CURRENT News

JOHN DOE Sues East Carolina U. Claims Hearing was a Sham.

, , /

JOHN DOE Sues East Carolina U. Claims Hearing was a Sham.

John Doe claims East Carolina University mishandled his sexual misconduct case and he is now suing for damages. The lawsuit names 13 defendants from the chancellor to the school as a whole.  As stated in the complaint, “Doe was sanctioned and subjected to a three year suspension from the University, which is tantamount to an expulsion. As a result of Defendants’ imposition of the unwarranted and erroneous sanction against John Doe, he has sustained damages to his reputation, future education and career prospects, physical, psychological and emotional damages, economic injuries, and the loss of educational and career opportunities.”

wcti12.com By Morgan Newell   COMPLAINT.pdf

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
LAWSUIT: USF St. Petersburg Male Asks for Rehearing, Cites Recent CA Appellate Court Win

, , , /

LAWSUIT: USF St. Petersburg Male Asks for Rehearing, Cites Recent CA Appellate Court Win

A Pinellas County circuit judge has denied a former Student Government leader’s petition that his due process rights were violated when he was accused of sexually assaulting another student in his dorm room in September 2016 and expelled in May 2017. Now the expelled USFSP male has asked for a rehearing, citing a similar case in California…The college male had sued USF St. Petersburg in June 2017, contending that the university denied him due process because it violated its disciplinary procedures, failed to give him proper notice of the allegations and evidence against him, and denied him the opportunity to cross-examine his accuser. He does not seek reinstatement at USFSP, he only asks that his expulsion – and a cloud over his future – be removed from his record. “I will lose all opportunities to obtain a good education as well as to pursue my dream of going to law school.” At USFSP, his accuser was not required to appear at his hearing or answer his questions. The male’s lawyers requested a rehearing, and in a supplemental filing last week they cited a ruling by a California state appellate court in a similar case. In the Calif. case the female accuser from Claremont McKenna College was not required to appear before the disciplinary committee – in person or by video conference – and that violated the accused student’s right to a fair hearing, the appellate court ruled.

crowsneststpete.com By Anna Bryson CA Appeals Court CaremontMckenna Must Be Fair To Accused

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
CA JUDGE Orders CSU Long Beach to Junk TitleIX Finding Against Male: & Allow X-Examination

, , , , /

CA JUDGE Orders CSU Long Beach to Junk TitleIX Finding Against Male: & Allow X-Examination

At a hearing this week, Judge James Chalfant of L.A. Superior Court confirmed his ruling that Cal State University-Long Beach denied “John Doe” several elements of a “fair procedure”: It didn’t give him “proper notice” or the opportunity to “respond to all evidence” used against him or cross-examine his accuser in “live hearing testimony.” One of the more unusual findings was that multiple witnesses disputed what Title IX Investigator  Carol Fulthrop had attributed to them in her report, which Chalfant repeatedly characterized as of “poor quality.” The case involves two graduate research assistants. The dispute concerns whether Doe forced Roe to touch his penis or Roe did it unprompted on one occasion, and whether their sexual intercourse in her office on a later occasion was forced or consensual. Chalfant found numerous problems with CSULB’s investigation. The judge scolded CSULB for saying Doe “unquestionably” knew what he was facing because campus police had interviewed him and Roe had filed for a restraining order. There’s no evidence he even met with TIX Coordinator Caveness, much less “what was said in the meeting,” owing to Investigator Fulthrop’s “poor quality” report, nor that the police interviewed Doe on the given date. TIX Investigator Fulthrop said that even if Doe’s account of their intercourse was accurate that didn’t meet the school’s affirmative-consent standard. Doe was found responsible. The judge hammered Fulthrop again for the quality of her report, which did not show that the university gave Doe the evidence “that would be considered by the decision-maker” or even specify who the decision-maker would be. Chalfant stated, CSULB is required by “case law and their own policies” to give Doe its own evidence against him, which “differed significantly” in content and governing standard. Chalfant notes that Doe’s appeal shows his witnesses disputed Fulthrop’s “characterization of their statements” in her final report, which was withheld from Doe until he was found responsible. The judge goes on at length:

