Categories
False Allegations Start By Believing Wrongful Convictions

Brian Banks Saga Reveals the Flaws of a ‘Start By Believing’ Criminal Justice System

What do you get when you have a false accusation, a start-by-believing investigative process, a broken and corrupt judicial system, and a lost dream to play in the NFL?  You get Brian Banks, The movie and The man.  You also get a story of thousands of others who have experienced similar circumstances due to false accusation.

Banks was an All-American high school football prodigy who was awarded a full-ride scholarship to USC and who had the attention of the NFL.  At the mere accusation of sexual assault and kidnapping, Banks had his dreams stolen by an unjust system.

In the summer of 2002, classmate Wanetta Gibson claimed 16-year old Banks dragged her into a stairwell at Polytechnic High School (Poly) and violently raped her. It was a he-said, she-said scenario; and what she said was believed.  Despite the lack of evidence, Banks was railroaded through a broken justice system. He faced a nearly impossible decision of 41 years-to-life in prison or take a plea deal and spend 5 years in confinement, with probation and lifetime registration as a sex-offender.

At the recommendation of his attorney, Banks chose what he thought would give him life. He took the plea. Banks spent nearly 11 years convicted of a rape and crime he did not commit.

Meanwhile, Wanetta Gibson and her mother filed a lawsuit against the Long Beach school district claiming the high school did not offer a safe environment.  They won a $1.5 million settlement.

Nearly a decade after his conviction, Gibson had the audacity to send Banks a Facebook message saying, “Let’s let bygones be bygones.” Surprised to receive that message, Banks worked with a private investigator to set up a meeting with Gibson. It was there, on hidden camera, that she admitted fabricating the entire story.

Due to the work of the California Innocence project, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office acknowledged Banks was wrongfully convicted. He was fully exonerated on May 24, 2012, free of all charges and labels that accompany sex offenders.

In 2013 The Long Beach School District sued Wanetta Gibson for $2 million and won a $2.6 million judgment against her.  She failed to appear at all court dates and apparently has gone into hiding.

This movie tells a story that is all too familiar to those men who have been falsely accused of sexual assault. It raises awareness about flaws in the judicial system. The movie shows us that unless we have criminal justice reform, anybody can be wrongfully convicted.  It also shows us that unless we move away from “believe the victim” mentality, anyone can be falsely accused.

What is now referred to as the “me-too” movement has led to increased numbers of false-accusations.  After being accused, men likely face start-by-believing investigative techniques, a corrupt criminal justice system, and a system that prefers plea deals rather than due process.

In response to these persistent biases, 11 members of the House of Representatives, in cooperation with the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, recently sent a letter to Attorney General Barr highlighting the erosion of due processes in criminal and administrative proceedings.

The letter urged Barr to stop funding organizations that don’t recognize the presumption of innocence when training military or law enforcement, including prosecutors, and instead instruct law enforcement and prosecutors that defendants are presumptively innocent. The letter further asked that no witness be afforded a presumption of truth, but that all statements are subjected to the crucible of reality and cross-examination.

No response has been received to date from Attorney General Barr.

Not all movies have a “happily ever after ending”, but Banks does his best to provide that to us.  Although Banks would never realize his dream of going to college and playing professional football, he gives us a hope and his convincing philosophy on the power of choice. “All you can control in life is how you respond to it”.  He responded with extraordinary resiliency and with a passion to change a broken judicial system.  Brian Banks The Movie is out August 9, 2019.

Categories
Domestic Violence

PR: Recent Incidents Reveal Growing Problem of Domestic Violence among Females

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Recent Incidents Reveal Growing Problem of Domestic Violence among Females

WASHINGTON / July 24, 2019 – Recent incidents highlight the growing problem of domestic violence and sexual assault instigated by females. Two of the incidents, reported last week, involve female professional basketball players.

