| Blog and Media Roundup - Thursday, February 15, 2018; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 15 2018, 05:18 AM (107 Views) | |
| abb | Feb 15 2018, 05:18 AM Post #1 |
|
http://padailypost.com/2018/02/14/law-professor-leading-judge-recall-isnt-attorney/ Law professor leading judge recall isn’t an attorney February 14, 2018 3:04 pm BY ALLISON LEVITSKY Daily Post Staff Writer Critics of the movement to oust Judge Aaron Persky from the Santa Clara County Superior Court have raised concerns about the fact that the Stanford law professor leading the recall movement, Michele Dauber, has never been licensed to practice law. “Frankly, I think it’s something that ought to be considered when people look at what her position is in the recall, as with anyone who is taking a position in the recall,” Santa Clara County Bar Association CEO Chris Burdick told the Post. “An academic understanding is different than if you’ve had practice experience.” The county bar association opposes the recall campaign. But Burdick pointed out that doesn’t mean the association supports the six-month county jail sentence Persky gave Brock Turner, the former Stanford student convicted in 2016 of sexual penetration with a foreign object and sexual assault with intent to commit rape. Cordell cites Dauber’s inexperience Former Palo Alto Judge LaDoris Cordell, an outspoken opponent of the recall campaign, brought up Dauber’s lack of a bar membership on the CNN show “Smerconish” on Saturday. “The Turner case is about criminal law. She has no experience in that area of the law, so she repeatedly says things that are inaccurate, incomplete and misleading,” Cordell told the Post yesterday. “This information about her lack of legal acumen is crucial to her credibility when talking about the Turner case.” But Dauber said Cordell’s claims are meant to distract from the real issues. Most law professors at universities like Stanford don’t practice law, Dauber said. Dauber graduated magna cum laude from Northwestern Law School in 1998 before clerking for Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Academic record She then had a two-year doctoral fellowship at the American Bar Foundation where she studied the legal profession. After that, she said she turned down a postdoctoral research position with the Harvard Society of Fellows to join the Stanford faculty as a law professor in 2001. She earned her doctorate in sociology from Northwestern in 2003. Dauber said she is an expert on the law surrounding campus sexual violence. She teaches two classes on the subject at Stanford and is currently the principal investigator of a large empirical study on the subject. Changing the subject? “The Persky campaign keeps trying to change the subject away from Judge Persky’s history of biased decision-making in cases of violence against women,” Dauber told the Post. “Yesterday they were blaming the victim for being intoxicated. Today they are reviewing my resume. But this election is about none of that. It’s about Judge Persky.” A number of practicing lawyers in the county support the recall. On Oct. 19, Stanford law professor Mark Lemley wrote a letter to the county bar association in support of the campaign. The letter was co-signed by 21 other practicing lawyers, including Stanford law professor G. Marcus Cole, former Stanford president Donald Kennedy’s wife Robin Kennedy and Planned Parenthood Mar Monte general counsel Catherine Valentine. The recall campaign turned in more than 95,000 signatures last month to qualify for the June 5 ballot |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 15 2018, 05:20 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.amestrib.com/news/20180214/district-court-dismisses-lawsuit-claiming-isu-mishandled-sexual-assault-case District Court dismisses lawsuit claiming ISU mishandled sexual assault case By Grayson Schmidt, Staff Writer gschmidt@amestrib.com Posted Feb 14, 2018 at 2:53 PM Updated Feb 14, 2018 at 10:37 PM A lawsuit against Iowa State University claiming it mishandled a sexual assault case involving a former student was dismissed by Iowa’s Southern District Court Wednesday, after the court ruled the victim could not prove “deliberate indifference” or “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive discrimination” In the original lawsuit — filed Sept. 9, 2016 — the woman claimed the university took too long to review her sexual abuse complaint and didn’t take “reasonably acceptable steps” to protect her. According to court documents, the incident occurred on March 30, 2014. The assailant and woman were together at an apartment party on ISU’s campus. Both consumed alcohol, and at some point during the evening, the victim became ill and passed out on a couch in the apartment. The woman awoke to the assailant sexually assaulting her. The incident was reported by the victim to ISU police that same day. Patrick Whetstone, 22, was arrested Jan. 15, 2015, nearly a year