| Blog and Media Roundup - Friday, December 18, 2015; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 18 2015, 05:06 AM (205 Views) | |
| abb | Dec 18 2015, 05:06 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/ Chief Jose Lopez makes final major public appearance Chief Jose Lopez said he was having a hard night Thursday. It was a standard promotions ceremony for the Durham Police Department but it would be Lopez’s last as the chief of police and his last major appearance in the role and he said it was tough |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 18 2015, 05:19 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/judge-charges-lawyer-with-criminal-contempt-in-jai/npmrk/?icmp=pbp_internallink_referralbox_free-to-premium-referral Judge charges lawyer with criminal contempt in jailhouse snitch case Updated: 9:37 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 17, 2015 | Posted: 7:00 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 17, 2015 By Jane Musgrave - Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jack Schramm Cox on Thursday charged Assistant Public Defender Elizabeth Ramsey with criminal contempt — yet another twist in a case that started as a First Amendment battle between The Palm Beach Post and a notorious jail snitch. While Cox didn’t have Ramsey jailed for allegedly violating his Nov. 30 order not to disclose transcripts of recorded jailhouse phone conversations of convicted murderer Frederick Cobia, he told the clerk of courts to open a misdemeanor case against the veteran defense attorney. She is to appear back in court on Tuesday with her attorney, Donnie Murrell, for a preliminary hearing before Cox on the charge, which is punishable by a maximum six-month jail sentence. The unusual move came as jury selection was about to start in the murder trial of Ramsey’s client, Jamal Smith — a trial in which Cobia is expected to be a star prosecution witness. More than 30 assistant public defenders and defense attorneys filled the courtroom in anticipation of a decision by Cox. In a two-page ruling, Cox said he opted to charge Ramsey with contempt on the basis of court papers filed Friday by attorney Valerie Masters, who represents Cobia. Ramsey violated Cox’s Nov. 30 order with her Friday filing of a transcript of a deposition she took of Cobia in October, Masters claims. Although Cox’s order was aimed at The Palm Beach Post, it prohibits anyone from publishing transcripts of Cobia’s recorded phone calls — even in court files. The newspaper and Public Defender Carey Haughwout have filed appeals of the order barring the publication of transcripts, and the 4th District Court of Appeal is expected to rule quickly. However, Murrell said, the contempt charge wouldn’t disappear even if the appeals court overturns the censorship order. “They can still pursue it (contempt) because technically you can’t disobey a judge’s order whether it’s lawful or not,” Murrell said. While Ramsey declined comment, in court papers filed Wednesday, she says she had no intention of violating Cox’s order, which she described as “vague and over-broad.” Cox made no reference to her 14-page response to Masters’ motion. Ramsey said the depositions she filed in hopes of keeping Cobia from testifying against Smith don’t include any passages from the transcripts. Further, she said, the judge didn’t order the deposition sealed in his order, even though Masters asked that they be sealed in November when she asked Cox to force The Post to remove the transcripts from its website and to excise quotes from them that were used in a story published in October. “Since they were part of Ms. Masters’ original request, it seemed clear the court declined to make these items confidential,” Ramsey wrote. If Cox intended to bar attorneys from even mentioning the existence of the phone calls, then Masters would be in violation of the order as well, Ramsey continued. Masters mentioned the phone calls in her motion, asking that Ramsey be held in contempt. Further, Ramsey said, contrary to a claim by Masters, the depositions were never available to the public. The clerk, apparently in accordance with Cox’s order, sealed them immediately. In any case, she argues, the uncertainty of exactly what Cox meant to protect and who was responsible for protecting it makes it unlikely a contempt charge is warranted. “Abundant examples of imprecise and vague court orders which failed to support a finding of contempt can be found in case law,” Ramsey wrote. She also emphasized that the depositions weren’t filed gratuitously. They were submitted to show that Cobia has repeatedly lied about special treatment he has received since he began snitching on fellow inmates, she said. In the phone conversations, Cobia brags that he has gathered information against as many as 60 inmates. He was once listed as a prosecution witness in 23 cases. He has testified in two murder trials and is scheduled to testify in three more, including Smith’s. In the midst of the courtroom chaos sat Smith and family members who gathered to watch the proceedings. Before Cox would begin jury selection, he said he wanted to make sure Smith wanted Ramsey to continue to represent him. He faces a first-degree murder charge in connection with the 2011 shooting death of Kemar Clayton, 24, in the parking lot of a shopping center on State Road 7 near Wellington. Over Ramsey’s objections, Cox appointed attorney Ruth Martinez-Estes to meet with Smith to help him decide whether he wanted her to continue as his attorney while she also is prosecuted by the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office on a criminal charge. Ultimately, the 23-year-old decided he wanted Ramsey to continue to represent him. Jury selection began in mid-afternoon Thursday. It is to continue Monday. http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2015/12/17/Ramsey_Response_to_Rule_to_Show_Cause.pdf http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2015/12/17/1418_001.pdf http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2015/12/17/9.100_Petition.pdf |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 18 2015, 05:22 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-defense-attorney-criminal-contempt-20151217-story.html Judge charges defense lawyer with contempt of court over jailhouse snitch's recorded phone calls Marc Freeman ReporterSun Sentinel What began in 2011 as the case