Author: Edward Bartlett

Categories
Coercive Control Parental Alienation

Murder Suicide and False Allegations at the Hands of Female Perpetrators

Murder Suicide and False Allegations at the Hands of Female Perpetrators

By Joan T. Kloth-Zanard

December 9, 2021

The statistics don’t lie, and nor do these three stories.  Men are abused at the same rate as women, the difference is that women are more likely to use a deadly weapon or poison to do it, while men are more likely to use physical abuse.  The one thing they have in common, is they both use psychological abuse at the same rate.  But this article is not about psychological abuse but about how women are just as likely and capable of harming their male partners and their children.

John Mast

John Mast was an alienated father who was murdered by his ex-father-in-law after being awarded joint custody of his children.  He spent years fending off false allegations of abuse and many other charges.  Finally, the courts found him not guilty and awarded him back joint custody.  On February 5, 2021, the day he was to pick his children up, he was gunned down by his ex-father-in-law.  John’s ex-wife had convinced her father that John was unsafe and a danger to his children.  John was gunned him down, in the back, in a parking lot, in front of his children and family. [04-23-2021, PASI (PAS Intervention & ISNAF (International Support Network of Alienated Families) Panel Discussion with Attorney Kevin Hickey]

Rod McCall

Like John Mast, Rod McCall, was a targeted father who spent years defending himself from false allegations of abuse and neglect.  Rod is a survivor of Parental Alienation but his son was not. In the course of his divorce, his ex-wife attacked his name, his reputation and accused him of a false crime. This resulted in his losing his job, getting arrested and having his publicly ridiculed on the local Dallas/Ft. Worth news stations. He was proven not guilty and after a weeklong jury trial, the mother was stripped of her parental rights. The three attorneys, Father’s, Mother’s and the Child’s, begged the judge to make the custody exchange at the courthouse, but the judge insisted on allowing the mother to go home and say her goodbyes. Before they realize it, the mother had left and gone home to do more than just say goodbye.  On October 21, 2011, she killed their son and herself less than an hour after the jury verdict was handed down. (04-23-2021, PASI & ISNAF Panel Discussion with Rod McCall)

Ray Reynolds

Now, let’s consider the case of Ray Reynolds, whose ex-wife and the female Guardian Ad Litem Attorney (GAL) for the child, accused him of sexually abusing his toddler daughter.  It cost him $250,000, the loss of his business and severe complex emotional trauma to prove his innocence and win back sole custody of his daughter.  But before he could get his daughter back, the GAL assisted the mother in illegally leaving the USA and going to Costa Rica with the child.  But his case could have gone seriously sideways if he had not had the funding to fight for his rights, along with the support of family and friends.  He also took the unprecedented brave step to go after the GAL by filing a massive grievance against her.  He had a massive amount of evidence which may have prevented him from being attacked with another false criminal allegation by the GAL.  Sadly, he still has not got his daughter back despite being awarded sole custody.  And the GAL was not held accountable for her actions because of her strong connections.  And while she has not taken any new GAL cases, this has not stopped this GAL from continuing to have parents and anyone who crosses her path falsely arrested and jailed. (Personal Conversations with Ray Reynolds since May 2015).

Conclusions

These three cases are nothing new, nor are they rare.  But for many parents, they know how dangerous the other parent can be and so they just give up because they fear being murdered or harmed or that their children will be.  They realize that the other parents’ wealth, political connections, and intense hatred for them, can buy them.  So, these parents back off to save themselves and the children they love.

This leaves us with a huge concern.  After all these decades of cases of coercive control and domestic violence by proxy, these horrific events are still occurring.  There seems to be a serious lack of proper training, education and understanding of the psychological dynamics involved in custodial interference cases, where incessant allegations of abuse occur.  And there seems to be a strong underworld like current with “Good Ol’ Attorneys” network to control family court cases.  With the majority of cases of alienation involving false allegations, this is a serious issue because it wastes time, money and resources necessary for true cases of abuse.  It also means that true victims end up  being ignored or harmed.

How can this be in a Child’s Best Interest? How can this be considered okay or even normal?  We need to fix our dysfunctional family courts and the agencies around them.  We need to stop the corruption and buying of officials.  We need to stop the Mob Mafia Good Ol’ Attorneys network that allows much of the false allegations and criminal charges.  But most important, we need to be able to better recognize which parents are a danger to themselves and others.

Citations for General Reference:

1. Coalition to End Domestic Violence, 2021, Thirty-Years of Domestic Violence Half-Truths, Falsehoods, and Lies Coalition to End Domestic Violence. www.EndtoDV.org A pre-publication copy of this Special Report was provided to the DOJ Office on Violence Against Women to assure the report’s factual accuracy. No reply was received from the OVW.

2. Harman, J. J., & Matthewson, M. (2020). Parental alienating behaviors. In D. Lorandos and W. Bernet (Eds.), Parental Alienation– Science and Law, pp. 82-141. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.

3. Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2018). Influence of intimate terrorism, situational couple violence, and mutual control on male victims. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19, 612-623.

4. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). SF3.4: Family violence. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF3_4_Family_violence_Jan 2013.pdf

5. Tolan, P., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. (2006). Family violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 557-583

Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Investigations Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

16 New York Colleges Now Listed in the Kangaroo-Court ‘Hall of Shame.’ Syracuse U. is Worst Offender.

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

16 New York Colleges Now Listed in the Kangaroo-Court ‘Hall of Shame.’ Syracuse U. is Worst Offender.

WASHINGTON / December 8, 2021 – Judges have issued 31 rulings in recent years against 16 New York state colleges and universities. These decisions reveal widespread due process deficiencies for sexual harassment cases, which are typically handled by campus Title IX offices.

By far the worst offender is Syracuse University, with a total of six adverse judicial decisions to date. The school’s motto, translated from the Latin, states, “Knowledge crowns those who seek her.” In contrast, a Kangaroo Court cares more about reaching a “guilty” verdict (1), rather than engaging in an impartial search for knowledge and truth.

Unfortunately, many New York schools have ignored the most rudimentary notions of fairness. As a result, judges have handed down more decisions against New York colleges than schools in any other state, including states with larger populations.

Judges have ruled the following New York institutions violated key due process, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

  • Syracuse University – 6 decisions
  • Columbia University – 3 decisions
  • Cornell University – 3 decisions
  • SUNY Purchase – 3 decisions
  • Colgate University – 2 decisions
  • RPI – 2 decisions
  • Hobart and William Smith – 2 decisions
  • SUNY Stony Brook – 2 decisions
  • Hofstra University – 1 decision
  • Hamilton College – 1 decision
  • New York University – 1 decision
  • Skidmore College – 1 decision
  • John Fisher College – 1 decision
  • SUNY Albany – 1 decision
  • SUNY Cortland – 1 decision
  • United States Merchant Marine Academy – 1 decision

A complete listing of the case citations is available online (2).

The campus adjudications that are challenged in court represent a small subset of the total number of Title IX cases, suggesting that due process violations may be endemic at New York institutions. Due process includes timely notification of allegations, an impartial investigation, fair hearing, the right to appeal, and the presumption of innocence.

In 2015, New York enacted its “Enough is Enough” law that mandated a uniform definition of affirmative consent (3). The law did not address the due process rights of the accused.

More information about these and other judicial decisions is available in SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulations (4).

Citations:

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kangaroo%20court
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/11/new-york-national-champion-of-campus-kangaroo-courts/
  3. https://opdv.ny.gov/enough-enough
  4. https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/
Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

New York: National Champion of Campus Kangaroo Courts

New York: National Champion of Campus Kangaroo Courts

SAVE

November 29, 2021

Over the past decade, over 200 judicial decisions have been handed down against colleges across the country for violations of the rights of students accused of sexual misconduct. According to SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions,[1] these cases involve a broad range of due process violations:

  • Bias Towards Complainant: 34 judicial decisions
  • Guilt-Presuming Investigations: 33 decisions
  • Inadequate Cross Examination: 31 decisions
  • Institutional Sex Bias: 27 decisions
  • Lack of Proper Notice: 27 decisions
  • Failure to Give Respondent Access to Evidence: 23 decisions
  • Flawed Evaluation of Evidence: 20 decisions

Further analysis reveals that the state with the largest number of decisions against institutions of higher education is New York. Since 2013, trial and appellate courts have handed down 31 decisions against 16 New York schools.

The following schools were the losing party – the citations for all decisions are shown at the end of this article:

  1. Syracuse University – 6 decisions
  2. Columbia University – 3 decisions
  3. Cornell University – 3 decisions
  4. SUNY Purchase – 3 decisions
  5. Colgate University – 2 decisions
  6. RPI – 2 decisions
  7. Hobart and William Smith – 2 decisions
  8. SUNY Stony Brook – 2 decisions
  9. Hofstra University – 1 decision
  10. Hamilton College – 1 decision
  11. New York University – 1 decision
  12. Skidmore College – 1 decision
  13. John Fisher College – 1 decision
  14. SUNY Albany – 1 decision
  15. SUNY Cortland – 1 decision
  16. United States Merchant Marine Academy – 1 decision

In general, these decisions did not turn on subtle interpretations of nuanced legal precepts. Rather, they were based on a judicial recognition that colleges are failing to observe the most fundamental notions of fairness. In many cases, the bias was so flagrant as to suggest that sex bias was the motivating factor. This represents a violation of the federal Title IX law, which is expressly designed to ban discrimination on the basis of sex.

A Kangaroo Court is defined as “an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty.” These 31 decisions reveal that New York State now holds the dubious honor of being the national champion of Campus Kangaroo Courts.

The greatest embarrassment falls upon Syracuse University, with a total of six adverse judicial decisions, revealing a broad range of due process failings. The school’s motto, translated from the Latin, states, “Knowledge crowns those who seek her.” By definition, a Kangaroo Court cares more about reaching a “guilty” verdict than engaging in an impartial search for knowledge and truth.

