SETTLEMENT. CA COURTS Continue to Rebuke, Chastise UCSB for Sneaky Unlawful Acts Against Males
I am very happy for this settlement for this John Doe. But since 2016 California Judges have repeatedly chastised UC Santa Barbara for violating the due process rights of Title IX accused males, and scolded TIX staff for withholding evidence. UCSB has been found in contempt of court, and judges have “serious serious questions” for UCSB’S unlawful actions towards accused males. Below is a short list of court decisions against UC Santa Barbara.
UC Santa Barbra found in contempt of court: A judge in the Santa Barbara County Superior Court has found the University of California, Santa Barbara in contempt of court for failing to comply with a court decision regarding the rights of an accused student in a campus sexual misconduct proceeding.
UC Regents Found in Contempt Of Court, Expelled Student Allowed to Return to UCSB: Judge Donna D. Geck ruled the UC Regents failed to provide a fair hearing for the accused student, known in court documents as John Doe, in a Title IX investigation.
JUDGE Rebukes UCSB for Using ‘Trauma Informed’ Approach in Title IX Proceeding: UCSB Ordered to Pay Accused Student $31K. Judge Tara Desautels specifically faulted the “trauma informed” training that was used in the University of California-Santa Barbara’s proceeding against “John Doe.”
CA Appeal Have ‘Serious, Serious Questions.” UCSB Denies Due Process to Accused Male: “I read this record, and I was stunned at a university procedure which purports to be fair and equitable puts a kid [the accused was a freshman] who’s attempting to get a college education in the position of, essentially, a lawyer in a major sexual assault case.” -Justice Perren
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.
CA Court of Appeals is Angry at UCSB for Denying Due Process: “John was denied access to critical evidence; denied the opportunity to adequately cross-examine witnesses; and denied the opportunity to present evidence in his defense. UCSB denied John a fair hearing. We reverse.” Appellate court decision.
UCSB’s Terrible Case Shows the High Cost of ‘Believe Women’: UCSB violated a basic rule of evidence, withheld key information from John until the day before the hearing, refused to let him question the accuser about that information, and then allowed its lawyer to render objections to John’s case. The court’s conclusion was stinging: “It is ironic,” said the court “that an institution of higher learning, where American history and government are taught, should stray so far from the principles that underlie our democracy.”
JUDGE Chastises UCSB’s Sandra Vasquez in a court order for concealing evidence in a Title IX investigation. Vasquez concealed two pieces of material evidence despite assuring the accused student that she had disclosed to him all information. Judge Thomas Anderle chastised Vasquez and her colleagues for violating the student’s due process rights and ordered the university to lift the suspension against him. (Vasquez is now Pitzer’s Dean of Students & TIX Coordinator) Because the UCSB student suffered “irreparable harm” at the hands of Vasquez and other officials, the judge explained, the student merited full judicial relief.
Why did Sandra Vasquez Destroy an Innocent Low Income Minority Male at USCB? “The University has made a decision to deny John Doe the opportunity to enroll in the any of the first three quarters of his freshman year. But instead of making that decision based upon the facts, the law, and in fairness, it has decided to do it their own way.” Judge Anderle
READ Numerous Judgments against UCSB for Denying Due Process -Alice True