On July 16, the Washington Post reported that the WNBA had suspended Los Angeles Sparks guard Riquna Williams for 10 games for a domestic violence incident. Williams was arrested in April and charged on felony charges of aggravated assault of an ex-girlfriend. According to a police report, Williams hit her former partner on the head and used a gun to threaten a man who attempted to stop the assault (1).

Three days later, the Seattle Times reported that WNBA Seattle Storm player Natasha Howard was the victim of domestic violence incidents involving her wife, Jacqueline Howard. According to court documents, Jacqueline stabbed Natasha in the back, causing her to be hospitalized for several days (2).

These two incidents spotlight the long-hidden problem of lesbian same-sex violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control, lesbian couples experience high rates of partner violence: 65.7% of women, compared to 40.0% of men, in same-sex relationships have experienced domestic violence during their lifetimes (3).

In June, Pratigya Thakur was charged with raping her female roommate at Susquehanna University. The alleged victim told police she awoke to find Thakur “on top of her straddling her” before placing her hands on her roommate’s breasts. Thakur then started to molest her, the alleged victim told police (4).

SAVE calls on violence reduction programs to address the emerging problem of female-initiated abuse.

Citations:

  1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/07/17/wnba-player-suspended-games-after-domestic-violence-arrest/?utm_term=.410bf7345e12
  2. https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/storm/storms-natasha-howard-denies-domestic-abuse-allegations-accuses-wife-of-stabbing-her-and-taking-nearly-600000/?fbclid=IwAR36iIcygD0BOnp8L9VdSGawcwi7BEU2XnTFRvW6q8rnuuHVVye4XGryFkU
  3. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf . Tables 6 and 7.
  4. https://nypost.com/2019/06/14/co-ed-charged-with-raping-female-roommate-at-susquehanna-university/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons&fbclid=IwAR3JaMBkxnvaCtPIXP55P1wY3FDssO4CRNsrX9jtcI1ODKrA7IPY1_Iaous

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to protect all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Categories
#MeToo Violence Against Women Act

How the #MeToo Movement is Trying to Weaponize the Violence Against Women Act

Not too long ago, the Violence Against Women Act enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Every five years, senators Joe Biden of Delaware and Orrin Hatch of Utah collaborated in a fine display of bipartisan unity to urge their fellow lawmakers to reauthorize VAWA. That abruptly changed on February 12, 2013, when 22 Republican senators – including Sen. Hatch – voted a defiant ‘no’ on Sen. Patrick Leahy’s VAWA bill, and his ham-fisted refusal to involve Republicans during the drafting of the bill. Similar Republican ire was evident in the House of Representatives.

Part of VAWA’s not-so-hidden agenda is to progressively expand its scope, balloon its budget, and designate more and more Americans as members of the victim-class. As Joe Biden admitted earlier this year, “VAWA’s power is that it gets stronger with each reauthorization.”

In the 2013 reauthorization, the definition of domestic violence was expanded to include “dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.” College campuses came under VAWA’s purview. Tribal authorities were accorded greater jurisdiction. And immigration provisions were expanded.

So what would be the next step of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the behind-the-scenes group that had orchestrated the previous VAWA reauthorizations?

The answer appeared like a bolt from heaven in October, 2017 when actress Alyssa Milano popularized the #MeToo hashtag in order to popularize the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment. Despite its broad appeal, many suspected a more nefarious agenda. Julia Hartley-Brewer charged the #MeToo movement was “turning women into perpetual victims.” And one #MeToo group admitted, “We need a complete cultural transformation if we are to eradicate sexual assault in our lifetimes.”

For the so-called VAWA Mafia, the timing couldn’t have been better, since the 2013 VAWA law was set to expire within a few short months. Before long, VAWA proponents began to call out #MeToo as part of their justification for continuing the controversial law.

Dianne Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted at a VAWA hearing, “In recent months, we’ve all witnessed the bravery of women and men all over the country who have come forward to tell their stories of #MeToo…So it’s within this backdrop that it’s vitally important to discuss the strides that we have made under VAWA to protect all survivors.”