One wonders whether SU administrators appreciate the irony.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Judicial Decisions Against New York Schools, 2013 – 2021

Name of College Number of Decisions Public or

Private

  

Case Citations (in reverse chronological order)
 

Syracuse University

  

 6

  

Private

 Fraternity of Alpha Chi Rho, Inc. v. Syracuse University, 141 N.Y.S.3d 296 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 10, 2021)

Doe v. Syracuse University, 457 F. Supp. 3d 178 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020)

Doe v. Syracuse University., 440 F. Supp. 3d 158, 168 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2020)

Doe v. Syracuse University, No. 5:18-CV-377, 2019 WL 2021026 (N.D.N.Y. May 8, 2019)

Noakes v. Syracuse University, No. 5:18-cv-00043-TJM-ML (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2019)

Doe v. Syracuse University, 341 F. Supp. 3d 125, 138 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 16, 2018)
Columbia University  3 Private Doe v. Columbia University, Case 1:20-cv-06770-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Aug 1, 2021)

Feibleman v. Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York, No. 19-CV-4327 (VEC), 2020WL 882429 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2020)

Doe v. Columbia University, 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. July 29, 2016)
Cornell University  3 Private Matter of Doe v. Cornell University, EF2016-0192. 2017 NY Slip Op 30142(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 20, 2017)

Doe v. Weill Cornell Univ. Med. School, 1:16-CV-03531 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2016)

Prasad v. Cornell Univ., N.D.N.Y. No. 5:15-CV-322, 2016 WL 3212079 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2016)
State University of New York at Purchase 3 Public Matter of Doe v. Purchase Coll. State Univ. of N.Y., 192 A.D.3d 1100, 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 31, 2021)

Doherty v. Bice, No. 18-CV-10898 (NSR), 2020 WL 5548790 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020)

Bursch v. Purchase Coll. of State Univ. of New York, 125 N.E.3d 830 (N.Y. June 6, 2019)
Colgate University  2 Private Doe v. Colgate Univ., 457 F. Supp. 3d 164 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020)

Faiaz v. Colgate Univ., 64 F. Supp 3d 336, 341 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 2 Private Doe v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., No. 1:20-CV-1185, 2020 WL 6118492 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2020)

In the Matter of John Doe v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, No. 254952 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 6, 2017)
Hobart & William Smith Colleges 2 Private Doe v. Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 6:20-cv-06338 EAW (W.D.N.Y. June 23, 2021)

Rolph v. Hobart & William Smith Colleges, 271 F. Supp. 3d 386, 401-02 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2017)
State University of New York at Stony Brook 2 Public Doe v. Haas, 427 F. Supp. 3d 336 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019)

Velez-Santiago v. State University of New York at Stony Brook, 170 A.D.3d 1182, 1183 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 27, 2019)
Hofstra University 1 Private Matter of Hall v. Hofstra University, 101 N.Y.S.3d 699 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 3, 2018)
Hamilton College 1 Private Matter of A.E. v. Hamilton College, 173 A.D.3d 1753 (N.Y. Ct, App. June 14, 2019)
New York University 1 Private Doe v. New York University, No. 1:20-cv-01343-GHW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62985 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021)
Skidmore College 1 Private Doe v. Skidmore College, 59 N.Y.S.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. July 13, 2017)
St. John Fisher College 1 Private Bisimwa v. St. John Fisher College, et al., E2019005959 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 20, 2019)
State University of New York at Albany

 

 1 Public Alexander M. v. Cleary (SUNY-Albany), 188 A.D.3d 1471, 1476 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 25, 2020)
State University of New York at Cortland

 

 1 Public Boyd v. State Univ. of New York at Cortland, 973 N.Y.S.2d 413, 415-6 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 17, 2013)
United States Merchant Marine Academy

 

 1 Service Academy Culiver v. U.S., No. 2:17-cv-03514-JS-SIL, Document 48 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2017)

Citation:

[1] https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/

Categories
Domestic Violence Victims Violence Against Women Act

Congressional Research Service Warns Against Turning VAWA into the ‘Anti-Nagging’ Law

Congressional Research Service Warns Against Turning VAWA into the ‘Anti-Nagging’ Law

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

November 2, 2021

Nagging has long been recognized as an annoyance in intimate partner relationships. But nagging was never seen as a legal matter.

In recent years, domestic violence activists have replaced “nagging” with a new term: “coercive control.” The CDC reports that each year, men are more likely than women to be victims of coercive control by their partners:[1]

  • Males: 17.3 million victims
  • Females: 12.7 million victims

These numbers do not come as a surprise to most. The question is, Do we really want to turn nagging into a legal offense?

The recent House bill, H.R. 1620, dramatically expands the definition of domestic violence to include “verbal” and “psychological” abuse. But the bill never defines what these words mean.

Tellingly, VAWA activists emphasize examples of male abuse, but seldom if ever cite examples of female-perpetrated coercive control. Shouldn’t we be calling out the dishonesty and bias?

CRC Weighs In

In its most recent analysis of the Violence Against Women Act,[2] the Congressional Research Service commented on the controversy.