of a murdered 24-year-old Palm Beach County man has morphed into a battle over free speech. Also part of the dispute is a jailhouse snitch's privacy rights, a contempt of court charge against the murder defendant's attorney, and a judge's refusal to disqualify himself from the trial before it began Thursday with jury selection. The key players in this still-unfolding drama are Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jack Schramm Cox; Assistant Public Defender, Elizabeth Ramsey; jail inmate and trial witness, Frederick Cobia; Cobia's lawyer, Valerie Masters; murder defendant, Jamal Smith; The Palm Beach Post; and the 4th District Court of Appeal. Cox began the day by granting a recent request by Masters to charge Ramsey with criminal contempt, a misdemeanor punishable by up to five months and 29 days in Palm Beach County Jail. The judge, who allowed Ramsey to remain free but ordered her to appear for a preliminary hearing on the charge on Tuesday, accused Ramsey of violating his Nov. 30 order to keep Cobia's recorded jailhouse phone calls with Masters and family members confidential. Jamal Smith Both The Palm Beach Post — which was ordered by Cox to delete a transcript of the calls from the newspaper's website — and the Public Defender's Office are joined in a pending appeal seeking to overturn the order, which states Cobia's right to privacy was violated when the content of those calls was made public. The appeal argues the judge's order is unconstitutional. A reporter got the transcript excerpts from the court's computers after Ramsey had filed them in recent months. Ramsey claims that prosecutors violated a rule requiring them to provide information that could help Smith's defense. Cox said Ramsey should never have had her hands on the transcripts in the first place. Ramsey's allegation is that Cobia, 43, received special treatment from authorities in exchange for his testimony in several cases. Cobia is expected to testify that Smith confessed to him that he was the one who killed Kemar Clayton, during a robbery on Aug. 1, 2011 in a shopping center parking lot along State Road 7 near Wellington. Cobia, for his cooperation, also is allegedly looking for relief at his upcoming sentencing for a 2009 murder, where he faces a mandatory 25 years in prison. In his order Thursday, Cox asked the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office to assist him in prosecuting Ramsey at a future hearing. Ramsey said she'll have her own defense lawyer to fight the charge that she filed a restricted court pleading against Cox's orders on Dec. 11. The pleading is testimony from Cobia under oath that references the jailhouse phone calls. Then came a question from the judge: Does Smith, 23, still want Ramsey to serve as his lawyer considering that she is now under fire because of her alleged actions in representing him? "I'd like to keep her on my case," Smith told Cox, after Smith spent time meeting with a special attorney appointed by the judge just for the purpose of helping Smith decide about his trial representation. Just before the first group of 50 prospective jurors was escorted into the courtroom, Ramsey filed a motion to disqualify Cox from serving as the judge for the trial. Cox swiftly denied it. Then Ramsey asked for a trial delay to allow her time to file a challenge that would ask the state's 4th District Court of Appeal to force Cox to step aside. Cox said Ramsey was free to pursue such an appeal, but he refused to delay jury selection over it. When Ramsey tried to speak again, Cox told her to sit down and added, "Please don't interrupt me again." Jury selection will continue Monday, because Cox's court is not in session on Friday. Testimony in the trial, which is expected to take three weeks, is not likely to start before Jan. 4, because of the upcoming holidays and the time it will take to pick a panel from a pool of 150 potential jurors. Cox agreed to a request from Assistant State Attorney Andrew Slater to question the jurors about their possible knowledge of the case, including witness Cobia, because of pre-trial publicity. Smith is charged with first-degree murder with a firearm, and faces an automatic sentence of life in prison if he's convicted. A co-defendant, Quinton Lythgoe, 21, took a plea deal with prosecutors in April in which he pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in exchange for testimony against Smith. A first-degree murder charge against Lythgoe will be dropped at Lythgoe's sentencing, assuming he has fully cooperated in Smith's prosecution. mjfreeman@tribpub.com, 561-243-6642 or Twitter @MarcJFreeman |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 18 2015, 05:24 AM Post #4 |
|
http://www.cotwa.info/2015/12/harvard-law-professors-accused-of.html Thursday, December 17, 2015 Harvard Law Professors Accused of Putting "the Chill on Campus Sexual Assault Victims" Irwin Zalkin has written an article accusing 19 Harvard Law Professors of potentially derailing "the progress their university has made toward creating a fair and just process" towards sexual assault complainants. Mr. Zalkin is a lawyer who represents individuals who allege they have been wronged by universities under Title IX. His major issue appears to be the professors' statements about the case where Brandon Winston was investigated for sexual assault. We wrote about "The Hunting Ground" filmmakers' criticism of the professors' remarks about the movie here. It's fair to say that Zalkin probably agrees with Kirby Dick and Amy Zierning's assessment of the professors. Interestingly, Mr. Zalkin discusses an OCR investigation into Harvard Law school for Title IX violations. Zalkin writes: What the 19 professors don't disclose is that the process they were involved in was so flawed that Harvard Law was investigated by the Department of Education, which found the process biased in favor of the accused. As a result, Harvard Law completely changed its adjudicative process, and no longer allows the Harvard Law faculty to make the final decision. Under the new and fairer process, it is almost certain that the sanction would have been upheld. These are interesting points that Mr. Zalkin makes. First, it appears that he believes a disciplinary system at a University is flawed if it favors the accused. Certainly, any system which could result in the expulsion of a student with the second order effect of not being accepted into