Karen Bass, VAWA’s lead sponsor in the House, likewise argued, “Movements like #MeToo across this country demand Congress’ attention to better deal with the gaping holes left unfilled in current law around the issues of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, harassment, and stalking.”

By “gaping holes,” Bass was alluding to yet another gargantuan expansion of VAWA’s definitions. On March 3, 2019, Bass introduced H.R. 1585, which dramatically increased the definition of “violence” to include emotional abuse, verbal abuse, technological abuse, and financial abuse. Emotional and verbal abuse aren’t defined in the law, but calling your partner a nasty name or giving your spouse the “silent treatment” certainly fall within the scope of these terms.

Only a month later, the bill came up for a vote, and was passed along mostly party lines by a vote of 263-158.

Like a lightning rod, H.R. 1585 drew sharp criticism. The Conservative Action Project charged it was an “act of immense political overreach.” The Eagle Forum charged the bill “encourages obscurity in the law through its loose interpretation of what defines violence against women.”

The Center for Immigration Studies chimed in on the law’s immigration provisions: “It doesn’t take deep reflection to recognize that a scheming alien might very well dupe a citizen into marriage, then claim abuse, file a self-petition, and take the citizen for the emotional and financial roller-coaster ride of his or her life. It happens all the time.”

Columnist Wendy McElroy argued, “every couple has fights in which both sides shout hurtful accusations, bicker about money, give ultimatums, slam doors and speak indiscreetly to friends in a bar or online. But lovers’ quarrels and angry outbursts are not DV.”

McElroy also noted, “the vagueness and elasticity of the DV definition invites frivolous or false allegations, which could raise skepticism about all accusations and prevent victims from coming forward.” Which harkens back to the prophetic warning by #MeToo advocate Emily Linden: “I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.”

So the ball is now in the Senate’s court. Will it take the politically expedient route, hold its nose, and pass the House’s deeply flawed, unconstitutional version of VAWA? Or will the Senate realize that the Violence Against Women Act is being co-opted by a fulminating, anti-male ideology?

Categories
Uncategorized

Ex-UMBC baseball players, part of national trend, turning tables on sexual assault accuser in court

Ex-UMBC baseball players, part of national trend, turning tables on sexual assault accuser in court
Three former UMBC baseball players have filed a defamation suit against a woman who accused them of sexual assault. (Jen Rynda / Baltimore Sun Media Group)

Three former baseball players from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County are suing a woman who accused them of sexual assault, part of a growing trend of male students facing sexual assault claims taking their female accusers to court.

The defamation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and invasion of privacy claims were filed recently in response to a civil lawsuit the woman brought against the men in Baltimore County Circuit Court.

Defamation claims are the new legal tool for men to clear their name and get their accuser to drop sexual assault complaints, according to legal experts. The defamation cases usually end in settlements.

“Over the last three and half years, there’s been far more legal action brought by men charged by the institution with a sexual assault violation,” said Saunie Schuster, a lawyer who advises a range of colleges and co-founded the Association of Title IX Administrators. “The trend was for them to file an action against the institution for due process, but along the way, we started seeing them not just going to file action against the institution, but also civil actions against the victims.”

Schuster said her group has seen about a dozen defamation challenges over the last couple of years across the country and several more threats of such cases.

Defamation claims are difficult to track because most are filed in state courts. United Educators, an insurer that covers more than 1,000 schools and universities across the country, found that alleged perpetrators added victims as defendants to lawsuits against schools, or sued them separately, in 15% of claims filed by members between 2011 and 2015, the latest data published by the insurer.

The rise in defamation suits follows a surge in reports of student-on-student sexual harassment under Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded schools.

Before, 2011, Title IX was rarely enforced and largely ignored because of a strict standard of proof, according to K.C. Johnson, a professor at Brooklyn College and expert on due process in college sexual assault cases.

