COURT Rulings & Settlements

SETTLEMENT for Straight Male. Montana State TIX Ms. Shaffer Loathed Straight Males. She Denied Him His Rights. MSU Settled w Male.

, , /

SETTLEMENT for Straight Male. Montana State TIX Ms. Shaffer Loathed Straight Males. She Denied Him His Rights. MSU Settled w Male.

The federal lawsuit that a former MSU student filed last year against Montana State University, Jyl Shaffer, and other MSU employees has settled.  This is the lawsuit where a straight male accused MSU’s Title IX administrator Ms. Shaffer of bias in favor of transgender students and against straight men. The lawsuit charged that the university violated his constitutional rights in 2016 by banning him from the Bozeman campus in the summer and fall semesters, after he privately voiced his objections to transgenderism to an instructor, comments he contended were misconstrued as threatening violence. The male’s lawsuit alleged that the transgender student filed a complaint with the Title IX Office, and neither the MSU dean of students office nor campus police thought the male student’s comments were serious threats that warranted his suspension, but Title IX administrator Ms. Shaffer called the case “cut and dried” and had him kicked off campus. The lawsuit alleged Shaffer showed bias when she wrote an email to the transgender student calling herself “an aspiring ally” and saying, “I’m grateful you trusted us.” Shaffer then offered to assist the transgender student to find work or academic help, and to meet with the ASMSU students’ attorney – but didn’t offer the same assistance to the male student. THe lawsuit went on to state that “Shaffer also has firmly held anti-male beliefs that she shared on her Twitter account,” It cited her 2018 comment calling “accurate AF (as expletive deleted)” an article that talked about “entitled toxic masculinity.”

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
JURY BELIEVES EVIDENCE. Ex-Baylor Player Shawn Oakman Found Not Guilty of Sex Assault

, , , /

JURY BELIEVES EVIDENCE. Ex-Baylor Player Shawn Oakman Found Not Guilty of Sex Assault

A Texas jury found former Baylor football player Shawn Oakman not guilty of sexual assault. The defense called Mr. Conner, a digital forensics expert as its final witness. Conner said text messages inviting Oakman to the bar were deleted from the accuser’s phone.  As my Tennessee neighbor Clay Travis notes, the charges against Oakman were heavily publicized, and carried serious repercussions for the Baylor football program. As Clay also points out, Oakman is hardly the only high-profile NFL prospect recently acquitted. Tennessee’s A.J. Johnson (and his teammate Michael Williams) were found not guilty after a mere 90 minutes of deliberations last summer.

At this point, how many more court cases do we need before we return to sanity and reason in the battle over campus sexual assault? As I wrote last month, judges across the country (including, most notably, California judges) are rebuking colleges and universities for establishing campus kangaroo courts designed to secure more punishments for young men. And now we’re seeing real courts demonstrate once again the power of due process.

nationalreview -David French dailywire -Ashe Schow

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
COURT RULING: Accused Male Can Move Forward w Title IX Claim Against SyracuseU

, , /

COURT RULING: Accused Male Can Move Forward w Title IX Claim Against SyracuseU

This case has been ongoing for about thirteen months. Before getting into the motion to dismiss, here’s a refresher. Syracuse student Jane Roe was drinking at a bar. She claimed that when she left, a “black male pulled her into an alley, grabbed her, and tried to kiss her….put his hands down her pants-” Roe got away with the help of a friend. Three months later, she found a black male in the bar who looked similar to her alleged assailant. This man was Syracuse student John Noakes. After engaging the police on several occasions she decided to pursue the matter exclusively through the school’s Title IX office. Jane did not show up to the hearing, so it proceeded without her. Noakes’ primary defense was that he was misidentified by Roe. Title IX Syracuse found Noakes guilty and suspended him for two years. He then sued. Noakes claimed that Syracuse’s process was flawed in numerous ways. Namely, the school:

  • Failed to consider exculpatory evidence (such as text messages and selfies on Noakes’ phone)
  • Used Noakes’ drunken state as evidence of guilt but did not consider whether Roe’s drunken state prevented her from accurately identifying her assailant
  • Ignored Roe’s contradictory statements
  • Failed to acquire sufficient evidence from the police investigation
  • Did not allow Noakes the opportunity to read the school’s investigative report against him
  • Relied on faulty information
  • Did not allow Noakes the opportunity to cross-examine his accuser since she skipped the hearing (note that if accused students skip hearings this is often considered inculpatory by the school)
  • Concluded that Roe was more credible despite the Board never hearing testimony directly from her

Noakes brought four claims against the school: Title IX, Breach of Contract, Title VI (race discrimination), and Negligence. As usual, the school filed a motion to dismiss each of Noakes’ claims in an attempt to quickly end the legal battle. Judge Thomas McAvoy granted and denied in part the motion to dismiss on February 26th. To see highlights from the Decision and Order go here: titleixforall.com/Motion to dismiss granted/denied in part in Noakes v. Syracuse University  -J.Taylor   thecollegefix.com -Staff