after the incident originally took place, and charged with third-degree sexual abuse. Whetstone pleaded guilty in September 2016 to assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, an aggravated misdemeanor, and sentenced to two years probation, ordered to register with the state’s sexual offender registry, and received a 10-year special sentence. The woman also claimed that she was not provided with a notification of her rights pertaining to Iowa’s sexual abuse law and the Clery Act, was discouraged from formally reporting the assault, was not made aware of counseling services available on campus, or any housing options available to her then or in the future. Documents show she was placed in housing near Whetstone, and was either given an option of staying in her current living condition or moving into worse conditions further away. The woman then returned to her home-state of Texas to deal with the trauma arising from the assault, and eventually withdrew from school for the remainder of the spring 2014 semester. According to the lawsuit, the woman claimed ISU indicated it would investigate the allegations and reach a conclusion within 60 days of the report being filed, however ISU police allegedly chose not to investigate at that time but waited until the fall of 2014 to investigate the assault. Nearly six months after the incident, ISU provided an investigative report detailing its conclusions regarding the sexual assault, which state the university thought the evidence “barely showed a sexual assault had occurred,” the lawsuit stated. In its dismissal Wednesday, the federal district court in Des Moines ruled the woman’s claim that ISU violated Title IX does not have its own statute of limitations, so courts use the state’s personal injury statute of limitations, which in Iowa is two years. Documents also say the victim’s Title IX claim fails because ISU was not “deliberately indifferent” to the victim’s alleged known acts of discrimination, as the university assessed whether Whetstone was a threat to the victim, determined he was not, and imposed a no-contact order for her and her roommate. The ruling claims that this was one of numerous responses designed to help the victim, and was not clearly unreasonable. Documents say that ISU did not ignore the victim’s report, but responded in a way that it felt “balanced (the victim’s) rights with Whetstone’s rights. The final piece of the ruling dismissing the lawsuit claims ISU responded to the victim’s claims by stating that “one instance of sexual assault or harassment is insufficient to support a harassment claim under Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit case law; it must be pervasive.” According to the documents, the university claims that the victim did not suffer any post-assault harassment, and that Whetstone’s proximity to the victim did not contribute to a hostile environment because it was “only mental and emotional distress” caused by the victim’s “prenotice sexual assault.” According to court documents, the court ruled that that the victim did not “demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact” as to whether ISU engaged in “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive discrimination” against the woman because of her gender. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 15 2018, 05:25 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_7f285002-11a1-11e8-8213-c3ad07c3ea5d.html Court dismisses Title IX case against university by former student By Alex Connor, alex.connor@iowastatedaily.com Feb 14, 2018 A federal court ruled Tuesday to dismiss a former Iowa State student's case against the university that alleged her Title IX rights were violated after she was sexually assaulted by another student in spring 2014. Melissa Maher, who in 2016 took initial action against the university for subjecting her to an unreasonable amount of time to investigate the incident, said Iowa State was "deliberately indifferent" about her case due to her sex. Additionally, Maher's Title IX suit alleged that her discrimination was "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive her of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school." Decided Tuesday, however, was Iowa State's motion for a summary judgement that concluded Maher did not demonstrate a "genuine issue of material fact" as to whether Iowa State engaged in the aforementioned Title IX discrimination. A summary judgment is a request for the court to rule that there is no case because there are not enough facts to present the issue. Should the court have ruled against Iowa State's motion for a summary judgement, Maher's lawsuit would have gone to trial in early May. "While we are pleased with the Court's ruling, our thoughts are primarily with Ms. Maher and other survivors of sexual assault," said Iowa State communications director John McCarroll. "We are deeply saddened that Ms. Maher experienced this traumatic