But changes triggered during the Obama Administration swung the pendulum to the other side, Johnson said.

The guidance switched to a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, meaning the incident was more likely than not to have occurred. It also made it more difficult for the defendants to access all evidence against them and to cross-examine the accusers.

Sexual assaults on and off campus reported to college authorities across the country more than doubled at Maryland schools, according to U.S. Department of Education data, mirroring a national trend.

Critics of the Obama Title IX guidance said it favored accusers and made it more difficult to defend oneself.

Eric Rosenberg, an Ohio defense attorney, has filed 20 lawsuits against universities in Maryland and across the country on behalf of men accused in campus sexual assault cases. He said he has also filed a defamation suit against the accused woman along with almost every due process case.

“Without defamation, the accused can’t put it behind them,” Rosenberg said. “It’s only through defamation cases that people stop spreading the rumors and students can move on academically and professionally.”

He said even if students win their due process cases against the universities and get their discipline records expunged, the cases can follow them. For example, many licensing boards and graduate schools still require disclosure of all school disciplinary cases. The women may continue to post on social media or elsewhere about the case.

And many men found themselves accused and then expelled from schools — their academic and professional careers over, Rosenberg said.

Due process lawsuits filed against schools have shot up from about once a year between 1994 and 2011 on average to about once a week over the last two years, Brooklyn College’s Johnson said.

The vast majority of those cases were male students accused of sexual assault seeking recourse in the courts because of what they deem an unfair process in the schools, said Johnson, who tracks the federal cases in a database.

Michelle Daugherty Siri, a lawyer with the Towson-based Women’s Law Center, and other advocates are concerned defamation suits could have a “chilling effect” on women who have been assaulted pursuing justice.

Fewer than half of rapes or sexual assaults are reported to police, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Fear of reprisal and getting the offender in trouble are two of the top reasons victims give for not reporting.

In the Baltimore County case, the woman, then a Towson University student, accused the three men of raping her in 2017. The woman, another female Towson student and the men were drinking before going to an apartment. There, everyone engaged in sexual acts, according to police records and court documents.

The men told the police the women engaged in consensual sex with them, according to detectives’ notes. The women told police the next morning they had blacked or passed out and were sexually assaulted.

The Baltimore Sun generally does not name victims of alleged sexual assault.

After the Baltimore County state’s attorney’s office declined to charge the men, the Towson woman applied for criminal charges directly with a commissioner of a Maryland district court.

The charges were ultimately dismissed, and are now on appeal, but the charges put the men’s names in Maryland’s public judiciary database as defendants in rape cases.

The lawyer who represents the men, Ronald L. Schwartz, did not make the plaintiffs available for interviews.

The men allege in their complaint that the woman and her lawyer, Rig Baldwin, made “misstatements of fact” in her court application for criminal charges against the men, including that the men had spiked the woman’s drink and forced sex without her consent.

“It’s only through defamation cases that people stop spreading the rumors and students can move on academically and professionally.”

The men claim they have suffered “emotional distress, death threats, public approbation, special and consequential damages” as a result of the accusations.

Schwartz told The Baltimore Sun that there is “absolutely no evidence” that the men spiked the women’s drinks, as the woman’s lawsuit alleges, or that the women were incapacitated.

Baldwin told The Sun the allegations of defamation and malicious prosecution against him and his client are “ridiculous.”

Last fall, the Department of Education proposed new Title IX rules governing schools’ reaction to sexual assault and harassment.

The rules would improve defendants’ access to evidence and the right to cross-examination.

The proposed rules include estimates of millions in potential cost savings forschools because schools would no longer have to investigate informal complaints, those that occurred off campus, and those outside campus-sanctioned events or activities.

The rules have gone through a public comment process, drawing more than 120,000 comments through February of this year, and are not expected to be finalized for several more months.

Baltimore Sun data reporter Christine Zhang contributed to this story.

Categories
Discrimination Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Federal Office for Civil Rights Launches Investigations of Title IX Discrimination Complaints by Male Students

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Federal Office for Civil Rights Launches Investigations of Title IX Discrimination Complaints by Male Students

WASHINGTON / July 9, 2019 – Following hundreds of lawsuits by male students alleging disparate and unfair treatment by institutions of higher education (1), the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has begun to open investigations into some of these cases. The OCR is known to be conducting 24 investigations at universities in the following states: CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, MA, MI, NC, NJ, RI, SC, TN TX, and WI. The cases have been opened by the OCR Regional Offices located in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, District of Columbia, New York, and San Francisco (2).

The most common complaint involves allegations of denial of benefits. One of these investigations is targeting the University of Michigan, which sponsors 11 scholarships, support groups, and medical treatment programs that exclude male students, in direct violation of Title IX sex-discrimination mandates (3).

A smaller number of complaints involves due process infractions. Two weeks ago, for example, it was announced that the OCR opened an investigation against Northwestern University for failing to provide due process protections for two men accused of sexual misconduct. One student accused the university of engaging in the sex-biased practice of “believe the victim.” (4)

The OCR already has closed investigations that found in favor of male students at Wesley College, Delaware, and Tulane University. In August 2018, OCR opened an investigation of Tulane’s six scholarships reserved for women. Four months later, Tulane entered into a resolution agreement with the OCR, agreeing to ensure that financial assistance is fairly distributed to both male and female students (5).

A recent analysis of scholarships at 115 of the nation’s largest universities revealed widespread discriminatory policies. Among 1,161 sex-specific scholarships, 91.6% were reserved for female students, with only 8.4% designated for male students (6).

Title IX is the federal law designed to prevent sex-based discrimination in educational institutions that received federal financial assistance. Information on how to file an OCR complaint is available on the SAVE website (7).

Citations:

  1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQNJ5mtRNzFHhValDrCcSBkafZEDuvF5z9qmYneXCi0UD2NUaffHsd5g4zlmnIhP3MINYpURNfVwSZK/pubhtml#
  2. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/ocr-investigations/
  3. https://www.aei.org/publication/an-update-on-my-efforts-to-advance-civil-rights-equity-and-justice-and-end-discrimination-in-higher-education/
  4. https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/06/21/campus/federal-officials-are-investigating-northwesterns-title-ix-process-after-two-men-allege-gender-bias-and-failure-of-due-process/?fbclid=IwAR3HdfBNb2IgF_XxAhWbflipeXvKoKs9AOxBwTpjb61XEUQ2SNdRoTY3mpw
  5. https://pjmedia.com/trending/female-lawyer-gets-tulane-university-to-stop-discriminating-against-men/
  6. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  7. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/file-ocr-complaint/

The SAVE Title IX Equity Project is working to assure that the Title IX law is fairly and consistently applied and enforced: www.saveservices.org/equity

Categories
Uncategorized

Senators Seek to Break Sexual Assault Impasse on Education Bill

Senators Seek to Break Sexual Assault Impasse on Education Bill

  • Bipartisan group looks to balance accuser, accused rights
  • Congress, Education Department working separately

By Emily Wilkins | June 27, 2019 11:02AM ET | Bloomberg Government

A group of eight senators is working to tackle one of the most contentious issues in higher education—when and how colleges need to respond to allegations of sexual assault.

Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and ranking member Patty Murray (D-Wash.) brought the group together in a quest to resolve potentially the biggest remaining obstacle to a bipartisan reauthorization of federal higher education programs.

“We’re all looking for the same thing: an environment that encourages reporting when there is a problem and a process that gets at the truth and is fair to the person bringing a claim and fair to he person who is accused,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the working group.

Murray and Alexander are members of the group, as well as Republicans Tim Scott (S.C.), Susan Collins (Maine), and Richard Burr (N.C.), and Democrats Kaine, Maggie Hassan (N.H.), and Tammy Baldwin (Wis.).