 

 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
COURT RULES: “Trauma-Informed” Practices in TIX Sex Investigations are “Plausible” Evidence of Bias Against Males

, , , /

COURT RULES: “Trauma-Informed” Practices in TIX Sex Investigations are “Plausible” Evidence of Bias Against Males

The University of Colorado-Boulder’s use of “trauma-informed” practices in sexual misconduct investigations are “plausible” evidence of bias against males, a federal court ruled last week. It denied the taxpayer-funded university’s motion to dismiss Title IX and due process claims by William Norris, who was suspended and banned from campus after two disputed encounters with “Jane Doe” over a lengthy relationship. Norris claimed the university made numerous procedural errors during its 2016 investigation of Doe’s claims from 2014 and 2015. He also faulted the Title IX officials’ backgrounds in women’s studies and public support of women’s advocacy groups, calling those a “conflict of interest” that prejudiced his investigation.

The student has provided “at least some relevant information” to demonstrate that his gender-bias claims are plausible, the required standard in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge also frowned upon “the timing of the notice” of investigation given to Norris and restrictions on his ability to review the investigation file.

thecollegefix.com -E.Berman  Norris v UColorado-Judge Babcock Opinion & Order 

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
DRUNK SEX For Two. John & Jane Are Treated Differently. John Is Punished. Jane Is Not. John Wins in Court. MiamiU Settles w John.

, , /

DRUNK SEX For Two. John & Jane Are Treated Differently. John Is Punished. Jane Is Not. John Wins in Court. MiamiU Settles w John.

A male college student was incapacitated due to alcohol one night after a party when a female student engaged him in sexual activity. Even though the university knew the male student was too drunk to consent (based on the school’s own policies) it still suspended him after the female student claimed she was sexually assaulted. The school recently settled with the male student. The case led to perhaps one of the most important court decisions regarding cases of campus sexual assault: In cases of credibility (he said/she said situations) cross-examination is an important tool for determining the truth.

Despite Miami University knowing that Jane initiated the sexual contact and that John, by the university’s own policies, was too drunk to consent, it was John who was punished. John and Jane were treated differently during the hearing process. John was provided less than two days to provide all evidence of his innocence, and Jane was allowed to submit a written statement even though she failed to turn it in before a deadline. A single Miami official investigated, prosecuted, and judged John’s case. John says in his lawsuit that this official “dominated John Doe’s hearing with questions and comments designed to deflate John Doe’s credibility while inflating Jane Doe’s credibility.”

John sued after being suspended, and a judge later criticized the school for its treatment of the accused student. On February 20, 2019, the two parties agreed to drop the lawsuit and settle out of court.

dailywire.com By Ashe Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
#BELIEVEWomen Is In a State Of Legal Collapse

, , , /

#BELIEVEWomen Is In a State Of Legal Collapse

When future historians reflect back on our present moment, it’s entirely possible that liberal California judges, rather than the Trump administration, will get credit for pulling the plug on the progressive experiment of denying basic due-process rights to American male college students. That’s the takeaway from a stunning Los Angeles Times report from late last week. California’s university justice system — by far the largest in the United States — is reeling not because of Trump’s Department of Education but because of a series of rulings from California courts. Colleges and universities across California are scrambling to revise the way they handle sexual misconduct cases after a state appellate court ruled that “fundamental fairness” requires that accused students have a right to a hearing and to cross-examine their accusers…The California State system, for example, has “stopped proceedings in 75 cases.” Other colleges in the state are rapidly revising their policies.

The legal straw that broke the camel’s back was a ruling from California’s Second Appellate District in a case brought by former University of Southern California tight end Bryce Dixon. The court found that when a student faces “severe disciplinary sanctions,” and when witness credibility is “central to the adjudication of the allegation,”

. . fundamental fairness requires, at a minimum, that the university provide a mechanism by which the accused may cross-examine those witnesses, directly or indirectly, at a hearing in which the witnesses appear in person or by other means (such as means provided by technology like videoconferencing) before a neutral adjudicator with the power independently to find facts and make credibility assessments.

In plain language, the court’s ruling requires schools to afford accused students basic due-process rights, restoring a system of justice that existed for centuries before #BelieveWomen corrupted the legal landscape.

nationalreview.com -David French

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
DOE’S COURT WIN Sets Precedent. Claremont McKenna Fought Dirty & Lost. CA Supreme Court Denied CMC’s Petition for Review.

, , , , /

DOE’S COURT WIN Sets Precedent. Claremont McKenna Fought Dirty & Lost. CA Supreme Court Denied CMC’s Petition for Review.

