Court Documents, Trial Testimony, etc.

SEVEN BIG Lies In The Brock Turner Case, Plagiarism at Stanford

, , , /

SEVEN BIG Lies In The Brock Turner Case, Plagiarism at Stanford

A review of Stanford police reports, as attached to the criminal complaint filed with Santa Clara County Superior Court, and other public records reveals a number of major lies, including significant discrepancies and wrongdoing that Stanford itself has failed to address.

Seven Big Lies in the Brock Turner Case:

1. Turner committed rape. Totally false.

2. The hookup between Turner and Ms. Miller was in secret, behind a dumpster. Again, totally false.

3. Ms. Miller wrote the sensationalized statement she read at Turner’s sentencing. Also false.

4. Ms. Miller’s mother drove them to the KA party. There are serious questions whether this is true.

5. Stanford’s police did not record the license plates in the KA parking lot. Again, totally false yet this is what Turner’s lawyer was told three weeks later.

6. Turner ran from the scene and that proves his guilt. False.

7. Turner took and circulated a photo of Ms. Miller. Again, totally false but carefully used in the media campaign against Turner that was already being orchestrated by Prof. Michele Dauber, a member of Stanford’s law school faculty.

Seven Big Lies in the Brock Turner Case

Plagiarism at Stanford:

Stanford defines plagiarism as follows: “For purposes of the Stanford University Honor Code, plagiarism is defined as the use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the author or source, of another person’s original work, whether such work is made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form(s). Moreover, verbatim text from another source must always be put in (or within) quotation marks.”

How can Stanford post at the memorial (contemplative garden) words Ms. Miller falsely said she wrote if a student would be punished for plagiarism for making the same false claims and engaging in the same false activities? Faculty likewise are subject to severe punishment and academic scorn if involved in plagiarism in any way. That being the case, does no one at Stanford think it is a serious problem that Stanford is celebrating this blatant and ongoing lie about authorship? And is no one at Stanford going to address these serious violations of academic integrity by a member of their law school’s faculty? Plagarism at Stanford 

Stanford Alumni should care. Stanford Alumni are standing silent and allowing a complex injustice of malfeasance to continue. Stanford Alumni should be ashamed with their own silence. Alice

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter

, /

APPELLANT’S-Brock Turner Opening Brief- Filed In Court of Appeals

The attorney for Appellant Brock Turner filed an appeal on December 1, 2017. Below are the six arguments.

  1. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS, A FAIR TRIAL, AND HIS RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY THE TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EXCLUSION OF ALL TESTIMONY BY CHARACTER WITNESSES ATTESTING TO HIS HONESTY AND VERACITY.
  2. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PRESENT CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS TO ANY OF THE  THREE COUNTS OF CONVICTION.
  3. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE COURT’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT SUA SPONTE ON LESSER- INCLUDED OFFENSES.
  4. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN REPEATEDLY PORTRAYING CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN A FALSE, MISLEADING, AND PREJUDICIAL MANNER.
  5. APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE TRIAL COURT’S  FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO A  CRITICAL JURY QUESTION DURING  DELIBERATIONS.
  6. CUMULATIVE PREJUDICE

READ: Appellant’s Opening Brief as filed 12-1-17

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
FEB. 2019 California Public Records Act Request

/

FEB. 2019 California Public Records Act Request

In February 2019 a public request was made to the office of the county counsel , in the county of Santa Clara. A request is made for:

  1. All records and writings evidencing the county’s employment and hiring practices.
  2. All records and writings related to the county’s Whistleblower program.
  3. All records related to a DAO employee known as Sean Webby, including but not limited to Mr. Webby’s pre-employment records, interview records and employment records subject to production. This request includes a request for Mr. Webby’s job description, complaint history and communications that include coordination of Mr. Rosen’s schedule, press conferences, and any interactions with the press and the public related to Mr. Rosen’s political campaigns and the campaign of Judge Aaron Persky in 2016-2018. The request is for Mr. Webby’s resume
  4. All records of communications between Mr. Webby and Mr. Benjamin Rada, the PIO for the county courts.
  5. All communications Mr. Rosen has had with organizations and religious groups during the time period where he campaigned for DAO, and including communications, video and information related to any presentations, semi public presentations, made to any religious organizations located in Santa Clara County
  6. All records related to the planning and notice of any and all press conferences Mr. Rosen held, including a press conference held related to the changing of laws for cyberbullying and sexual assault from 2010 to present.
  7. All records related to Mr. Rosen’s travel out of country, and to San Quentin prison. This includes travel logs, expense records, emails, phone records, and communications.
  8. All records to and from any employee of the DAO and a person known as Michele Landis Dauber, and Ken Dauber. This includes social media connections, emails, phone records, letters, calendars, notes, invitations or communications.
  9. The formal calendars, with notes, vacation time, travel, press conferences, meetings and public appearances for Mr. Rosen for the years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.
  10. All records evidencing the policies and procedures of the DAO and Victim Witness Services related to the privacy of victims. This includes policies about redaction of victim names from court file and information about internal conflicts of interest.
  11. All records evidencing memos, communications and writings as to how county employees, the DAO and VWS were informed that PIO Sean Webby was subject to a 2016 restraining order.
  12. All policies and procedures of the DAO and VWS for checking conflicts of interest.
  13. All invoices, costs and records related to the county investigation of and representation of Mr. Webby in 2016 and 2017 related to a restraining order requested by an individual known as Stephen Patrick White.

Public Records Request 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter