| Blog and Media Roundup - Friday, January 8, 2015; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 8 2016, 04:22 AM (221 Views) | |
| abb | Jan 8 2016, 04:22 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=210620210 Danowski Making His Debut as U.S. Head Coach Sunday Courtesy: Duke Sports Information Release: 01/07/2016 DURHAM, N.C.—Duke men’s lacrosse head coach John Danowski will be making his debut as the U.S. Lacrosse Men’s National Team head coach Sunday when the national team takes on 2015 NCAA Champion Denver at the inaugural Team USA Spring Premiere. The game will be played in Bradenton, Fla., Jan. 10 at 11 a.m. The game will be streamed live on USLacrosse.org Familiar Faces for Danowski The roster for the game features some very familiar faces for Danowski. Included on 24-player roster are six former Blue Devils, all of whom Danowski coached for at least two seasons. His son, Matt Danowski and Major League Lacrosse Offensive Player of the Year Jordan Wolf are two of the five attackmen selected, while Ned Crotty, David Lawson and Justin Turri make up one third of the midfield. Faceoff specialist Brendan Fowler rounds out the Duke contingency. Lawson and Crotty both were members of the 2014 team that took silver at the FIL World Championship. Bissette Named Equipment Manager Duke men’s lacrosse equipment manager Jay Bissette was selected to join the Team USA staff as the head equipment manager. Bissette has been with the Blue Devils lacrosse squad for each of its three NCAA Championships and served as the equipment manager for the U-19 U.S. team that won the 2012 world title. He also is serving in the same capacity for the current under-19 squad. Danowski and DeLuca Together Again Among the seven person staff Danowski and U.S. Lacrosse has put together is former Duke assistant coach Ben DeLuca. He will serve as the assistant general manager for Team USA. DeLuca, in his first season as associate head coach at Harvard, helped guide the Blue Devils to the 2014 title. Other Blue Devils Ties Team USA goaltender John Galloway also has Duke ties after serving as an assistant coach for a season with the Blue Devils. Galloway, the current assistant coach at Providence College, was a standout at Syracuse as a four year starter. At Duke, Galloway mentored the goaltenders in helping lead Duke to an ACC title and to the NCAA semifinals. Team USA Roster by Position Attack Matt Danowski, Chesapeake Bayhawks, Duke Marcus Holman, Ohio Machine, North Carolina * Rob Pannell, New York Lizards, Cornell * Casey Powell, Florida Launch, Syracuse +# Jordan Wolf, Rochester Rattlers, Duke Midfield Brent Adams, Boston Cannons, Fairfield Jake Bernhardt, Ohio Machine, Maryland Ned Crotty, Rochester Rattlers, Duke *^ John Haus, Charlotte Hounds, Maryland David Lawson, New York Lizards, Duke * Paul Rabil, New York Lizards, Johns Hopkins *^ (injured and unable to participate) Tom Schreiber, Ohio Machine, Princeton Jeremy Sieverts, Denver Outlaws, Maryland Drew Snider, Denver Outlaws, Maryland Justin Turri, Atlanta Blaze, Duke Defense Tucker Durkin, Florida Launch, Johns Hopkins * Michael Evans, Chesapeake Bayhawks, Johns Hopkins * Ryan Flanagan, Charlotte Hounds, North Carolina Joe Fletcher, New York Lizards, Loyola Kyle Hartzell, New York Lizards, Salisbury * Scott Ratliff, Boston Cannons, Loyola Faceoff Brendan Fowler, Charlotte Hounds, Duke Greg Gurenlian, New York Lizards, Penn State * Goalie Drew Adams, New York Lizards, Penn State * John Galloway, Rochester Rattlers, Syracuse |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jan 8 2016, 04:26 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elura-nanos/why-the-bill-cosby-lawsuit-fills-me-with-hope_b_8929788.html Elura Nanos Lawyer, TV Personality, Author, Entrepreneur, Mom, and a pretty good cook. Why The Bill Cosby Lawsuit Fills Me With Hope Posted: 01/07/2016 5:08 pm EST Updated: 01/07/2016 5:59 pm EST Clearly, I'd be happier if there weren't over 45 women alleging that this superstar drugged and raped them -- but what's going on in the civil and criminal cases against the former Dr. Huxtable is heartening for those of us in the legal world. Accusations against Bill Cosby have arrived at just the right time. Now, in the wake of terrifying documentaries like The Hunting Ground, and public battles over the Safe Campus Act and the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, people are paying closer attention to the way sex crimes are investigated and prosecuted. The civil defamation suit against Cosby along with the tandem criminal prosecution for sexual assault is creating unusual legal and policy issues that, because of Cosby's notoriety, the public is scrutinizing. Here's what I'm seeing: 1. Everyone thinks the statute of limitations creates an unfair loophole. Usually, people like the idea of statutes of limitations, particularly with regard to criminal matters. After all, we don't want the cops to show up on our doorstep to investigate something that happened 25 years ago. The evidence would be old and unreliable and it wouldn't be fair to ask us to defend ourselves against accusations about things we couldn't possibly remember clearly. That was the logic I learned back in law school, and yet, public opinion seems to have changed quite a bit since then. Now, even those people who believe Cosby to be innocent agree that if he had raped someone back during his pudding-pop days, he shouldn't go free just because a statute of limitations had run. Twelve years ago wasn't that long ago. For rape victims, I'm sure their trauma seems like it happened yesterday. The public outrage over the 12-year statute of limitations for sexual assault indicates a general consensus that rape is too serious a crime to warrant such a short prosecutorial window. 