Categories
Uncategorized

Education Department Will Review Anti-male Bias at University of North Carolina

Categories
Uncategorized

Judge rips into University of Michigan for evasion, bad faith in accused student’s lawsuit

University’s lawyer doesn’t know what ‘cross-examination’ means

 

The University of Michigan does not have a good history with Senior U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow.

That history got even worse on Monday.

The federal judge let loose a stream of invective against the university in an eight-page brief to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, citing its behavior in a due-process lawsuit by a student accused of sexual misconduct.

Tarnow accused UMich and its “ever-expanding” legal team – three law firms and its general counsel – of caring more about President Mark Schlissel’s image than “providing a fair process for adjudicating sexual misconduct claims.”

The university has been arguing with Tarnow for more than a month about his demand that Schlissel (feature image) appear at a settlement conference in the case. A transcript of a May 1 conference shows UMich lawyer Joshua Richards repeatedly relitigating the order, questioning Tarnow’s intelligence, and then asking the judge to dismiss himself from the case.

The 6th Circuit approved the university’s motion to stay Tarnow’s hearing last week, where Schlissel had been ordered to appear, and asked him for an explanation. Tarnow’s Monday brief blamed the university for bad-faith stalling tactics and needless publicity.

He also questioned the intelligence of Richards, the university’s lawyer, who “repeatedly claimed that he did not understand the meaning of the term ‘cross-examination’” at an April 25 teleconference.

“The Court hopes to hold this informal conference in open court” – a point of contention with UMich – “to quell the public’s confusion concerning the status of the case which has been generated by the University’s recent filings,” Tarnow told the 6th Circuit.

The Bill Clinton-appointed judge has twice ruled against UMich in the past year for withholding due process from parties accused of sexual misconduct, in this case and another brought by a female professor.

‘Delay, uncertainty, and additional billable hours’ for no reason

UMich has repeatedly insisted that Schlissel has better things to do than appear in Tarnow’s court, and that the president does not have “primary responsibility” for the Title IX policy.

It could not tell Tarnow which official actually has that authority, however, and the judge demanded Schlissel appear as the only person who can approve a final settlement proposal. Resolving this case “should be more important to [Schlissel] than almost anything going on at the university,” he said May 1.

Arthur J Tarnow.jpgIn his Monday brief, Tarnow (left) defended his prerogative over “case management” and his belief that the parties were “not working together” to institute a sexual misconduct policy that can pass legal muster.

He laid the blame squarely on the university, which failed to consult the accused student’s attorney before issuing a new sexual misconduct policy.

MOREStop arguing and turn over Schlissel, Tarnow says

The 6th Circuit’s Baum ruling last fall, which ordered universities to let an “agent” of the accused student cross-examine the accuser in a live hearing, “should have been helpful in formulating a hearing procedure acceptable to both parties” in this case, Tarnow wrote.

The revised UMich policy followed four months later, and its lawyers cited it “as a basis for declaring compliance with due process and for filing a motion to dismiss” the lawsuit:

The University’s unilateral actions virtually guarantee the possibility of an appeal of any ruling by the Court. The result? Delay, uncertainty, and additional billable hours for an ever-expanding defense team, with no added value to its client. … [UMich should have]—at a minimum—sought input from Plaintiff’s counsel before instituting a
policy which directly affects her client and the outcome of this case.

KC Johnson

Blistering filing just in from the court in @UMich due process case. Judge strongly implies Michigan lawyers not handling the issue in good faith: “The University’s unilateral actions virtually guarantee the possibility of an appeal of any ruling by the Court.”

View image on Twitter

KC Johnson

@kcjohnson9

Judge Tarnow: UM lawyer “repeatedly claimed that he did not understand the meaning of the term ‘cross-examination.’” Judge blasts “insincere behavior” of univeriy counsel.