College students in California owe a big debt of gratitude to John Doe from CMC, Mr.Dixon from USC, and their attorneys. It is primarily because of these two lawsuits and their precedent setting court wins that colleges throughout California, private and public, are forced to change their anti-due process Title IX hearings. After the CA Court of Appeal issued a unanimous decision (by three female justices) in favor of John Doe, CMC issued the following statement:  “The College firmly believes that the grievance process followed in this case met or exceeded relevant legal requirements for expectations under federal and state law.”  It’s important to note that CMC then chose to fight the CA Court of Appeal ruling and to continue waging war against John Doe and due process by filing a Petition for Review with the CA Supreme Court.  The CA Supreme Court denied CMC’s Petition for Review.  I’ll say that again.  The CA Supreme Court denied CMC’s Petition for Review.  (See Doe v. Claremont McKenna Coll. 25 Cal. App. 5th 1055, 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 655 (Aug. 8, 2018), review denied, No. S251318, 2018 Cal. LEXIS 9212 (Cal. Nov. 20, 2018).”

A California appeals court has revived a Claremont McKenna College student’s Title IX lawsuit against the college, ruling that the lack of cross examination resulted in an unfair hearing. The decision, which came in August 2018, aligns with a ruling by the same court last month that found the University of Southern California at fault for not giving a student accused of sexual assault the opportunity to cross-examine the student accusing him. Both rulings set a precedent for other colleges to update their policies to comply with the court’s ruling.

…Following the Title IX investigation in 2015, CMC found its student “John Doe” responsible for sexually assaulting “Jane Roe.” Roe did not show up or verbally testify at the final committee hearing. However, both Doe and Roe submitted written statements, and Doe testified verbally at the committee meeting. CMC suspended Doe. Doe filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate, a request for a judge to review CMC’s decision. But his request was denied by a trial court in 2016. Doe appealed, and in 2018, California’s 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, instructing the lower court to grant Doe his writ of administrative mandate….CMC’s Title IX policy has changed since the incident in question and is expected to change again this month said a CMC spokesperson.

Doe Wins TIX lawsuit against CMC and CMC plans TIX changes -Jensen Steady

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
HE WAS Falsely Accused Of Rape. The City Of Charleston Just Paid Him $85,000.

, , /

HE WAS Falsely Accused Of Rape. The City Of Charleston Just Paid Him $85,000.

A Charleston, SC college student just settled with the city for $85,000 after he was falsely accused of sexual assault. In March 2014, the male student was arrested after a female student claimed he raped her after a date. “Court documents state the woman told friends about her date and consensual sex and only went to the police after being ‘guilted’ by her roommate. The suit claimed the investigator had evidence contradicting the woman’s statement and also lacked sufficient evidence to back up the claim.” Despite this, police arrested the man, who later sued, claiming police didn’t thoroughly investigate the woman’s claims before arresting him.

The College of Charleston student faced up to 10 years in prison. After a four-day trial in November 2017 the male was found not guilty. He then sued the city, using testimony from one of the investigating detectives given during his criminal trial. “For almost four years he had the charge and a possible ten year prison sentence hanging over him. During the criminal trial in November 2017, the detective testified under oath about the scope of her investigation and that testimony was used against her in the civil trial to prove negligence in investigating the case.”

dailywire.com By Ashe Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
JUDGE RULES for Due Process in UTSW Medical School Suit. Accuser Elinor Rowan Lied & Doctored Audio Files To Ruin Male.

, , /

JUDGE RULES for Due Process in UTSW Medical School Suit. Accuser Elinor Rowan Lied & Doctored Audio Files To Ruin Male.

THIS IS A STORY about two engaged college students. One a pill popping addict and one who tries to help, and a discerning judge in Texas… The University of Texas Southwestern Medical School (UTSW) expelled a medical student, Plaintiff Jacob Oliver, for violating the school’s student misconduct policies based on a physical altercation that allegedly occurred between Oliver and his former fiancée, Elinor Rowan. Mr. Oliver now brings suit against UTSW and two UTSW personnel involved in the disciplinary process. Oliver alleges that throughout their relationship Ms. Rowan engaged in reckless driving causing her license to be revoked; drove under the influence; was a heavy drinker and took prescription-strength medicine, such as Adderall, without a prescription; and would lie about her work and school history.  Because of these and other incidents, Oliver told Rowan that if she did not stop drinking he could no longer be in a relationship with her. The couple split up and Rowan moved out. Oliver asked for his apartment key back. She returned the key, but Oliver still suspected that she had another copy of the key because on April 30, 2016, Oliver realized that his Adderall prescription along with any available refills were missing from his apartment. Oliver reported the prescription drugs missing to his doctor since it was a “schedule 2 controlled substance…