2. The Federal Court refused to allow Camilla Cosby to avoid testifying by invoking "spousal privilege." This is big, people. Under most state and federal laws, spouses are shielded from any requirement to testify against one another in lawsuits by the "spousal testimonial privilege." The thought process has always been that unless we're talking about a divorce or custody case, spouses should never be required to speak in open court about one another, because doing so could destroy the very fabric of the marriage. I couldn't agree more. There's not a lot that could destroy a marriage as quickly as one spouse being asked to testify about the extent to which the other is a creep. Yet, last week, a federal magistrate judge in Massachusetts ruled that Camille Cosby must give testimony about a whole heap of topics as part of a civil defamation suit against her husband. The judge's message was pretty clear: "Okay Cosbys, whatever bizarre glue holds together your marriage isn't my concern. It's far more important to get to the truth of seven women's allegations of rape." In the legal world, marriage is considered sacrosanct. Spousal privilege and its evidentiary cousin, the marital communications privilege, have often been a problem for prosecutors handling everything from child abuse to racketeering cases. A ruling against Camille Cosby asserting her spousal privilege is a sign of the times: protecting victims of violence is simply more important than protecting marriage. Camille has appealed the magistrate's ruling about her deposition, and while that appeal is pending, her deposition is being delayed; there is, however, a very good chance that the appellate court will uphold the magistrate's ruling and require Mrs. Cosby to give testimony. 3. People are beginning to consider and understand the purpose of the legal system in general. I'm often astounded by how unfamiliar much of the general public is with the American legal system. At least half the people I talk to are unclear about the difference between the civil system (where people sue one another, usually to obtain monetary damages) and the criminal system (where the government prosecutes wrongdoers, usually to impose criminal penalties). Ignorance about how the legal system functions isn't a result of society's stupidity (okay, sometimes it is) -- but rather is a reflection of people's attitudes toward the law. Many have a relationship with the law roughly equivalent to that with dental health: they think about it about twice a year, and basically try to avoid the topic unless a problem persists. But the Cosby situation, in its sensationalism and shocking scope, has forced us to think about the purpose and power of our legal system and some of its components. Water cooler conversation now includes questions like, "what will a civil penalty really do to punish a wrongdoer?" and "is there a way these victims can even get justice decades after being victimized?" The answers to these questions are critical to Cosby and his victims -- but the fact that we are asking them is what will become meaningful for the rest of us. When those outside the justice system begin to care about how the law protects, punishes, and empowers -- and when those concerns rival our interest in celebrity gossip and entertainment -- that's when our legal system stands the best chance of achieving the greatness of which it is capable. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jan 8 2016, 04:27 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/07/ex-students-say-college-botched-rape-inquiry.htm Ex-Students Say College Botched Rape Inquiry By NICK RUMMELL ShareThis PATERSON, N.J. (CN) - Four black students claim in court that university administrators rushed to judgment and conducted a shoddy investigation before having them arrested on a charge of gang rape and later expelling them. William Paterson University freshmen Garrett Collick, Noah Williams, Darius Singleton, Jahmel Latimer, and Termaine Scott were accused in November 2014 of raping a female student in a dorm room. Charges against all five have since been dropped. The case against the young men was slipshod, according to two complaints filed by four of the accused, because campus police failed to interview other students, look up the accuser's cell phone records or blogs, look into the young woman's previous interactions with Collick and Williams on social media and elsewhere, or even conduct a rape kit examination of the young woman. "Collick and Williams were not interviewed or questioned regarding the accusations, did not receive notice that the defendants commenced an investigation against them, and had no opportunity to deny the rape and sexual assault allegations," according to the complaint the two men filed in Passaic County Superior Court on Dec. 22. The complaint further alleges that the accuser was "very sexually active at William Paterson" and had a history of multiple partners and drug use, which necessitated her having to change dorm rooms after her roommate became uncomfortable with her sex life. A similar lawsuit was filed Dec. 3 by Singleton and Latimer in Hudson County Superior Court. No case has yet been filed by Scott. The crime the five were accused of committing was lurid and almost tailor-made for sensational tabloid headlines. They were alleged to have been watching television in their dorm room, when their accuser arrived. It was then, the criminal complaint said, that Collick turned off the lights and forced the young woman to perform sex acts on him and the four others. The five freshmen were off campus, on Thanksgiving break, when they suddenly found themselves under arrest four days after the alleged incident. Collick was charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of criminal restraint. Williams was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of first degree kidnapping. All five of the accused were 18 at the time of the incident. Both Collick and Williams were suspended and later expelled from school and told they would be barred from campus. In the days after their arrest, William Paterson University President Kathleen Waldron issued a statement praising the accuser for "courageously stepp[ing] forward to take legal action and seek justice." However, when the case was presented before a Passaic County grand jury, it was dismissed after a day for lack of evidence. Collick has admitted to group sex with the young woman, but he has consistently maintained it was consensual. According to his complaint, it was the accuser who turned off the lights and closed the blinds, then initiated sex with the five freshmen. Further, the accuser had been pursuing Collick for some time and had sex with him once before the alleged rape, according to the 71-page lawsuit. "[She] inundated Collick with texts and other messages seeking intimate and sexual relations, most of which Collick rejected," the complaint says. Collick and Williams further claim the investigation into the matter was poorly handled because neither knew why they were being interrogated until the accuser's name was mentioned. As a result, the men say, they were unfairly deemed guilty before any investigation took place. "Plaintiffs' name and photographs will forever be synonymously linked to rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping," the complaint states. The lawsuit names the university, its police department, and Waldron as defendants. It also names as defendants university Director of Public Safety Robert Fulleman and Sergeant Ellen DeSimone, who conducted the university police investigation. Collick and Williams both enrolled at William Paterson under a school financial assistance program designed to help students from poor and troubled backgrounds, according to their complaint. Representatives of William Paterson University, which is located in Wayne, N.J., have yet to respond to a request for comment about the lawsuits from Courthouse News. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jan 8 2016, 04:29 AM Post #4 |
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/01/07/u-s-senator-education-department-overstepped-authority-on-sexual-assault-complaints/ U.S. Senator: Education Dept. overstepped authority on sexual assault complaints By Emma Brown January 7 at 11:18 AM U.S. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) is asking federal education officials to provide legal justification for their interpretation of Title IX’s provisions related to sexual harassment and assault. The Obama administration’s Education Department has aggressively pushed colleges and universities to address campus sexual harassment and violence by promptly investigating complaints of misconduct and sanctioning anyone found to have done wrong. It’s a move that has been welcomed by many assault survivors and their advocates, who have been working for years to raise awareness about the largely hidden problem of sexual violence on college campuses. [One in five college women say they were violated] But others on the nation’s college campuses, and in Congress, have criticized federal officials for overstepping their bounds, pressuring schools to create quasi-criminal justice systems on campus that fail to adequately protect the rights of the accused. And now their cause is being pushed by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who on Thursday sent a letter questioning whether the Education Department has exceeded its legal authority in its efforts to push colleges to do more on sexual assault. Lankford, chairman of the Senate’s regulatory affairs subcommittee, argues that federal officials essentially violated the rules that outline how the government is supposed to make rules. “I don’t have a sense that the Department of Education is mean or evil,” Lankford said in an interview. “My issue is you have to follow the rules and do this the right way.” The Obama administration laid out universities’ and school districts’ obligations to address harassment and sexual violence in two key “Dear Colleague” letters, one issued in 2010 and one in 2011. The letters helped to usher in sweeping changes on many campuses. But some of their provisions were controversial, including a list of acts that should constitute harassment, which was broad enough that some scholars said it would conflict with students’ First Amendment right to free speech. Also, the department said that an accused student should be disciplined if the majority of the evidence suggested the student was guilty — an important departure from the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt legal standard that prosecutors must meet to convict someone in court. The letters are considered administrative guidance, which agencies are supposed to use when they need to clarify regulations that already exist. But Lankford argued in his letter Thursday that the Education Department’s letters outlined such big and important changes that they amounted to new regulations. And there’s a whole process for writing new regulations. That process involves soliciting and responding to public input. It usually takes a long time. It is often a headache. Lankford accused the Education Department of misusing guidance letters to circumvent that headache. “We can’t just say this is hard, so I’m going to skip it,” he said. The Education Department declined to comment on Lankford’s criticisms. “We have received the letter and look forward to responding,” spokesperson Dorie Nolt wrote in an email. This is not the first time that the department has faced questions about its use of Dear Colleague letters, and officials in the past have said that the letters are appropriate because they clarify existing regulations stemming from Title IX, the federal law that protects students from sex discrimination — and therefore assault and harassment — in federally funded education programs. “I do not make the law, but we explain it. It’s an explanation of what Title IX means,” Catherine E. Lhamon, assistant secretary for civil rights, told the Senate education committee in 2014. “This is not regulatory guidance.” “I greatly disagree with that,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) shot back in a lengthy exchange about the matter. “You’re just making an edict without any chance for public comment.” Regulations are legally binding. Letters are not. However, Lankford wrote Thursday, many university officials have complained that they have no choice: They are so dependent on the federal government, particularly for student loan support, that they feel they must do what the Education Department says — even if it’s technically a suggestion and not a command. His letter — addressed to Acting Secretary John B. King Jr. in his first full week at the department’s helm — asks the department to cite the existing regulations that justify every mandate in the 2010 and 2011 “Dear Colleague” letters. “Colleges and universities across the nation, in addition to prestigious legal scholars, government officials, and members of the U.S. Congress view the Dear Colleague letters as improperly issued guidance that require constitutionally questionable and ill-conceived policies — policies that fail to accomplish our common regulatory goals of school safety and gender equality in education as required by Title IX,” Lankford wrote. “Here, I present to you an opportunity to correct the muddled record.” |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jan 8 2016, 08:10 PM Post #5 |
|
https://www.thefire.org/as-new-lawsuit-alleges-racial-discrimination-in-campus-sexual-assault-proceedings-hunting-ground-producers-continue-to-blame-films-criticism-on-threat-to/ As New Lawsuit Alleges Racial Discrimination in Campus Sexual Assault Proceedings, ‘Hunting Ground’ Producers Continue to Blame Film’s Criticism on ‘Threat’ to ‘White Male Power’ By Samantha Harris January 8, 2016 Amy Ziering, one of the producers of The Hunting Ground—a film that purports to shed light on the issue of campus sexual assault—recently said that the backlash against her film owes to the fact that it poses “a threat to the dominant white male power.” Part of that backlash, according to Ziering, was the “crazy reaction” from Harvard Law School professors like Jeannie Suk and Janet Halley, who were among the signatories to a press release that blasted the film’s portrayal of Harvard Law student Brandon Winston and called the film “propaganda.” In accusing these professors of acting in defense of “white male power,” Ms. Ziering strangely ignores the fact that Brandon Winston is black. If we are to believe the filmmakers, the issue of campus rape is really one of “a white, middle-class or upper-class, privileged male population,” right? Wrong. In her calls for reforming Harvard’s sexual misconduct procedures, Harvard Law professor Janet Halley has noted that “[c]ase after Harvard case that has come to my attention, including several in which I have played some advocacy or adjudication role, has involved black male respondents.” Indeed, over the last four years, at least 13 lawsuits have been filed by black men against universities across the country alleging that they were denied fundamental fairness in campus sexual assault proceedings. In the most recent of these lawsuits, Browning v. University of Findlay, two black male students expelled without a hearing from the University of Findlay, a private institution in Ohio, allege not only that they were subject to manifestly unfair disciplinary proceedings, but also that the university discriminated against them on the basis of race. According to the students’ complaint, “[t]he University of Findlay has a history of discriminating against African-American males in allegations of sexual assault by Caucasian females.” The allegations in the lawsuit are shocking. The students allege not only that they received no hearing, but that the Title IX investigator never even interviewed the complaining student, instead accepting the facts from her initial report of the alleged assault. When the accused students were interviewed, they allege, they were not given any specific details about the allegations against them, nor were they informed of their right, under university policy, to have an advisor present. The students allege that racial bias affected the university’s investigation process at various stages, including the investigator’s choice of witnesses to interview as well as the investigator’s decision not to interview the students’ (Caucasian) accuser. Moreover, they allege that after they were expelled, the university sent an email to the entire university community about the alleged assault, identifying the students by name and stating that they had been expelled. An article from The Toledo Blade published just three days after the students’ expulsion seems to corroborate many of their allegations, including the university’s release of their names: Dave Emsweller, vice president for student affairs, said the university on Friday dismissed basketball player Alphonso Baity and football player Justin Browning. … A university investigative group interviewed the accused students and witnesses Thursday and “reached a conclusion that there was a preponderance of evidence that suggested there was a sexual assault,” he said. As I have noted before, it is distressing that so many people who otherwise seem to care about justice and fairness have developed such a blind spot when it comes to the rights of those accused of sexual assault on campus. And it goes without saying that anyone peddling the narrative that only privileged white frat boys get accused of sexual assault on campus is not only peddling a falsehood, but also actively undermining the fundamental rights of all college students. Due process protections exist to reduce the chance that bias and prejudice, of whatever kind, will affect the outcome of a proceeding. When due process is ignored or reduced, those against whom bias or prejudice is most likely to be directed are the ones who bear the brunt. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:27 AM Jul 11