View image on Twitter
Schlissel should be here to see how his lawyer acts

Tarnow showed his irritation in footnotes. One identifies the three firms on retainer for UMich in this case and says its general counsel is “probably on a salary” yet didn’t make an appearance in the year-old suit until early June.

He also distinguished the behavior of the university’s many lawyers, who seek “a fair result to be achieved expeditiously,” from the university itself, though he singled out Richards for contempt.

The 6th Circuit had just remanded the case to Tarnow’s court when the parties met for a settlement conference, but Richards (right) used the occasion to make a “performance,” the judge said. This is where Richards confessed his confusion at the meaning of “cross-examination,” and apparently it caused Tarnow to swear at him.

The judge did not deny UMich’s accusation of the “expletive,” but said if he did swear, it was because of the “insincere behavior” of Richards. The reason the May 1 conference had a transcript was because of the “tenor” of the April 25 “off-the-record” meeting, he told the appeals court.

MOREUMich withholds degree, transcript with no hearing

Tarnow laid out his argument again for Schlissel’s appearance in court, including the president’s “ultimate authority” to resolve the case and UMich’s failure to even provide the title of another official with “full settlement authority.”

Schlissel has already violated the rules of Tarnow’s court by refusing to appear as the “client” in the lawsuit at the initial status conference, the judge said:

His attendance at the conference avoids the need to resort to the bureaucratic and lengthy settlement process inherent in university litigation. It is also important for the President to be aware of the demeanor of his legal representative.

He mocked the university’s argument that Tarnow plans to “cross-examine” Schlissel. He doesn’t have to say anything, the judge said: “As with any settlement conference, the talking will be left to the attorneys.”

KC Johnson

3 major revelations from today’s filing by Judge Tarnow in @UMich case:
1) univ lawyer claimed not to know definition of x-exam;
2) univ changed its TIX policies w/o consulting student’s lawyer in case;
3) Tarnow & univ lawyers seem to have tense rel’ship:https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1140688310257500160 

KC Johnson

@kcjohnson9

Judge Tarnow: Univ. of Michigan “attorneys appear to be more concerned with keeping the President out of the public eye than with prompt resolution of this case and providing a fair process for adjudicating sexual misconduct claims.”https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1140686972471664641 

Conference should be public because of university’s bumbling

The university’s stated desire to protect the settlement talks from becoming a media circus is belied by its own actions, according to Tarnow.

The settlement conference with Schlissel was Tarnow’s attempt to protect everyone from “unnecessary publicity and delay,” yet “the University’s attorneys have refused to participate in good faith,” the judge wrote.

Richards’ refusal to provide the president unless Tarnow put it in a written order has resulted in publicity that “neither helped the University’s image nor contributed to the resolution of this case,” according to the judge. He noted a local legal publication ran an “ambiguous headline” that suggested Schlissel himself was wanted for sexual misconduct.

UMich attorneys look “more concerned with keeping the President out of the public eye” than designing a fairer sexual misconduct process, he said. Tarnow has “bent over backwards” to accommodate Schlissel’s schedule, to no avail.

MOREUMich’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day at the 6th Circuit

It’s true that Tarnow made a “last-minute decision” to hold the settlement conference in public, as opposed to the in-chambers private meeting he had previously suggested.

But the judge said the change was prompted by his desire for transparency and the university’s June 5 motion to dismiss, which “incited confusion amongst the media on whether it was an attempt by the University to avoid the conference.”

The university has “pursued every possible avenue for garnering publicity in this case,” including by using an “improper method” to get the 6th Circuit to intervene, Tarnow wrote. It wasted a month by seeking a “writ of mandamus,” giving the appeals court one day to consider the filing, rather than seeking “interlocutory appeal” of Tarnow’s May 8 order denying reconsideration.

UMich told the Detroit Free Press that Tarnow’s brief showed why the public university “is deeply concerned by the fairness of the proceeding in this case.”