any other university, ought to favor the accused. Shouldn't it? Should not the burden of proof be on the governing body to determine that the accused committed the act for which he was accused before he endures expulsion? A process that is biased in that it favors the accused is a fair process, particularly when you are the accused. The second flaw that Zalkin notes is that Harvard Law faculty made the final decision regarding expulsion. I'm not sure that lawyers having the final say on whether the accused is expelled is a bad thing when it comes to such a complex crime. Certainly, they have more training in the law, so allowing lawyers to have a final say seems like it would be welcomed. On the flip side, had a board made up of athletic coaches made a decision not to expel the student and the law professors overruled the decision, then I highly doubt that Mr. Zalkin would condemn the practice of lawyers having the final say. Moreover, reasonable individuals would probably understand that football coaches should not be making expulsion decisions for charges of sexual assault. For example, Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Claire McCaskill are champions of Servicemembers who are alleged victims of sexual assault, and one of their major issue with the UCMJ was that Commanders could dismiss charges after a conviction at court-martial. In fact, McCaskill used the dismissal of charges in a case at Aviano to amend the UCMJ and take away the Commander's authority to dismiss charges. Gillibrand wants to take the UCMJ out of Commanders hands completely because they are not trained lawyers. Quite frankly, trained lawyers should be in charge of prosecuting sexual assault in the military. Likewise, Harvard should be commended for having a disciplinary system that is biased towards the accused and overseen by lawyers. Such a system or comments by law professors favoring such a system should place no chill on campus sexual assault victims coming forward. But, it strongly appears that Mr. Zalkin believes that such a system is not fair because it did not permit the sanctions against Brandon Winston to be upheld. Such a results directed process is a very dangerous proposition. I'm sure that had Mr. Zalkin been the victim of a false sexual assault allegation while in law school, then he would probably have a different opinion. Posted by barney greenwald at 4:47 PM |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 18 2015, 05:28 AM Post #5 |
|
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/12/17/higher-education-house-divided/77493896/ Higher education is a house divided George F. Will 2:43 p.m. EST December 17, 2015 Although he is just 22, Andrew Zeller is a fourth-year Ph.D. candidate in mathematics at Purdue University. He is one reason the school is a rare exception to the rule of unreason on American campuses, where freedom of speech is under siege. He and Purdue are evidence that freedom of speech, by which truth is winnowed from error, is most reliably defended by those in whose intellectual pursuits the truth is most rigorously tested by reality. While in high school in Bowling Green, Ohio, Zeller completed three years of college undergraduate courses. He arrived at Purdue when its incoming president, Indiana’s former Gov. Mitch Daniels, wanted the university to receive the top “green light” rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which combats campus restrictions on speech and rates institutions on their adherence to constitutional principles. Zeller, president of Purdue’s graduate student government, and some undergraduate leaders urged Daniels to do what he was eager to do: Purdue has become the second university (after Princeton) to embrace the essence of the statement from the University of Chicago that affirms the principle that “education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think.” The statement says “it is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable or even deeply offensive,” and it endorses “a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.” Why is Purdue one of just six universities that have now aligned with the spirit of the Chicago policy? Partly because of Daniels’ leadership. But also because Purdue, Indiana’s land-grant institution, is true to the 1862 Morrill Act’s emphasis on applied learning. It graduates more engineers than any U.S. university other than Georgia Tech. It awards more STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) undergraduate diplomas than all but two public research universities (Penn State and Texas A&M). Among such universities, a higher percentage of Purdue students graduate in STEM fields than those of any school other than Georgia Tech and the University of California, San Diego. Scientists and engineers live lives governed by the reality principle: Get the variables wrong, the experiment will fail, even if this seems insensitive; do the math wrong, the equation will tell you, even if that hurts your feelings. Reality does not similarly regulate the production of Marxist interpretations of “Middlemarch” or turgid monographs on the false consciousness of Parisian street sweepers in 1714. Literature professors “deconstructing” Herman Melville cause nothing worse than excruciating boredom in their students. If engineers ignore reality, reality deconstructs their bridges. The Yale instructor whose email about hypothetically insensitive Halloween costumes incited a mob has resigned her teaching position. She did so in spite of a letter of faculty support organized by a physicist and signed mostly by scientists, including social scientists, rather than humanities faculty. In their scalding 2007 book “Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case,” Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson plausibly argue that Duke’s disgrace -- a fictional rape; hysterical academics trashing due process -- was driven by the faculty Group of 88. Signatories of its manifesto included “only two professors in math, just one in the hard sciences, and zero in law. … More than 84 percent described their research interests as related to race, class or gender (or all three). The Group of 88 was disproportionately concentrated in the humanities and some social science departments. Fully 80 percent of the African-American studies faculty members signed the statement, followed by women’s studies (72.2 percent) and cultural anthropology (60 percent).” Higher education is increasingly a house divided. In the sciences and even the humanities, actual scholars maintain the high standards of their noble calling. But in the humanities, especially, and elsewhere, faux scholars representing specious disciplines exploit academia as a jobs program for otherwise unemployable propagandists hostile to freedom of expression. This is, however, a smattering of what counts as good news in today’s climate: For the first time in FIRE’s 16 years of monitoring academia’s authoritarianism, fewer than half (49.3 percent) of American universities still have what FIRE considers egregiously unconstitutional speech policies. Purdue is one of six universities that eliminated speech codes this year, and one of just 22 with FIRE’s “green light” rating. George Will’s email address is georgewill@washpost.com. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 18 2015, 05:31 AM Post #6 |