Noting that adding “coercive control” to the VAWA reauthorization would “expand the number of individuals who are eligible for support from VAWA grantees,” the CRC issued this stern warning:

“some argue that a violent physical act is qualitatively different from other forms of abuse such as economic abuse, and legal definitions should reflect that distinction. Further, defining domestic violence as a pattern of behavior seemingly excludes isolated domestic violence incidents that do not involve a pattern of behavior. The proposed definition could exclude isolated incidents of domestic violence that do not meet the pattern of behavior standard.”

The CRC report also cites the Supreme Court’s United States v. Castleman decision, which ruled that the crime of domestic violence must be defined as the “use or attempted use of physical force.” Justice Scalia further argued, “when everything is domestic violence, nothing is.”

Mockery and Betrayal

So we need to ask, Do we really want to turn VAWA into the federal “anti-nagging“ law? Do we want to divert limited VAWA funds away from the men and women who are victims of severe, physical abuse?

This would represent a mockery of the anti-violence effort and a historic betrayal of victims.

Citations:

[1]https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf  Tables 4.9 and 4.10.

[2]https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46742 , pages 5-6.

Categories
Campus Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Newspapers, Commentators, and Organizations Give the ‘Thumbs Down’ to Catherine Lhamon

PRESS RELEASE

Email: info@saveservices.org

Newspapers, Commentators, and Organizations Give the ‘Thumbs Down’ to Catherine Lhamon

WASHINGTON / October 13, 2021 – A YouGov survey of the American public found that 68-80% of Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and Independents — support campus due process. https://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/opinion-polls/ Accordingly, a growing number of newspapers, commentators, and organizations has come out in opposition to the nomination of Catherine Lhamon to lead the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

During the July 13 HELP Committee hearing, Lhamon repeatedly side-stepped direct questions whether she believed in basic due process protections. She also admitted that she rejects the presumption of innocence, instead saying that Title IX adjudicators “should be open to the possibility” that the accused student is not guilty (https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/ocr-nominee-catherine-lhamon-repeatedly-side-steps-questions-about-campus-due-process/). As a result, Lhamon failed to win approval from a majority of HELP Committee members. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/08/04/lhamon-nomination-ocr-stalled-tie-vote-committee

Three media outlets, 35 commentators, and 12 non-profit groups — both liberal and conservative – have come out in opposition to the Lhamon nomination, often expressing their concerns in strong language:

Media Outlets

Commentators

Over 35 editorials by liberal and conservative commentators have been written in opposition to the nomination. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/08/pr-growing-opposition-both-liberal-and-conservative-to-the-nomination-of-catherine-lhamon/ and https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/presumed-guilty-catherine-lhamon-cannot-be-entrusted-with-the-job-of-enforcing-anti-discrimination-rules-in-colleges/

Organizations

  1. American Enterprise Institute (https://www.aei.org/education/bidens-office-for-civil-rights-nominee-refuses-to-condemn-racial-discrimination/ )
  2. Center for Urban Renewal and Education (https://curepolicy.org/press/cure-policy-calls-for-senators-to-vote-against-nomination-of-catherine-lhamon/)
  3. Equality for Boys and Men (https://equalityforboysandmen.org/ )
  4. Families Advocating for Campus Equality (https://www.facecampusequality.org/s/FACE-OPPOSITION-TO-LHAMON-5-20-21-FINAL.pdf)
  5. Family Research Council (https://www.frcblog.com/2021/08/will-schumer-go-all-way-bidens-ed-nominee-catherine-lhamon/ )
  6. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (https://www.thefire.org/catherine-lhamon-still-believes-the-title-ix-regs-allow-students-to-rape-with-impunity/)
  7. Independent Women’s Law Center and Independent Women’s Voice (https://www.iwv.org/2021/10/bidens-pick-for-title-ix-czar-catherine-lhamon-poses-serious-threat-to-civil-liberties/ )
  8. National Association for Scholars (https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/lhamon-wobbles-on-presumption-of-innocence-undermining-confidence-that-she-can-be-fair)
  9. National Coalition For Men Carolinas (https://www.ncfmcarolinas.com/ )
  10. Palm Beach Freedom Institute (https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/01/catherine-lhamon-and-the-coming-title-ix-nightmare/ )
  11. SAVE (https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/presumed-guilty-catherine-lhamon-cannot-be-entrusted-with-the-job-of-enforcing-anti-discrimination-rules-in-colleges/)
  12. Title IX for All (https://titleixforall.com/today-and-tomorrow-email-u-s-senators-to-oppose-catherine-lhamons-nomination/)

“Should Catherine Lhamon be confirmed, we are likely to see the resurrection of college sex tribunals with all the procedural fairness of the Salem Witch Trials,“ according to Independent Women’s Law Center director Jennifer Braceras.

SAVE urges all senators to vigorously oppose the nomination of Catherine Lhamon.

Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

‘Take Responsibility Act’ Would Upend Long-Standing Supreme Court Decisions, Dramatically Increasing University Liability Risk

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

‘Take Responsibility Act’ Would Upend Long-Standing Supreme Court Decisions, Dramatically Increasing University Liability Risk

WASHINGTON / October 11, 2021 – Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) recently introduced H.R. 5396 (1), a bill that would substantially increase universities’ risk of being targeted in Title IX lawsuits. The bill would remove the “actual notice” standard for Title IX claims, and provide a private right of action for alleged violations of Title IX regulations. These two changes would revolutionize how Title IX cases are handled on college campuses.