sexual assault and the devastating impact caused by the criminal conduct of a fellow student." The judgement was decided by Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Helen Adams, who had originally heard arguments from Maher and Iowa State in early January during the summary hearing. The hearing was requested by attorney Derek Teeter on behalf of Iowa State, who is a partner at Husch Blackwell—a corporate law firm hired by Iowa State to represent the university in its Title IX cases. According to court documents, additional disputes between Maher and Iowa State also stemmed from the two parties clashing in deciding when the Title IX violations began. Because Title IX does not have a statute of limitations, the court must use the state's personal statute of limitations in claims such as this. Maher argued that the statute of limitations began on Sept. 19, 2014, the day her assaulter, Patrick Whetstone, was reported to have violated the university's Code of Conduct provision against sexual assault. Iowa State argued that Maher's claim was even further time barred, however, because "she claims the indifference began in the spring of 2014, which is approximately six months outside the limitations." The court decided however that "alleged discrimination began, and the day that Iowa State was allegedly deliberately indifferent to its own discrimination" on Aug. 20, 2014 when Maher was made aware she would be living in the same apartment complexes as Whetstone. During this period, Iowa State offered to provide Maher with alternative housing but declined to move Whetstone. Both dates, however, whether spring or fall 2014 still fell outside the statue of limitations, according to Iowa law. "The court also recognized the difficult balance the university must navigate in protecting and supporting the needs of alleged victims," McCarroll said. The university also has the responsibility of satisfying its due process obligations to alleged perpetrators. "As campus community, we must strive to rid our campus of sexual violence. Additionally, we should redouble our efforts to support survivors and help them to heal and accomplish their future goals," McCarroll said. Currently, Iowa State is actively involved in several additional cases alleging Title IX violations by the university including a lawsuit by a former student and former Title IX Director Robinette Kelley. Correction: The article has been updated to reflect that the above case went through federal court and not Iowa's Southern District Court. The article has also been updated to reflect that Judge Helen C. Adams is a Chief U.S. Magistrate and not a circuit court judge. The Daily regrets these errors. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 15 2018, 05:27 AM Post #4 |
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456409/james-madison-university-lawsuit-sexual-assault-treatment-targeted James Madison University’s Sexual-Assault Star Chamber A student is now trying to recoup nearly $850,000 in legal fees. By Hans A. von Spakovsky & Sarah Williams — February 14, 2018 It may finally be payback time for one student at James Madison University. In a case involving a dubious sexual-assault claim and a proceeding reminiscent of Franz Kafka’s The Trial, “John Doe,” the accused male student, received a five-year suspension from the university. A court later reinstated him. And now the university may be required to pay Doe a cool $849,231.25 to cover his legal costs — if the judge on the case accepts the recommendation of a federal magistrate. The report filed by U.S. magistrate Joel Hoppe in John Doe v. Alger says that the school unfairly suspended the student for a sexual assault that was alleged but never proven. In fact, Doe was found innocent by the campus tribunal that originally heard the claim. The case’s “Jane Roe,” a female student who lived in the same dorm as Doe, had sexual intercourse with Doe and then alleged — several months later — that she had been too intoxicated to consent. Doe claims they had intercourse again several days later, which Roe denies. However, Doe produced text messages in which it appears, according to the court, that Roe was “either seeking to have more of a relationship with Doe, or being upset that he had ‘move[d] on like it was nothing.’” Roe’s own roommate testified that she did not see Roe drink that night and that Roe was “completely fine” earlier in the evening. Roe did seem “droopyish” and “tired” when the roommate returned to the dorm and went to get Roe from Doe’s room, but Roe did not seem drunk and did not need any help walking back to her own dorm room or getting ready for bed. Another student testified in writing that Roe had come to Doe’s room on another occasion and, on seeing him with another woman, had left “visibly angry and upset.” The campus tribunal concluded that Doe was “not responsible” on the charge of sexual misconduct. However, Roe filed an appeal with a campus