|
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/18/is-sex-assault-coverage-really-sexist.html Is Sex Assault Coverage Really Sexist? Lizzie Crocker The Women’s Media Center claims more male journalists write about campus sexual assaults than female, but the number-crunching seems as shaky as their thesis that this reporting is incomplete. When reporting on campus sexual assault, male journalists devote insufficient coverage to alleged victims’ stories in print media, where women’s voices are already grossly outnumbered. This argument is the focus of new report (PDF) from the Women’s Media Center, which concludes that a supposed dearth of female journalists covering campus sexual assault has resulted in a dearth of crucial stories from (alleged) victims of sexual assault. The report, titled “Writing Rape: How U.S. Media Cover Campus Rape and Sexual Assault,” examined 940 articles on high school and college sexual assault written between September 2014 and August 2015. The stories were culled from twelve “top-circulation U.S. newspapers and wire services,” including the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. 55 percent of these stories were authored by men compared to 31 percent by women, proving that “coverage is significantly skewed toward the bylines and voices of men.” Furthermore, the report found that the stories written by women paid greater attention to the damage inflicted on alleged victims, while men—insensitive and biased in favor of the accused—focused more on “campus proceedings.” In a statement accompanying the report, Women’s Media Center President Julie Burton urged the media to “take a hard look at where it stands on this kind of critical work and figure out how it plans to move forward in a more equitable way.” The unsubtle implication here is that women are better than men at covering the emotionally fraught issue of sexual assault because they empower alleged victims by telling their stories. This may well be true, and it makes sense that a women’s advocacy group would arrive at this conclusion. But the study’s call for “more equitable” coverage in the media is, in fact, not equitable at all. First, the study doesn’t tell us what percentage of all male reporters and all female reporters their sample represents. “In order to conclude that the problem is assignment, which is what the authors seem to believe, we’d have to know what proportion of reporters are men versus women,” Linda LeFauve, Associate Vice President for Planning and Institutional Research at Davidson College, told The Daily Beast. LeFauve debunked a 2002 study by sexual assault expert David Lisak, which has been widely cited as the model for the emerging theory that rapists on college campuses are serial predators. “Whether men are disproportionately assigned depends not on the percent of stories written by them, but on the percent of men writing the stories.” Speaking to The Daily Beast, LeFauve noted that the 31 percent of women journalists whose stories were examined in the study may represent a large percentage of all women journalists. If this were true, more women would have been assigned to cover sexual assault than men, which would make the study’s numbers completely misleading. “Whether men are disproportionately assigned depends not on the percent of stories written by them, but on the percent of men writing the stories,” said LeFauve. In a thoroughly reported article challenging Emily Yoffe’s extensive critique of The Hunting Ground, Jezebel’s Anna Merlan argues that confirmation bias is “poison for journalists.” It led her to defend Sabrina Erdely’s fabricated UVA gang rape story in Rolling Stone—“incorrectly, vehemently, and in total error.” Thank You! You are now subscribed to the Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason That error has “informed the way I approach every story since,” Merlan writes (She also accuses Yoffe of confirmation bias in favor of the accused in The Hunting Ground.) The Women’s Media Center study affirms the power of confirmation bias: the authors conclude that their research “clearly shows how the gender of the journalist affects what story is told, and without diversity in the newsrooms, we are not getting the whole story.” In other words, the media’s coverage of sexual assault is skewed in favor of the accused because there are more men writing about it than women. If more women were writing about campus sexual assault, readers would be more likely to get “the whole story.” The authors write: “The voices of those who say they have been victimized and are willing to speak out—often a difficult decision, and one that can result in open mudslinging, shaming, and trolling—are not being given the space and consideration they deserve.” We all have pre-existing biases, and it can be difficult for journalists to disregard them when reporting on emotionally fraught issues like sexual assault. But we are failing as reporters if we don’t confront and challenge them in our work. Indeed, it was confirmation bias that led Sabrina Erdely to compromise her journalistic integrity—to rely solely on ‘Jackie,’ an unreliable source, when accusing UVA of covering up a heinous, felony crime. The fantastic irony of this new report is that it encourages confirmation bias in the media, failing to recognize the link between confirmation bias and obfuscating or distorting truth. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 18 2015, 05:37 AM Post #7 |
|