First, Section 3(a) of H.R. 5396 would abolish the “actual notice” standard for deliberate indifference of Title IX claims. “Deliberate indifference” claims are those filed against schools by persons who claim they are victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault where the university failed to act in response to the allegation.

Currently, such claims are governed by the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (2), and Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v. Monroe City Board of Education (3). These cases established the same standard for faculty-on-student and student-on-student claims, respectively. For a plaintiff to succeed, he or she must show that the school had “actual notice” of the harassment, meaning that “an official who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination… has actual knowledge of discrimination in the recipient’s programs and fails adequately to respond.” (4). In addition, the plaintiff must prove that the harassment was “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it… deprive[d] the victim of access to the educational opportunities.” (5).

Rep. Dingell’s bill would overrule these Supreme Court cases and establish a much lower standard. Under H.R. 5396, Title IX plaintiffs could use a negligence standard, which would allow them to prevail if they could merely show that the school “should have known” about the harassment. This bucks the Supreme Court’s reasoning that such a standard would unfairly punish schools for actions of third parties of which the school was unaware (6). Were this bill to become law, schools could expect a flood of litigation from alleged victims who may not have even filed complaints at their respective schools, because the school need not know about the harassment to be liable.

Second, the changes wrought by the bill’s Section 3(b) would be even more profound. This section would provide a private right of action to all Title IX plaintiffs (not just victim-plaintiffs) for violations of federal Title IX regulations.  As it stands now, victims of campus sex discrimination are required to prove discrimination in court, under the appropriate Title IX theories. Under H.R. 5396, a student could prevail if he or she shows discrimination, or that Title IX regulations were violated.

For example, the current Title IX regulations require “notice of the allegations of sexual harassment potentially constituting sexual harassment.” (7) Under the current Title IX regime, a plaintiff cannot sue if a school fails to provide adequate notice (unless he argues that the failure was motivated by sex-bias); rather, he will have to file a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights and hope that the Executive Branch enforces its regulations. Under the Dingell bill, by contrast, the plaintiff could simply show the school failed to provide adequate notice, and that failure in itself would be sufficient to show a violation of Title IX.

The effects would be immense. Whereas currently OCR could decline to pursue claims it received, under this bill every student effectively would become a citizen enforcement agency empowered to enforce federal regulations.

If this bill were to become law, schools could be held liable for harassment they did not know occurred, and for any failure to strictly abide by federal regulations. It is unclear whether sexual harassment accusers or respondents would be more likely to take advantage of these changes. But there is little doubt that if enacted into law, H.R. 5396 would provide an array of opportunities for students searching for creative strategies to cover their higher education expenses.

Citations:

  1. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5396?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.R.+5396%22%2C%22H.R.%22%2C%225396%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=2
  2. 524 U.S. 274 (1998).
  3. 526 U.S. 629 (1999).
  4. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290.
  5. Davis, 526 U.S. at 650.
  6. Davis, 526 U.S. at 642.
  7. Section 106.45(b)(2)(i)(B).
Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Know Your IX: ‘I’m angry, I’m disappointed’

Know Your IX: ‘I’m angry, I’m disappointed’

October 6, 2021

This morning was not what I expected. Our team had a meeting scheduled at the Department of Education with Acting Assistant Secretary Suzanne Goldberg and Deputy Secretary Cindy Marten. We were coming with more than 55,000 signatures on a petition demanding the Department of Education take action to protect survivors. I’m not naive. I knew they were resistant. But we came to the table hopeful that we could meet a compromise.

Instead, the Biden Administration outright refused to respond to our reasonable demands and turned their backs on student survivors.

Currently, the Biden Administration plans to wait until May 2022 to propose a new Trump-DeVos Title IX rule to help survivors. But that’s way too late. If they follow the same timeline as the last Administration, we wouldn’t get a new more effective Title IX rule until February 2024. We told them student survivors cannot wait any longer for the department to restore our civil rights. They must act now.

And what was their response? They asked us for ideas on how to prevent sexual assault on campuses. Yes, really. As if we hadn’t just presented our ideas in the form of a petition with more than 55,000 supporters! How do you prevent sexual assault?? A new Title IX rule issued this year, not May 2022, that’s how!

Then we took a deep breath, and decided to share some stories of students who survived sexual assault. It was heart-wrenching and difficult. But we ended by again reiterating what would have helped these students –– a Title IX rule that supports the rights and safety of all.

But the Department, again, shirked off our demands. I’m sick and tired of people in power asking survivors to share their trauma only to ignore their demands and turn their back on them.

I’m angry, I’m disappointed, but I’m ready to keep fighting. We organized a national movement that pushed the Obama administration to take survivors’ safety and access to education seriously––and we will do it again. But we need your help––here’s how:

  1. If you’re a student or recent alumni, sign up here to join a national coalition of students demanding #EDActNow. Today was just the first step, but we’re not done yet.
  2. If you’re not a current student or recent alumni, donate to ensure we can expand our national movement to organize for the rights of survivors. No amount is too small!
  3. Add your voice to this fight and check out the #EDActNow digital engagement toolkit for ways you can spread the word online or in your own community.

