffel has been suffering from depression, panic attacks, difficulty sleeping and interacting socially.’

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
LAWSUIT: Successful Black Purdue Student on Football Scholarship is Accused by White Girl. Black Male is Railroaded.

, , /

LAWSUIT: Successful Black Purdue Student on Football Scholarship is Accused by White Girl. Black Male is Railroaded.

A football player expelled from Purdue in 2017 after facing sexual assault allegations has brought a reverse discrimination lawsuit against the University. Brandon Roberts, who began at Purdue on a scholarship in fall 2016, claims multiple violations, including one of Title IX. Two other violations alleged by the documents are Title VI, a statute to prevent any discrimination on the grounds of race, color or national origin against anyone receiving federal funding, and due process, which is protected by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

The documents provide, in specific detail, why Roberts and his counsel, John H. Haskin and Associates, decided to pursue legal action against the University. Before the events for which Roberts was expelled occurred, he “was a successful student with an unblemished disciplinary record that additionally was on scholarship and playing for Purdue’s football team.” The documents allege that because Roberts is an African-American man and the individual who claimed he sexually assaulted her is a white woman, the University’s investigation was “preordained.” The other offense mentioned is that because of the sexual assault allegations and expulsion, Roberts’ dream to play professional football was “dealt a serious blow.”

purdueexponent.org -Staff

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
LAWSUIT: Intolerable Boston College Successfully Limits Scope of $3M Lawsuit

, , , /

LAWSUIT: Intolerable Boston College Successfully Limits Scope of $3M Lawsuit

The scope of the jury trial taking place next month in the $3 million lawsuit being brought against Boston College will be limited solely to whether or not administrative interference took place, specifically a breach of contract or violated a basic fairness principle. It will not consider whether an alumnus described as “John Doe” in court documents was wrongfully convicted of indecent assault. That scope is more along the lines of what University attorneys argued to Massachusetts District Court Judge Denise Casper. Doe’s representation posited that potentially-exculpatory evidence in Doe’s case should be brought before the jury. Casper said that only the information that the BC disciplinary hearing board, which originally heard Doe’s case, should be considered by the jury. Additional information, like forensically analyzed video and DNA evidence that was not available to the BC hearing board, will not be admissible in the trial.

The primary issue of the March 14 hearing was whether Doe’s request to admit exculpatory evidence was within the parameters of proving that Doe was not afforded a fair disciplinary hearing by BC. The University argued that such evidence would mean that Doe is getting an “on merit” trial on the basis of whether or not he sexually assaulted a fellow BC student on the 2012 AHANA Leadership Council Cruise while reporting on the event for The Heights—which is not among the issues remanded back to district court by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Doe argued that the nature of the hearing process and the final decision of the hearing board are inextricable. Casper disagreed, saying that since the appeals court affirmed Casper’s original summary judgement decision in BC’s favor on counts of breach of contract in the 2014 independent review of the hearing, gender bias, Title IX claims, and negligence, only the hearing process can still be considered.

bcheights By Jack Goldman

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
1 2 3