http://wrvo.org/post/how-well-new-law-against-campus-sexual-assault-working#stream/0 How well is the new law against campus sexual assault working? By Karen DeWitt • 1 hour ago Gov. Andrew Cuomo made anti-sexual assault legislation on college campuses a key part of his agenda in 2015. Six months after signing what’s called the “Enough is Enough” legislation, college officials say it’s helped accelerated a trend toward better awareness and reporting of incidents. The governor, in his efforts to pass the anti-sexual assault measure, enlisted the aid of prominent women in the political and entertainment world including House Leader Nancy Pelosi and actress and comedian Whoopie Goldberg, who made a video. The measure passed with little opposition from the legislature. The new rules are more proactive than punitive. They require each college to develop a uniform definition of affirmative consent for sexual activity so all participants make clear that they agree to proceed with any sexual act. Cuomo, at the bill signing ceremony over the summer, said the “common sense” measures are long overdue. “If there is a victim of a sexual assault or alleged sexual assault, that victim has rights,” Cuomo said. Students receive a bill of rights outlining their legal protections if they are victims of sexual violence and information on how to contact campus police or state police where a special unit will soon be set up, say state police, to help campus sexual assault victims. Schools are also required to offer students amnesty from college drinking and drug use rules if the student is reporting an assault or witnesses a violent crime committed by another student. The issue is personal for the governor, who has three daughters -- two in college and one a senior in high school. The State University of New York (SUNY) adopted most of the policies a year ago on its 64 campuses. SUNY’s Joseph Storch, an attorney who specializes in anti-sexual assault law compliance, said the new guidelines dovetail with other recent federal laws to combat sexual violence on campus. They include the 25-year-old Clery Act, which was named after Pennsylvania college student Jeanne Clery who was murdered in her dorm room, as well as Title IX and the Violence Against Women Act. He said the colleges worked with students to develop a mobile phone app that spells out the definition of affirmative consent, the students bill of rights and how to confidentially report if you think you’ve been a victim of sexual violence or have witnessed a crime being committed. Storch said the new guidelines have accelerated what was already a growing trend, greater reporting of instances of sexual assault by students. “For obvious reason, I can’t share specific examples,” said Storch, who said sexual violence is one of the hardest things to measure because of the low level of reporting. But, he said that is now changing. “We have seen as we expected, a significant uptick in students coming forward,” Storch said. New York is also requiring that participants in sports and leaders of any college-affiliated clubs undergo mandatory awareness training before they are allowed to join the group or the team. Richard Trietley, who is in charge of complying with anti-sexual assault rules at St. Bonaventure University in Olean, said it’s been quite a task. “We’re Division I, we have 14 teams, we’re moving to 16 teams, we have over 270 student athletes,” Trietley said. “So that was a major undertaking.” But, he said he thinks the trainings and constant messaging on the topic will help change the culture and prevent assaults. Trietley said St. Bonaventure, though, actually had what he thinks is a better affirmative consent policy in place before the Enough is Enough law took effect. The school required an affirmative, verbal yes from both parties before engaging in sexual activity. He said the new requirement is murkier. “You had to say the word,” Trietley said. “Now, under the new law there’s supposedly actions that would also constitute consent. We have found that in investigating cases under this new standard, that there’s a lot of gray area there.” There are no measurable statistics yet on how well the new law is working. Campuses are required to send data to the New York State Education Department on an annual basis, but that won’t happen until later in 2016. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 18 2015, 05:38 AM Post #8 |
|
http://dailynexus.com/2015-12-17/former-ucsb-student-files-title-ix-lawsuit-against-uc-regents/ Former UCSB Student Files Title IX Lawsuit Against UC Regents December 17, 2015 at 9:15 pm by Supriya Yelimeli Former UCSB student Haley Moore filed a Title IX Civil Lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California on Thursday, claiming UCSB failed to adequately address and investigate her case after receiving the complaints in October 2014. Moore’s civil action case is based on “Gender Discrimination” under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity that receives federal funding. According to the plaintiff, she suffered the loss of educational opportunities after being sexually assaulted in October 2014, ultimately being forced to withdraw from the university in January 2015 due to “deliberate indifference” on the part of the university. According to the case, Moore’s cousin reported the sexual assault to the police the morning after the incident. Moore provided a statement to UCPD and went to Campus Advocacy Resources & Education (C.A.R.E.) the next day to schedule a counseling session. After Moore received a session with an intern seven to 10 days later, Moore’s father contacted Marisa Huston, Assistant Coordinator of Student Mental Health Services and requested his daughter be able to promptly meet with an experienced counselor. Moore met with Huston two to three days later and was allegedly made to wait 10 minutes and told that Huston was not obligated to the keep the contents of the meeting confidential. During this counseling session, Moore expressed concern about losing her financial aid and student housing if she dropped classes and was told by Huston that these could both be potential problems. The case states Kirsten Olson, the Assistant Clinical Director and Administrative Services Coordinator called Moore three to four days after the counseling session and scheduled a meeting for a few days later. “At the meeting, Olson immediately began talking to Moore about her grades. She asked Moore if Moore had considered withdrawing from UCSB. Moore informed Olson that she did not want to withdraw. Olson responded by questioning Moore’s decision not to withdraw, and informed Moore that there were counseling measures Moore could engage in during the time she was withdrawn from UCSB,” the case states. According to the case, Moore also had a phone call with Joe O’Brien, Assistant Dean and Director of Advising at UCSB, and was told that if she reduced her course load, she would be ineligible for both financial aid and UCSB housing. Moore also made efforts to switch her counselor at C.A.R.E., but ran into several roadblocks. In January 2015, Moore received a letter from UCSB informing her of academic probation due to poor academic performance during her first quarter at UCSB. In late January, four months after first reporting her assault to UCSB, Moore withdrew from the university. The plaintiff alleges that UCSB’s Title IX coordinator was never informed of her sexual assault report and that she was not provided adequate or timely counseling from C.A.R.E. after the sexual assault. Moore’s case also claims UCSB did not take any action to investigate Moore’s report of sexual assault by another UCSB student after she expressed a desire for some “remedial action” to be taken with regard to her report. In response to this request, the university allegedly told Moore an investigation would take a long time, be difficult emotionally and distract Moore from her studies. She was also told a school investigation would likely interfere with, and possibly even sabotage, the criminal investigation of Moore’s assault. The case also states Moore encountered the perpetrator of her sexual assault at least one time on campus after the incident, causing Moore to quickly leave the area after suffering a panic attack. “The mere presence on campus, without any restrictions, of the student that sexually assaulted Moore made Moore vulnerable to additional harassment and further exposed her to a sexually hostile environment,” the case states. The plaintiff also claims she was deprived of several education opportunities, including but not limited to: a drop in her GPA, withdrawal from several classes, avoidance of several social activities on campus, the need to seek multiple accommodations from UCSB and eventual withdrawal from UCSB. “As a result of Defendant Trustees’ deliberate indifference, Plaintiff suffered loss of educational opportunities and/or benefits, has incurred and will continue to incur attorney fees and costs of litigation,” the case states. UCSB and the University of California Office of the President were both unable to comment, stating the case is currently pending litigation. UCSB Public Affairs office said while they could not comment on the case, the safety and well-being of students is the university’s highest priority, and students’ cases are treated with care and confidential advocacy. “If the student chooses to formally report their assault to the University, the allegations are thoroughly investigated and adjudicated in accordance with UC policy and government guidelines. We strive to ensure that our investigative processes are survivor-centered, but we understand that not every survivor opts to formally report their assault. In all cases we continue to offer support and counseling to assault survivors, as the safety and well-being of our students is our highest priority,” the statement reads. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 18 2015, 05:41 AM Post #9 |
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/irwin-zalkin/harvard-law-professors-pu_b_8822098.html Harvard Law Professors Put the Chill on Campus Sexual Assault Victims Posted: 12/17/2015 1:24 pm EST Updated: 12/17/2015 3:59 pm EST Irwin Zalkin The Zalkin Law Firm represents survivors of campus sexual assault in Title IX lawsuits There has been much discussion over the past year about the ways that universities adjudicate accusations of sexual assault. Much of that discussion is constructive and will ultimately lead to better, fairer policies for everyone involved. Unfortunately, a group of 19 Harvard Law professors have waded into the debate and potentially derailed the progress their university has made toward creating a fair and just process. On November 11, this group of professors issued a press release highly critical of the documentary The Hunting Ground. The release challenges, without any evidentiary support, the film's description of the indifference that American colleges and universities have exhibited regarding the rampant problem of campus sexual assault. In particular, they take issue with the film's portrayal of a case involving the sexual assault of a female Harvard Law student, Kamilah Willingham, and publicly offer support for her assailant, Brandon Winston, who was a fellow student. As a lawyer who has represented hundreds of sexual abuse and sexual assault victims, I find the conduct of these law professors to be reprehensible, but not atypical of those who are more concerned about protecting their reputations, and the reputation of their institution, than the safety and welfare of their students. It's time to set the record straight. In January 2011, Willingham reported to Harvard Law that Winston sexually assaulted her and her friend while they were incapacitated. Harvard Law hired an Independent Fact Finder (an attorney), who after an extensive investigation found Willingham credible and her assailant Winston not credible. The Harvard Law Administrative Board heard the case and found Winston had committed sexual assault against both Willingham and her friend and recommended the sanction of dismission, which is essentially expulsion with the option to reapply. Winston appealed to a Hearing Officer, who upheld the Administrative Board's decision. The case then went to the Harvard Law faculty, which included many of the 19 professors, who overturned the findings of the three previous Harvard Law entities, using a standard later found to be in violation of Title IX law. This review was kept so secretive that Harvard Law refused to give Willingham the names of who voted, the vote count, or a transcript of the review, only saying they reversed because of lack of "substantial evidence." What the 19 professors don't disclose is that the process they were involved in was so flawed that Harvard