This is just the first week of October, there is still time for the Department of Education to come to their senses and meet some of our demands. But from what we’ve seen today, it’s going to take a lot of pressure to get them there.

In Solidarity,

Sage Carson

Manager, Know Your IX

Source: Know Your IX group message titled, “We met with the Dept. of Education, they turned their backs on us.”
Categories
Campus Investigations Title IX

Brett Sokolow: Dogged Pursuit of a Separate Reality

Brett Sokolow: Dogged Pursuit of a Separate Reality

SAVE

September 24, 2021

The overriding purpose of a campus Title IX adjudication is to evaluate the truthfulness of the allegation. The due process procedures used to achieve this goal include objective investigations, live hearings with cross-examination, impartial adjudications, and an opportunity for appeal, all buttressed by the presumption of innocence.

Following the release of the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) in 2011, suspended and expelled students began to file hundreds of lawsuits alleging violations of due process. Eventually, judges would issue over 200  decisions favorable to the students.

Six years after the issuance of the DCL, ATIXA president Brett Sokolow issued an upbeat assessment of the current state of due process on college campuses. Modestly titled, “One Response to Congressional Task Force Roundtable,” Sokolow dismissed any need to revitalize due process protections, concluding that “we need to be pushing back as an association and as a field” on the premise that campus processes lack “procedural rigor.”

None of his claims were supported by any references to case law, research, or even anecdotes. Indeed, a careful review of Sokolow’s assertions reveals that four of them are so contrary to existing case law as to suggest Sokolow was unaware of — or had chosen to ignore — the numerous judicial decisions that had been issued as of October 30, 2017, the date that Sokolow published his Response.

Sokolow’s four claims are presented below, verbatim and in italics, followed by a listing of the pertinent judicial decisions that had been issued before the date of the Sokolow pronouncement:

  1. Transparent Investigations and Access to Evidence: “Colleges offer the equivalent of informal discovery (a major procedural protection), by being transparent during the process about what investigators are learning, by sharing documents with the parties, and ultimately showing the report to the parties before it is finalized;”

Contradicting the Sokolow assertion, 13 judicial decisions were issued prior to October 30, 2017 that documented deeply flawed investigative procedures:

  1. Rolph v. Hobart & William Smith Colleges, 271 F. Supp. 3d 386, 401-02 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2017)
  2. Doe v. The Trustees of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 270 F. Supp. 3d 799, 816–17 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 13, 2017)
  3. Doe v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, 270 F. Supp. 3d 799, 817 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 13, 2017)
  4. Mancini v. Rollins Coll., M.D. Fla. No. 616CV2232ORL37KRS, 2017 WL 3088102, at *5 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2017)
  5. Tsuruta v. Augustana University, No. CIV. 4:16-4107-KES, 2017 WL 11318533, at *3 (D.S.D. June 16, 2017)
  6. Collick v. William Paterson Univ., D.N.J. No. 16-471 (KM) (JBC), 2016 WL 6824374, at *11 (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2016)
  7. Doe v. Brown University, 210 F. Supp. 3d 310, 339 (D.R.I. Sep. 28, 2016)
  8. Ritter v. Oklahoma City Univ., W.D. Okla. No. CIV-16-0438-HE, 2016 WL 3982554, at *2 (W.D. Okla. July 22, 2016)
  9. Doe v. Weill Cornell Univ. Med. School, 1:16-CV-03531 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2016)
  10. Doe v. Ohio State University, No. 2:15-CV-2830, 2016 WL 1578750, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 20, 2016)
  11. Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University, 149 F. Supp. 3d 602, 619 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2016)
  12. Doe v. Georgia Board of Regents, No. 1:15-cv-04079-SCJ, at *37-38 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2015)
  13. Doe v. Washington and Lee University, No. 6:14-CV-00052, 2015 WL 4647996 (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2015)

The judge’s language was particularly strong in Doe v. Georgia Board of Regents: “To put it bluntly, [investigator] Paquette’s testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing about the course of the investigation and the manner in which he made certain investigatory decisions was very far from an ideal representation of due process. (Pg. 37)…Much remains for the Court’s consideration as to whether Mr. Paquette’s investigation veered so far from the ideal as to be unconstitutional.”

Regarding adequate access to evidence, three decisions underscored schools’ failures in this area:

  1. Nokes v. Miami University, No. 1:17-CV-482, 2017 WL 3674910, at *11 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2017)
  2. Doe v. University of Notre Dame, No. 3:17CV298-PPS/MGG, 2017 WL 7661416, at *10 (N.D. Ind. May 8, 2017)
  3. Marshall v. Indiana University, 170 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 15, 2016)

In Marshall v. Indiana University, the judge noted, “the Defendants do not deny that they are in sole possession of all information relating to the allegations made by and against [respondent] Marshall, notably refusing, at all times, to share such information with Marshall or his attorneys.”

  1. Credible Evidence: “Colleges respect key procedural rules, including requiring that evidence be relevant and credible…”

Sokolow’s claim is challenged by three decisions issued prior to October, 2017 that revealed failures to conduct credibility assessments of the complainant:

  1. Arishi v. Washington State Univ., 196 Wash. App. 878, 908, 385 P.3d 251, 265 (2016)
  2. Doe v. University of Notre Dame, No. 3:17CV298-PPS/MGG, 2017 WL 7661416, at *10 (N.D. Ind. May 8, 2017)
  3. Mock v. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, No. 14-1687-II, at *14 (Tenn. Ch. Ct. Aug. 4, 2015)

In Arishi v. Washington State Univ., the judge explained, “But the fact that [complainant] MOS did not testify and was never cross-examined undermines confidence in the outcome. This is particularly so in light of evidence undermining her credibility: she misrepresented her age on Badoo as 19, misrepresented ‘Alex’s’ age to her mother, was going out during the daytime when she was supposed to be doing homework at home, was driving illegally, and had a different version of events when interviewed by Sergeant Chapman than she did when interviewed twice by Detective Dow.”

  1. Evaluation of Evidence: “Colleges allow and seek expert evidence and testimony as needed;”

In contrast to the Sokolow characterization, seven judicial decisions that highlighted school deficiencies in the evidence evaluation had been handed down prior to his statement:

  1. Painter v. Adams, W.D.N.C. No. 315CV00369MOCDCK, 2017 WL 4678231, at *7 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 2017)
  2. Richmond v. Youngstown State University, No. 4:17CV1927, 2017 WL 6502833, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 14, 2017)
  3. Mancini v. Rollins Coll., M.D. Fla. No. 616CV2232ORL37KRS, 2017 WL 3088102, at *5 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2017)
  4. Doe v. Brown University, 210 F. Supp. 3d 310, 339 (D.R.I. Sep. 28, 2016)
  5. Doe v. Brown University, 166 F. Supp. 3d 177, 185 (D.R.I. Feb. 22, 2016)
  6. Prasad v. Cornell Univ., N.D.N.Y. No. 5:15-CV-322, 2016 WL 3212079, at *15 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2016)
  7. King v. DePauw Univ., S.D. Ind. No. 2:14-CV-70-WTL-DKL, 2014 WL 4197507, at *13 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 22, 2014)

In Painter v. Adams, the judge revealed: “Here, defendants maintain in their Memorandum in Support of summary judgment that ‘plaintiff presented no documentary evidence’ at the disciplinary hearing. However, it appears that he presented no documentary evidence because he was prevented from doing so. The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the party resisting summary judgment, shows that he was prevented from placing into the record exculpatory physical evidence, which raises a concern as to whether plaintiff was denied Due Process.”

  1. Cross-examination: “Colleges allow questioning of the parties, if not cross-examination in its purest form.”

Six judicial decisions had been issued before October 2017 that exposed deficiencies in schools’ cross-examination procedures:

  1. Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 2017)
  2. Doe v. Glick, No. BS163739, 2017 WL 9990651, at *9 (Cal.Super. Oct. 16, 2017)
  3. Rolph v. Hobart & William Smith Colleges, 271 F. Supp. 3d 386, 401 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2017)
  4. Nokes v. Miami University, No. 1:17-CV-482, 2017 WL 3674910, at *12 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2017)
  5. Collick v. William Paterson Univ., D.N.J. No. 16-471 (KM) (JBC), 2016 WL 6824374, at *11 (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2016)
  6. Johnson v. W. State Colorado Univ., 71 F. Supp. 3d 1217, 1223 (D. Colo. Oct 24, 2014)

In Doe v. Glick, for example, the judge revealed, “Further, Respondent [Glick] appears to have told [complainant] Roe she could answer Doe’s questions in advance in writing, a procedure not found in either the 2013 or 2016 Pomona policy. Finally, the Complainant did not attend the hearing personally, or through Skype, even though the hearing date was arranged to accommodate Roe’s schedule.”

Unsubstantiated Claims

On September 5, 2017, almost two months before Sokolow made his claims, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education released the findings of its Spotlight on Due Process survey of due process policies at 53 top universities. Reporting on findings that FIRE characterized as “dire,” the survey found:

  • 6% of top universities did not guarantee students that they will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
  • Only 47.2% of schools required that fact-finders be impartial.
  • 9% of schools were assigned a ‘D’ or ‘F’ grade for dismal due process policies.

But Sokolow apparently was unaware of the FIRE survey. To the contrary, Sokolow concluded his upbeat assessment by noting, “I think this is enough and should be enough to satisfy a judge.” So “colleges and universities need to do a better job of driving the dialogue about how much due process they DO afford,” Sokolow argued.

In an August 2021 presentation, Sokolow finally did acknowledge the existence of a “tide of litigation.” But inexplicably, Sokolow attributed the lawsuits to “a decade of conflicting guidance, judicial intervention, and inconsistent enforcement” (Brett Sokolow and Terri Lakowski, Time With IX. Slide No. 12) — not to the Kangaroo Court-like procedures that scores of judges had struck down during the preceding 10 years.