‘Respondents seem to believe that there is no requirement that its investigator take notes and document witness statements. This is wrong. It is true that there is no obligation to take notes, but an investigator’s failure to do so reflects poorly on the investigation. More important, CSULB had a duty to provide Doe either with written witness summaries or at the absolute minimum, oral witness summaries (the court does not believe that oral summaries would be adequate except in the simplest cases). The school cannot shirk its obligation by not preparing summaries.’

thecollegefix.com By Piper   Judge Chalfant’s Tentative Ruling

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
BOSTON COLLEGE Wants to Avoid Jury Trial for Dean Telling TitleIX Adjudicators How to Rule

, , /

BOSTON COLLEGE Wants to Avoid Jury Trial for Dean Telling TitleIX Adjudicators How to Rule

When the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Boston College in a lawsuit brought by a student accused of sexual assault, it sent the case back to trial court. Recently, a joint statement was filed by the two parties in an ongoing lawsuit brought by an alumnus against Boston College alleging that the University mishandled sexual assault charges levied at him. The filing was made in response to an order by Judge Denise Casper for the parties to propose how they wanted to proceed. In a joint filing, the parties stated their disagreement over whether a jury or judge should decide whether the college breached its contract with “John Doe” and violated “basic fairness” in his adjudication. Doe argues in the joint filing, that the 1st Circuit expressly permitted him a jury by saying a “reasonable jury could” and “should” resolve the factual issues around the directives of Chebator and Hughes. It also remanded for trial his claim that the university violated basic fairness in both Doe’s 2012 and 2014 disciplinary proceedings.

The college argues that the 1st Circuit ruling only found its 2012 proceeding against Doe problematic, so “all that remains to be tried on liability is the question whether” the statements by Chebator and Hughes constituted “improper interference” with the 2012 proceedings. This means that the parties should get a “bench trial” where the judge makes the finding… Doe was accused of groping a female student on a crowded dance floor on a cruise ship. The college refused to wait for a completed analysis of forensic evidence that Doe said would clear him, including “swab tests” and surveillance video from the ship. The state dropped charges against Doe a year and a half after Boston College denied his appeal.

thecollegefix.com By Greg Piper

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
FEMINIST Prof. Accused/Suspended of Harassing Male. Fems Cry Foul. Claim TitleIX is a ‘Feminist Tool’. Not to be Used on Fems.

, , /

FEMINIST Prof. Accused/Suspended of Harassing Male. Fems Cry Foul. Claim TitleIX is a ‘Feminist Tool’. Not to be Used on Fems.

Somehow, when it comes to one of their own being accused of sexual harassment, some feminists discard their devotion to the #MeToo movement and blame the victim instead. Avital Ronnell, a leading professor of feminist philosophy at NYU, has been forced to take a year off after NYU determined that she had sexually harassed a male student. If there’s a stranger #MeToo story out there, I’ve yet to hear it. Ronnell identifies as a lesbian; the student she is accused of harassing is gay, and now married to another man. Also extraordinary: many well-known feminists leaped to her defense despite the fact that they admitted they had no knowledge about the findings of the Title IX proceedings against her.  Feminist scholars that came to Ronnell’s defense, demanded she “receive a fair hearing.”  (Fair hearings are rarely screamed for when the accused is male.) In this case, the gay male accuser, Nimrod Reitman, claimed that lesbian Prof. Ronnell pressured him into an amorous relationship. She would visit him at his home, climb into bed with him, and force him to kiss and touch her… One of Ronnell’s defenders, Prof. Diane Davis revealed a startling confession. Ms. Davis openly confessed that ‘she and her colleagues were particularly disturbed that, as they saw it, Mr. Reitman was using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist.’

How can it be said that Title IX is really about ending gender-based discrimination, if it’s wrong to use Title IX to protect men from sexual harassment?

reason.com By Soave dailywire.com By Berrien

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
DARTMOUTH Plays ‘Whack-a-Mole’ w Male. Ex-Girlfriend & her Mom Seek Revenge. Doe Loses Scholarship. He’s Expelled & Traumatized. His Family’s in Counseling. Doe Sues.