May 8th: Rowan was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, her car was searched, and the police found Oliver’s Adderall prescription in her car, and charged her with possession of a controlled substance. Oliver alleges that Rowan tried to get him to provide a false affidavit to corroborate the story she told the police—which was that Oliver had left the pills in the car—to get her off the charges. Oliver refused, so he alleges that with the aid of her parents Rowan bought a “spy ware” device in order to surreptitiously record Oliver admitting that the pills were his and that she had not stolen them. To accomplish this alleged scheme, Rowan began sending text messages to Oliver requesting to move back in with him, that she loved him, and that her parents kicked her out of the house so she needed a place to stay. [Unfortunately] Oliver obliged and allowed her to stay in the second bedroom as a guest if she would not drink. Rowan agreed. Shortly after moving back in, Oliver and Rowan had two separate altercations which form the basis of Rowan’s assault allegations and led to Oliver being expelled from UTSW.

May 17th. Oliver communicated with Rowan’s criminal defense attorney regarding him potentially signing a false affidavit that would help Rowan’s case. Ultimately, Oliver told Rowan and her attorney that day that he would not be able to do so because it would put his career at risk. Rowan returned to the apartment around midnight, highly intoxicated and on prescription drugs, and the two began having a verbal altercation. While intoxicated, Rowan stated she was going to leave and refused to give Oliver her car keys. Fearing what might happen to her or others if she drove in a drunken state, Oliver then partially deflated Rowan’s right rear tire.

May 18th. Rowan again returned from work around midnight in an intoxicated state and the couple began arguing.  Rowan allegedly “yanked” Oliver’s computer off the desk while he was working on it and attempted to leave the apartment with it.  Rowan tripped a few times. During the altercation, Oliver was puzzled that Rowan asked him to hit her and kept on saying to “stop” or that he was hurting her.  Oliver later learned that Rowan had been secretly recording the conversations and believes that is why she made those remarks. Oliver claims that besides trying to pull the computer from her, he did not hit Rowan.

Following his expulsion, the criminal charges investigated by UTSWPD proceeded.  Through that investigation, Oliver’s defense attorney hired an expert to examine the audio recording device Rowan used, which ultimately revealed that Rowan’s audio recordings were doctored to support her claim that Oliver assaulted her.  Upon the recovery of the deleted audio files, the district attorney agreed to drop the charges against Oliver on condition that he complete an “anger management” course. Also, related civil proceedings regarding a protective order Rowan filed against Oliver resulted in the revelation of colored photographs of her bruises, which were also inconsistent with the alleged time or cause of the injury.

Excerpt from Judge’s Ruling: “The Court finds that by not disclosing the incriminating evidence to Oliver before the hearing, combined with the lack of live testimony by Rowan or opportunity to cross-examination her, there was a substantial risk of erroneously depriving Oliver’s interests through the procedures used, and the probable value of disclosing that evidence or having Rowan testify is clearly shown. Specifically, Oliver argues that had he been given that evidence in advance or had the opportunity to cross-examine Rowan, he could have shown that the audio tape was doctored and incomplete and that Rowan’s bruises were from an injury at work that occurred a few days earlier, which ultimately is what was found to be true in the related criminal and civil proceedings that followed his expulsion. Thus, having considered the minimum procedural due-process required in previous cases, as well as weighing the Mathews factors in light of this case’s unique circumstances, the Court finds that Oliver has pled enough facts to show that Mihalic and Williamson, acting in both their official and individual capacities, deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to respond and defend the accusations made against him, which ultimately violated his right to procedural due process…The remaining claims in this suit are Oliver’s (1) procedural due process claims against Mihalic and Williamson in their official and individual capacities; and (2) Title IX gender discrimination claim against UTSW. All other claims are dismissed.” Judge Jane J. Boyle Oliver  v University of Texas Southwestern Medical

-Usually I don’t focus on female accusers and their heartless actions, but ungrateful college females are increasingly ramping up their manipulative and dishonest schemes when they are not satisfied.  Young college males need to be on guard and walk away if a female is in distress. Seriously, your concern for her could cost you your career, your reputation.-Alice

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
SETTLEMENT. Good News for John Doe! Miami University Settles.

, /

SETTLEMENT. Good News for John Doe! Miami University Settles.

A three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a lower court’s dismissal of several claims against Miami University and school officials, but found that the student presented enough factual allegations to support a “reasonable inference” of discrimination. The student, identified in court documents as “John Doe,” said most of Miami’s sexual misconduct cases are against males who are then ruled responsible without fair hearings. He was suspended for a 2014 consensual encounter with a female acquaintance.

Miami University has now settled with John Doe.
Background: 2018 John Doe’s win in Appellate Court before his case settled in 2019

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
«< 15 16 17 18 19 >»