Sokolow’s unsubstantiated claims reveal a determined effort to pursue an alternate reality that bears little relationship to the current realities of campus Title IX adjudications.

Categories
Wrongful Convictions

$6.9M Award for Connecticut Man Cleared of 2 Rapes After More Than a Decade Behind Bars

$6.9M Award for Connecticut Man Cleared of 2 Rapes After More Than a Decade Behind Bars

September 16, 2021

A central Connecticut man who spent 12 years in prison for two rapes—that now even the state says he didn’t commit—has been awarded $6.9 million, thanks to DNA testing that exonerated him.

Plaintiffs counsel Rosemarie Paine of Jacobs & Dow in New Haven said DNA results were made public in 2014 and cleared her client, Luis Figueroa. But those 12 years he spent behind bars, plus five more on probation during which he had to enlist in mandated sex offender programs, “turned his life upside down,” she said.

“The DNA left no doubt in anyone’s mind that he did not commit the sex assaults, but what the [claims] commissioner saw was the irrefutable evidence of how this mistaken identification and wrongful conviction infected every area of his life,” Paine said Thursday. “It held him back in every way. Because he was listed as sex offender, it was difficult for him to get housing and he was frequently homeless.”

The rape conviction stems from alleged assaults on two separate women, in March and April 1995. In both cases, the alleged victims were shown photographs the police had of Figueroa, who had been arrested before for two larcenies related to car theft and an assault stemming from a street fight.

In the claimant’s post-hearing memorandum, Paine wrote that, with regard to the second sexual assault, “Despite the fact that the victim never identified [Figueroa] as her assailant, [he] was nevertheless charged with her assault on the basis of the Yale student’s [the first victim] photo identification of him as her perpetrator.”

Figueroa was incarcerated from 1995 to 2007. He was sent to prison when he was 20, and is now in his mid-40s.

In her memorandum of decision in the matter, Claims Commissioner Christy Scott said Figueroa suffered unfairly.

“The claimant was a young man still wondering where his life would lead when a mistaken identification set him on a road of suffering and shame,” Scott wrote. “A day came when the truth was known—he was innocent—and that truth should have eased his pain, but those who knew it did not share it and he continued to suffer for five long years more.”

Scott was referring to the fact that the DNA results were known in 2009, but not made public until a Freedom of Information Act request was made five years later.

Scott wrote that the truth “helped ease his pain, but it could not erase it. The damage was done. … Compensation cannot fully repair the damage done, but it may perhaps help to smooth the claimant’s path back to health and peace.”

Scott awarded Figueroa $6.9 million, which has since been disbursed.

Source: https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2021/09/16/6-9m-award-for-connecticut-man-cleared-of-2-rapes-after-more-than-a-decade-behind-bars/?kw=%246.9M%20Award%20for%20Connecticut%20Man%20Cleared%20of%202%20Rapes%20After%20More%20Than%20a%20Decade%20Behind%20Bars%20%7C%20Connecticut%20Law%20Tribune&utm_source=email&utm_medium=enl&utm_campaign=dailyheadlines&utm_content=20210921&utm_term=nlj

Categories
Campus Title IX

ATIXA: Catherine Lhamon Senator Support Template Letter

ATIXA: Catherine Lhamon Senator Support Template
Letter

Download the word document template to customize and e/mail to your Senator now!

[Insert Senator Name Here]

[Insert Senator Office Name Here]

[Insert Address Here]

Dear [Insert Senator Name Here]:

I write to express my support for Catherine Lhamon’s nomination to be Assistant Secretary for the Office for Civil Rights at the US Department of Education. [I’ve admired Ms. Llhamon’s dedication in her roles as the Chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights, as Legal Affairs Secretary to Governor Newsom, and in her current role as the Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council at the White House with a focus on equity.

During her time leading the US Commission on Civil Rights, Ms. Lhamon took on the issue of fair wages for adults with disabilities under the Fair Labor Standards Act. As part of this work, she

recognized the importance of taking a bipartisan approach to this issue, and eschewed ideological dogmatism. The same was true of her first tenure with The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) from 2013-2017. Early on, she led efforts to ensure that victims of discrimination were well-protected, but her team at OCR also demonstrated that when circumstances indicated a need for Title IX to also be protective of the rights of respondents, including due process rights, Llhamon’s team was responsible for issuing the Wesley College Resolution. This seminal document was widely circulated to higher education in 2017 to signal that OCR enforced Title IX to ensure fairness to all, not just to victims.

In addition, her work at OCR increased transparency, by ensuring that enforcement actions were widely promoted and disseminated from the OCR website to schools in the field, when a key investigation finding was added to the online database. ATIXA expects a return to that consistent practice during the current administration.]

Thank you for taking the time to consider supporting the nomination of Catherine Lhamon to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Your constituents in [insert state] are interested in your choice on this nomination and hope we have your support..

Very truly yours,

Brett A. Sokolow, JD

Source: https://www.atixa.org/resources/catherine-lhamon-senator-support-template-letter/  September 14, 2021