, , /

DARTMOUTH Plays ‘Whack-a-Mole’ w Male. Ex-Girlfriend & her Mom Seek Revenge. Doe Loses Scholarship. He’s Expelled & Traumatized. His Family’s in Counseling. Doe Sues.

An expelled male from Dartmouth is suing the trustees of Dartmouth college.  Between 2012 and January 2017, John Doe was in a relationship with accuser, Sally Smith. In March 2017, Sally Smith’s mother told Doe and his mother that Sally Smith and herself ‘intended to entice Dartmouth into imposing a disciplinary sanction upon Doe to get revenge upon him for grievances they held against him, in hopes that Doe would become ineligible to keep the full ride scholarship he’d been awarded’…Dartmouth’s Judicial Affairs Office (“JAO”) investigated the contents of the 18 pg. report Sally submitted and determined it was not appropriate to initiate disciplinary allegations against Doe. Sally and her mother were unhappy and repeatedly contacted Dartmouth College saying they felt threatened by Doe.  Doe sent a text message to Sally and her mother: “I just wanted to write and formally remind you one more time that you’re not allowed to talk to any of my family members.” Shortly afterwards, Sally’s mother went to the police. John Doe was arrested that day by the Hanover Police Department.

When Dartmouth’s Undergraduate Dean Kristi Clemens called Doe’s parents to tell them John had been expelled, Doe’s parents asked why Dartmouth was now punishing him so harshly. Clemens replied, ‘he wasn’t remorseful enough’ and ‘this justified imposing such a harsh sanction upon Doe’…John Doe persistently tried to present evidence showing Dartmouth’s employees had failed to conduct their duties. Over the course of his entire disciplinary process, not a single Dartmouth employee was able to reconcile an understanding of what transpired during his disciplinary proceedings that is consistent with the pertinent facts and evidence’  According to the complaint, ‘The evidence will show that Dartmouth’s employees and “supervisors” were playing a game of Whack-a-Mole with Doe; they would fabricate one narrative that justified his expulsion and the inappropriate decisions and rulings that’d been made by the individuals managing his case, and when he would try to dispel it, they would then come up with another reason.’  Doe’s complaint talks about the emotional trauma he has endured,  ‘As a result of Dartmouth’s actions, plaintiff has been put through excruciating suffering, required extensive psychiatric and medical support, and been diagnosed with debilitating depression – problems Doe had never experienced before this incident and subjected to this preposterous, torturous treatment and process.  John has nightmares and flashbacks of the events described here and suffers other symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder associated with them. At least three of Doe’s different family members have sought psychological therapy or counselling because of the intense pain and trauma they have experienced alongside Doe over these events.

‘Plaintiff seeks justice against Dartmouth as it is responsible for: the actions of a small group of administrators and employees who failed and refused to adhere to the College’s own policies and laws meant to protect Plaintiff.’ Plaintiff has been subjected to extraordinary suffering and loss as a result of Dartmouth’s actions, including but not limited to the loss of his Dartmouth degree, loss of other educational opportunities, loss of job opportunities, reputational harm, financial harm, and excruciating emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks to hold Dartmouth College liable for these catastrophic injuries and asks for a jury verdict to revendicate his life.

I encourage reporters to contact John Doe because his complaint is riddled with too many devious acts and injustices. More than SOS can mention in this space. Doe’s email is listed on the Dartmouth Complaint  as: jd2018265@gmail.com

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
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

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
GOOD NEWS: Student Cleared Of Sex Assault Returns To Yale, But Still Faces Expulsion

, , /

GOOD NEWS: Student Cleared Of Sex Assault Returns To Yale, But Still Faces Expulsion