Spokesperson Kim Broekhuizen cited Tarnow’s change of mind on the openness of the settlement conference “less than 48 hours before” as the reason for Schlissel’s backing out. He was “fully prepared” to attend a closed conference, she said, and Tarnow has not explained how an open conference would lead to a faster resolution “than a private discussion between the parties and the court.”

Judge: U-M is trying to protect president from public. Here’s why.

Federal court Judge Arthur Tarnow responds in court filing that U-M more concerned with protecting president than providing fair sexual assault claims process

MOREUMich violated professor’s right to cross-examine accusers

Categories
Uncategorized

Order of protection fails to prevent Fort Benning soldier’s murder; wife charged

Sgt. Brandyn Paonessa, 26, was killed Thursday in Phenix, Ala., and his wife was charged with the murder. Brittnay Ryals Paonessa, 27, was jailed on $150,000 bond.

He obtained the order of protection just three days prior to the shooting. His petition called her “very mentally ill” and “very unstable” and said she had refused treatment help from a rehabilitation center, WTVM reported.

ARMY SOLDIER ALLEGEDLY OPENED FIRE IN NORTH CAROLINA HOME WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY, IN UNIFORM: POLICE

Paonessa also accused his wife of stalking him, his family and friends, threatening his Army job and running a “truck into the house,” narrowly missing their children, an infant, a 2-year-old, a 3-year-old and an 8-year-old, the station reported.

Brittnay Ryals Paonessa and Brandyn Lloyd Paonessa

Brittnay Ryals Paonessa and Brandyn Lloyd Paonessa (Lee County Sheriff’s Office/Facebook)

A statement from Fort Benning expressed condolences to the sergeant’s family and friends, according to the station.

“Paonessa was assigned to Task Force 1-28, 3rd Infantry Division,” the statement said. He joined the Army in 2013 the same year he and Brittnay married.

1ST WOMAN TO TAKE COMMAND OF A US ARMY INFANTRY DIVISION

Paonessa was shot in the stomach and the murder weapon, a shotgun, was recovered, the station reported. Deputies found him in the yard in front of his house.

Brandon Lloyd Paonessa and his wife Brittnay Ryals in happier times.

Brandon Lloyd Paonessa and his wife Brittnay Ryals in happier times. (Facebook)

The Birmingham News reported that court records show the couple had a history of marital discord.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

He was arrested last year on a domestic violence charge after she accused him of punching her in the stomach, the paper reported. She said he assaulted her because she had looked through his cellphone but then declined to press charges, leading to the case’s dismissal.

Categories
Campus

Letter to AG William Barr Regarding Campus Due Process

United States Attorney General William Barr

950 Pennsylvania Ave NW,

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Barr,

I am writing to you with a grave concern for our male college students. Universities across America have been denying young men their due process rights. There is a general bias against male students regarding Title IX and sexual harassment allegations. This bias is so strong and prevalent that universities have continued to wrongfully expel male students. It appears nothing is outside ethical boundaries, as universities have falsified evidence, denied due process and used their resources to punish students.

I am asking that the Department of Justice please look at the number of Court cases being brought by male students who have been wrongfully terminated since the Obama-era 2011 Dear Colleague letter was introduced. Even the police academy at Kent State University in Ohio falsified evidence to terminate me, a 55-year-old fully vetted volunteer Deputy with two-plus years of service and multiple awards.

Sadly, in the last five years, I have written several articles noting the damage to students and their families by the universities. I even traveled to Washington to lobby Congressional staff to make changes but with few results at the university level. The victim-centered investigations and kangaroo courts that universities utilize must stop.

I am advocating for a process to allow students, since the introduction of 2011 Dear Colleague Letter went into effect, to have their cases reviewed. This could be processed where these students submit their information and evidence for a task force to review.

Mr. Attorney General, just look at recent actions of high-level officials at the FBI and other governmental organizations against a presidential candidate and then a sitting president. If no one stands for the rule of law, then no one in America is safe.

Sincerely,

Don Corsaro

Chardon, Ohio