board, a maneuver that would have been barred by the double-jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution if this had been a criminal prosecution in a court instead of a campus proceeding. This state of affairs stems from the Obama administration’s “Dear Colleague” letter sent out to universities in 2011 threatening to withhold federal funding unless they changed their procedures for handling sexual-assault claims. This letter told the universities to weaken already minimal due-process protections for students accused of rape and sexual assault. That included lowering the standard of proof, prohibiting cross-examination of the accuser, not allowing the accused to be represented by a lawyer, and accepting these “double jeopardy” appeals by alleged victims in cases where the original tribunal found in favor of the alleged perpetrator. The letter’s strictures violated basic due-process rights and were roundly criticized in liberal and conservative quarters, from law professors to think-tank scholars to members of Congress. The appeal was heard by a board of three university professors, who would not permit Doe to appear, who examined no witnesses, and who reviewed additional evidence submitted by Roe without allowing Doe even to see some of it. Jane Roe presented a voicemail from a friend at another university in an effort to prove she was intoxicated on the night of the alleged rape. However, a screenshot of the voicemail showed that the message had been left the evening prior to the night of the alleged assault. One of the appeal-board members, Professor Dana Haraway, admitted she didn’t realize this until after Doe filed his lawsuit, a sad comment on the incompetence of the board’s procedures as well as its members. Roe also alleged that her roommate had lied when she testified in the original hearing that Roe was not intoxicated the night Roe claims she was raped. Roe said her roommate was trying to “cover her tracks” because the roommate had been drinking, too. These pieces of evidence were never presented to Doe, rendering him incapable of defending himself against them. Furthermore, because of school policy, Doe was barred from contacting Roe’s roommate to further question her original testimony or even ask her to reaffirm her previous statements. The appeals board also didn’t bother to question either Roe or the roommate about these contradictory claims. Without giving any explanation for its decision to overrule the campus tribunal, the appeals board suspended Doe from the university for five years. That decision was reviewed by Mark Warner, JMU’s senior vice president of student affairs and university planning, who affirmed the appeal board’s decision — also without explanation. Doe’s readmission would be allowed only if he completed “an education/counseling program and then reapplied” after half a decade. And, even if readmitted, he would be banned from “Greek involvement and functions.” Doe wasn’t even told about the decision of the appeal board until Warner had finalized his punishment. Thus Doe had no opportunity to provide any input to Warner. And pursuant to JMU’s policy, the entire “charge file was shredded shortly thereafter,” an inherently suspicious policy seemingly intended to thwart independent review of the university’s behavior (or misbehavior). The court decision against JMU, finding that the school had violated Doe’s fundamental due-process rights, occurred in December 2016. In April 2017, the court ordered Doe reinstated as a student in good standing and ordered the school to expunge his record of the sexual-assault claim. But for almost a year, Doe and his lawyers have been trying to get reimbursed for his legal costs in his lawsuit against JMU. The same intransigence and refusal to recognize its wrongdoing that was evident in the original case has been present in the court fight over these legal costs. JMU rejected numerous attempts to settle the case despite its plain and obvious mishandling of the sexual-assault claim. Judge Hoppe points out that while JMU claimed Doe’s request was too high because Doe’s attorneys “overstaffed the case, were inefficient, and duplicated each other’s work,” JMU did “not offer any specific support for this position.” Hoppe’s recommendation, that Doe receive just under $850,000 to cover his legal costs, is now with U.S. District Court Judge Elizabeth Dillon, who hopefully will approve it. But unless JMU changes its procedures and its attitude, any parents thinking about sending their kids to the university should think twice. Otherwise, they might find themselves in the same nightmare that John Doe did. — Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow and Sarah Williams is part of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. Along with John Fund, von Spakovsky is the coauthor of Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk and Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:13 AM Jul 11