Law was investigated by the Department of Education, which found the process biased in favor of the accused. As a result, Harvard Law completely changed its adjudicative process, and no longer allows the Harvard Law faculty to make the final decision. Under the new and fairer process, it is almost certain that the sanction would have been upheld. But it gets worse. In an effort to defend their involvement in a flawed process and protect their reputation, the 19 professors continue to litigate the case in public, even going so far as assisting in building a very slick website for Brandon Winston, complete with his baby picture in an obvious ploy for sympathy. The fact that these same professors who were directly involved in the school's flawed review process are publicly voicing support for the assailant is, at a minimum, unprofessional, if not outright unethical. Imagine the chilling effect this type of conduct will have on other Harvard law school students who have been sexually assaulted. How can they ever trust in the integrity of the university's adjudication process if they know that their professors may retaliate publicly against the victim? It is completely inappropriate for those who stood in final judgment of a case to publicly attack one side and vehemently support another after they have rendered their decision, no matter how much they might disagree with criticism of that decision. Imagine if our judges lashed out every time the media questioned their decision? These are law professors who are supposed to be training young lawyers on the importance of objectivity, factual accuracy, and respect for differing points of view. Instead, the vitriol in their attack on the filmmakers, and by extension Willingham, is unbecoming of the faculty of one of the most venerated schools of law. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 18 2015, 03:46 PM Post #10 |
|
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/another-male-gender-bias-claim-dismissed-in-court/article/2578738 Another male gender-bias claim dismissed in court By Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) • 12/18/15 3:29 PM Another male student's request for a preliminary injunction alleging gender-discrimination in the school's sexual assault investigation was dismissed in federal court on Wednesday, illustrating once again the difficulty students are having in the federal system. Despite this, Judge Steve Jones wrote that Georgia Institute of Technology's adjudication process was "very far from an ideal representation of due process." The student, identified only as John Doe in the lawsuit, alleged that his due process rights were violated and that he was discriminated against because of his male gender in order for Georgia Tech to appear tough on campus sexual assault. On both counts the judge ruled against the student, meaning the student's current expulsion will stand. Georgia Tech employs a single-investigator model for adjudicating accusations of sexual assault, meaning just one person investigates and judges the allegation. In this case, that investigator, Peter Paquette, ignored inconsistencies in the accuser's story, yet determined the accused to be not credible after he admitted to telling a single lie, which he corrected. Paquette also refused to interview witnesses on behalf of the accused, including two who could have disputed the accuser's claim. The judge in this case did note that he was "greatly troubled" by some of the problems with Georgia Tech's process, including the single-investigator model. "It appears from the evidence before the court that Mr. Paquette did not pursue any line of investigation that may have cast doubt on [the accuser's] account of the incident, even though such lines were present in this case," Judge Jones wrote. Among these lines of investigation was one of Doe's suggested witnesses, the president of the accuser's sorority, who said the accuser only told her something "could" have happened the night she alleged she was assaulted. Paquette also included in his report unsubstantiated rumors about Doe. Doe appealed his case twice after the initial finding, and each time the appellate panel upheld the initial decision. Judge Jones argues that since the appeals panels deliberated over the case (even though they didn't try to pursue lines of inquiry like the ignored witnesses), that means Doe was able to have his side heard. Judge Jones, though troubled by numerous flaws in Georgia Tech's process, didn't believe those flaws violated Doe's constitutional rights to due process. Jones also determined that there was no gender bias in Doe's case. Jones further denied that Doe would suffer harm due to his expulsion and gap in education because he didn't provide "evidence" that he would be questioned about the gap. Of course, no such evidence exists, as it is something that would happen in the future. So, basically, Georgia Tech's process is deeply flawed, but there's nothing the federal court can or will do about it. Such is the fate of many accused students, who face a higher burden of proof in a legal setting than the accusers do in the school setting. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 18 2015, 04:32 PM Post #11 |
|
http://academicwonderland.com/2015/12/18/more-shenanigans-from-ga-tech/ More Shenanigans from GA Tech December 18, 2015 kcjohnson9Leave a comment Two days after Judge Steven Jones allowed a Georgia Tech sexual assault judgment to stand—even as the judge admitted that conduct from the university investigator “very far from an ideal representation of due process”—the university will be back in court, facing another lawsuit calling into question its fairness. Just as in the first case, an internal appeals process overturned a decision by Georgia Tech’s “single investigator,” Peter Paquette. Just as in the first case, the student wound up being expelled anyway. Just as in the first case, the accused student is noting the curricular impact of the expulsion—requesting an injunction since Georgia Tech is in the process of changing its required courses, so if he can’t enroll this spring, he’d be permanently harmed as classes vanish from the curriculum. If anything, the facts of this case are even more compelling. (You can read the complaint here.) Fortunately for the accused student, the case was assigned to Judge Richard Story, rather than Judge Jones, the jurist indifferent to Georgia