A Yale University Student who was cleared of sexual assault charges in a court of law can return to his school, but faces a campus kangaroo court under activist pressure to expel him. Saifullah Khan, an immigrant who grew up in an Afghanistan refugee camp, was accused of sexually assaulting a fellow Yale student after a night of drinking. Jurors took less than four hours to find him not guilty after viewing surveillance video showing Khan and his accuser walking arm-in-arm while smiling, which the prosecution tried to present as Khan dragging the woman. Activists (who were not in the courtroom) do not think Khan is innocent, but jurors say that it was the video evidence that convinced them Khan was not guilty. “He’s innocent, and the facts prove it,” said alternate juror Elise Wiener. “He was acquitted because he deserved to be acquitted and the prosecutor should never have brought the case in the first place.” But the courtroom trial means almost nothing on a college campus. Accused students are routinely denied the ability to cross-examine or even to face their accuser, and exculpatory evidence is often ignored. Schools also don’t have the same powers as police and courts to compel evidence. The video footage that cleared Khan may not even be shown, or it may not be weighted as much as the accuser’s claims…Yale is currently involved in another high-profile sexual assault allegation, this one involving a former basketball captain who is suing the university for denying him due process.

dailywire.com By Ashe Schow

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
SIXTH CIRCUIT: Can the University of Michigan “Set Up a Kangaroo Court”?

, , , /

SIXTH CIRCUIT: Can the University of Michigan “Set Up a Kangaroo Court”?

The Sixth Circuit appears poised to rule again for an accused student in a lawsuit from the University of Michigan. Despite the court’s ruling about the importance of cross-examination in Cincinnati, the University of Michigan elected to maintain its Title IX procedures, which deny to the accused student any form of cross-examination. University of Michigan set up procedures in which neither the accused student nor the ultimate university decisionmaker benefited from cross-examination. And cross-examination would have mattered in this case, because the accuser’s medical records contradicted her claim to have been incapacitated. At least two judges on the panel- Amul Thapar and Julia Gibbons- seemed deeply troubled by this approach.  Indeed, Thapar summarized the university’s argument as requesting authority to “set up a kangaroo court.”

This case is an unusually rich one factually. UM uses a single-investigator model, in which one person interviews the parties and other witnesses, and then writes a report. In this instance, the investigator found the accused male student not guilty. But, exercising her rights established under the Obama-era 2011 Dear Colleague letter, the accuser appealed the finding. Using the same evidence as what was before the investigator, but without hearing from any of the parties, the appeals board found the accused student guilty, alleging that the accuser was incapacitated, and expelled him.

In the sixth circuit court, Deborah Gordon argued for the accused student; the University of Michigan’s lawyer was David DeBruin. DeBruin faced repeated, skeptical questions from both Judge Thapar and Judge Gibbons.  Thapar accused DeBruin’s  position of disregarding “everything courts have ever said, including the United States Supreme Court, about cross-examination.”  Gibbons noted that, given the facts of the case, it was absurd to suggest that the accused student’s rights were protected in the appeals process. After UM’s lawyer DeBruin accused the judges of second-guessing the appeals board’s factual findings, Thapar replied: “We’re not second-guessing the evaluation; we’re second-guessing the procedures provided to the Plaintiff before you deprive him of his rights. And what our problem is: is we view the due process clause, and what happens all the time—and we talked about it in Cincinnati, in Doe v. Cincinnati, where we said how fundamental cross-examination is when credibility is at issue. And what you’re saying is, “’Trust us, not the Constitution, and let the university tell you what’s sufficient.’”

Audio of Sixth Circuit Oral Arguments  By KC Johnson

Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
COURT WIN For John Doe. St. Joseph Must Deliver Training Material, Plus Much More

, , , /

COURT WIN For John Doe. St. Joseph Must Deliver Training Material, Plus Much More

Recently, John Doe heard a great ruling in a Pennsylvania court. Judge Diamond granted John Doe’s request to order St. Joseph University to produce records in part as follows:

  • Produce records of all sexual misconduct case investigations (including investigations conducted by investigators besides Ms. Malloy) from 2013 to 2018.
  • Produce Mr. Bordak’s training manual, training presentation, and any other training materials.
  • Produce all disciplinary records related to Jane Roe.
  • Plaintiff’s request to overrule the objection of defendant Roe to Plaintiff’s request for production of Roe’s records is GRANTED.  Defendant Roe shall produce her mental health records, SJU disciplinary records, and four days of telephone records.Read the full ORDER ON_MOTION_SUMMARY_JUDGEMENT
Share this:Tweet about this on Twitter
«< 65 66 67 68 69 >»