Tech’s unusual conception of due process in Wednesday’s ruling. The case involves two students, one gay and one bisexual (John Doe, or JD, the plaintiff), who aren’t identified in the complaint. After sexual activity in April 2014, the accuser waited just under a year to file charges with Georgia Tech, even though he had regular social contact with JD during most of that time. As occurs in the overwhelming majority of campus cases, there’s no evidence the accuser went to the police. The two students hooked up twice in April 2014; but the accused student soon made it clear he wasn’t interested in a relationship. Nonetheless, shortly after their second hook-up, the eventual accuser rented a nearby duplex for the following academic year. He thus, as the complaint notes, “arranged to rent a house that was literally fifteen feet away from the person who he would accuse almost a year later of sexual misconduct.” Photos from fall 2014 show the two socializing together, even though they no longer had any type of sexual relationship. In early February 2015, the would-be accuser sent a message asking the plaintiff to come “cuddle with him”; the plaintiff refused and said he had no interest in a sexual relationship. That message appears to have marked a turning point in the two students’ relationship. The accuser shortly thereafter asked JD to delete their private Facebook correspondence; in what turns out to have been a major mistake, JD complied with the request. By the end of the month, the accuser unfriended him on Facebook and ceased all contact with him. He filed a complaint in April 2015. JD, who hadn’t been open about his bisexuality, was forced to reveal his sexual orientation to his parents as a result. Georgia Tech investigated. The school—whose policies, as was seen in the previous case, designate a sexual assault accuser as the “victim,” and witnesses as “informants,” thereby belying the presumption of innocence—uses the “single investigator” model, with Paquette running the show. As shown in the previous case, Paquette’s investigative technique is unusual. He interviews students, but doesn’t record the interviews, and shares with the accused student only summaries of his private interviews with his “informants.” (An accused student has no right to sit in, or have a legal representative sit in, on any of Paquette’s interviews.) In this case, according to the complaint, the accuser presented Paquette with edited version of Facebook conversations he’d had with the student he accused; Paquette (like all college investigators) lacked subpoena power to compel production of the entire exchange. Nonetheless, after speaking to JD, the investigator didn’t sound too sure that anything untoward had occurred. He produced a report conceding that “it is reasonable to believe that based on the nonverbal action of [the accuser] that John Doe believed he had consent.” Case over, right? Guess again. In a bizarre interpretation of the presumption of innocence, the investigator argued, “However, the charge of this investigator, however [sic], is to determine if one of the stories is more likely than not.” In other words: Paquette seems to view his job not as determining whether it was more likely than not the accused student reasonably believed he had consent. Instead, he utilizes some vague standard of attempting to determine which person’s story the investigator found most likely. So if Paquette was 99 percent certain an accused student believed he had consent, that student theoretically could still be deemed a rapist by Georgia Tech if Paquette was 99.5 percent convinced the accuser had too much to drink. How did Paquette reach his conclusion in this case? He determined—based on 12-month-after-the-fact conclusions—that the accuser was “very intoxicated.” (The second hookup occurred at a party; both students had been drinking.) According to Paquette, being very intoxicated made it “more likely than not” that the accuser was “incapacitated and incapable of giving consent.” In other words: it was more likely than not the accused was very intoxicated, and it’s more likely than not (according to Paquette’s wholly subjective standards) that a very intoxicated person will be incapacitated. No wonder Judge Jones concluded that Paquette’s vision fell “very far from an ideal representation of due process.” JD appealed. As occurred in the previous Georgia Tech case, the university appeals committee looked skeptically at Paquette’s work (especially his odd determinations of credibility), and overturned the finding. The accuser had five business days to file an appeal to the president; he didn’t do so. Case over, right? Guess again. On the sixth business day, an appeal was filed—but not by the accuser. Instead, his parents filed the appeal. Rather than dismiss this as procedurally improper, the president heard the appeal, and restored Paquette’s finding. JD then exercised his final right of appeal, to the Board of Regents. Remarkably, they overturned the president’s actions (it seems very likely that the board was also aware of the dubious conduct in the other Georgia Tech case as well). Case over, right? Guess again. The Georgia Tech president remanded the case to the appeals committee, but gave them a new charge, reiterating an extreme affirmative consent policy (“the initiator must obtain consent at every stage of sexual interaction”) and holding that “intoxication,” in and of itself, is enough to have “incapacitation,” and thus sexual assault. Under this extraordinary definition—which would make a good chunk of the sex between Georgia Tech students to be rape—the appeals committee reversed its original findings, and upheld Paquette’s judgment. The juxtaposition between the two Georgia Tech cases is remarkable. In the first case, Paquette proclaimed that once a key witness lied to him, that decision alone undermined the witness’ credibility. So because the accused student in the first case lied to Paquette about sexual contact with another female student (regarding which Georgia Tech said he did nothing wrong), the investigator no longer deemed him credible regarding the allegation that led to his expulsion. But here, according to the complaint, the accuser made several false or misleading statement to Paquette—with no loss of credibility. Will Judge Story show the courage that Judge Jones did not? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:28 AM Jul 11