Categories
Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Legal Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Sounding the Alarm: Call for Americans to Oppose Biden Title IX Plan!

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Sounding the Alarm: Call for Americans to Oppose Biden Title IX Plan!

WASHINGTON / February 20, 2024 – A new poll of 1,600 persons reveals a majority of registered voters across the political spectrum now support state laws that would require children to wait until age 18 before they can receive transgender treatments: Republicans: 73%; Independents: 71%; and Democrats: 61%. (1)

The controversy came to light last week in New Hampshire where a new record was set in the girls’ high jump competition. Maelle Jacques succeeded in jumping 5’1”, breaking the previous female record by a full inch (2). But the athletic accomplishment was overshadowed by the fact that Jacques is a biological male who now identifies as transgender.

Similar reports have become commonplace for a range of concerns related to Title IX, the federal sex discrimination law: Due process for falsely accused male students (3), gender transitioning of underage minors (4), pronoun mandates (5), campus free speech (6), and more.

The uproar springs from a controversial 2022 Department of Education proposal to change the definition of sex to include “gender identity” (7). The Title IX plan has faced strong opposition across the country:

  • Numerous attorneys general and federal lawmakers issued statements of opposition (8).
  • 25 Republican governors called on the Biden administration to withdraw its proposed changes to Title IX. (9)
  • Nearly 60 political candidates signed a Pledge to “Protect Schools, Children, and Families from the Federal Title IX Plan” (10)

In addition, 23 states have banned gender transitioning among children (11), 10 states outlawed pronoun mandates (12), and 23 states enacted laws to protect women’s sports from transgender athletes (13).

On February 2, the Department of Education forwarded its controversial regulation to the federal Office for Management and Budget for final approval.

SAVE is urging the American public to speak out in strong opposition to the Biden Title IX plan. We invite you to contact the Office for Management and Budget to politely express your concerns. For details how to schedule a meeting, visit: https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/

Links:

  1. https://www.dailywire.com/news/majority-of-voters-support-state-laws-protecting-children-from-trans-procedures-poll
  2. https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2024/02/12/watch-male-high-jumper-obliterates-girls-state-record-in-new-hampshire-high-school-championship/
  3. https://www.wcia.com/sports/your-illini-nation/judge-rules-in-favor-of-shannon-jr-in-temporary-restraining-order-case/
  4. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13021149/montana-family-loses-custody-teen-daughter-gender-transition.html
  5. https://gibm.substack.com/p/student-suspended-for-using-wrong
  6. https://speechfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2-9-24-PR-Tenth-CIRCUIT-SPEECH-FIRST-Wins.pdf
  7. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment
  8. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/lawmakers/
  9. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/12/politics/republican-governors-letter-transgender-sports-ban-title-ix/index.html
  10. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/lawmakers/pledge/
  11. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/gender-transitioning/
  12. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/pronouns-for-trans-nonbinary-students-the-states-with-laws-that-restrict-them-in-schools/2023/06
  13. https://concernedwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/womens-sports-2023-August-States-Act-to-Protect-Female-Athletes-from-Discrimination.pdf
Categories
Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Legal Press Release Title IX

Tampon Dispenser Incident Highlights Growing Rejection of ‘Gender Agenda’

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Tampon Dispenser Incident Highlights Growing Rejection of ‘Gender Agenda’

WASHINGTON / February 5, 2024 – School officials at Brookfield High School in Connecticut recently installed a tampon dispenser in the boys’ bathroom. Within minutes, male students at the school took action. Principal Marc Balanda dryly reported, “The installation was completed at 9:30 (a.m.). By 9:52, tampons were on the floor, the newly installed distribution box was ripped off the wall along with the masonry anchors, and the distribution box itself was destroyed.” (1)

A few days later on January 25, the Maine Judiciary Committee voted to kill the LD 1735, a bill that was designed to allow children from other states to travel to Maine, without parental consent, and become a ward of the state to receive cross-gender treatments (2).

The following day, the Utah legislature passed HB 257, which prohibits men who identify as women from accessing women’s bathrooms (3).

These events in Connecticut, Maine, and Utah reveal how the so-called “Gender Agenda,” which seeks to reshape society by defining the meaning of sex to include “gender identity,” is facing setbacks in both Democratic and Republican-led states.

Five judicial decisions, all handed down during the month of January, further underscore how the Gender Agenda is in retreat across the nation:

California: On January 10, federal judge Roger Benitez ordered the Escondido Union School District to reinstate two teachers who were placed on administrative leave for refusing to keep students’ gender transitions a secret from their parents (4).

Alabama: In 2022, the Alabama legislature passed the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection (VCAP) Act that banned the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for underage children. But the US Department of Justice challenged the law. On January 12, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction against the VCAP law, allowing its protections for children to go into effect (5).

Illinois: Disturbed by a long list of due process violations by the college, federal judge Colleen Lawless issued a restraining order on January 19 against the University of Illinois, allowing student Terrence Shannon to return to school (6).

Ohio: In late December, Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed House Bill 68, which sought to protect minors from transgender medical interventions and block males from competing against girls and women in sports. On January 24, the Ohio Senate voted to override the governor’s veto, allowing House Bill 68 to go into effect (7).

Florida: A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on January 31 that had been filed by the Disney Corporation over the state legislature’s decision to alter the governing structure of Disney’s Reedy Creek Improvement District. Disney had argued in the lawsuit that the change to the district was made in retaliation for the organization’s criticism of the Parental Rights in Education Act (8).

In 2023, dozens of laws were enacted around the country to ban gender transitioning among underage students (9), uphold parental rights (10), stop pronoun mandates (11) and protect women’s sports (12).

A strong majority of Americans opposes the Gender Agenda (13). SAVE encourages lawmakers to work to block the Gender Agenda.

Citations:

  1. https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/brookfield-high-tampon-dispenser-vandalized-18637010.php?src=ctipdensecp
  2. https://www.wabi.tv/2024/01/26/legislative-committee-kills-controversial-bill-regarding-gender-affirming-care/
  3. https://www.ntd.com/utah-passes-bills-banning-dei-and-men-using-womens-bathrooms_969319.html
  4. https://freebeacon.com/california/judge-orders-california-district-to-reinstate-teachers-who-refused-to-hide-students-gender-transitions/
  5. https://eagleforum.org/publications/press-releases/alabama-to-protect-vulnerable-children.html
  6. https://www.wcia.com/sports/your-illini-nation/judge-rules-in-favor-of-shannon-jr-in-temporary-restraining-order-case/
  7. https://lumennews14.substack.com/p/ohio-legislature-overrides-governors
  8. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/judge-dismisses-disney-lawsuit-gov-ron-desantis/story?id=106840357
  9. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/gender-transitioning/
  10. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/parental-rights/
  11. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/pronouns-for-trans-nonbinary-students-the-states-with-laws-that-restrict-them-in-schools/2023/06
  12. https://concernedwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/womens-sports-2023-August-States-Act-to-Protect-Female-Athletes-from-Discrimination.pdf
  13. https://www.saveservices.org/2022/06/63-of-americans-oppose-expanding-definition-of-sex-to-include-gender-identity/
Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Popular Support for Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’ is Collapsing

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Popular Support for Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’ is Collapsing

WASHINGTON / January 24, 2024 – Campus Kangaroo Courts have reached the point that even the kangaroos are becoming embarrassed. Case in point is a recent judicial decision involving the University of Illinois.

Last week, Judge Colleen Lawless granted a restraining order against the university, allowing Terrence Shannon to return to his classes and varsity sports activities. In her decision, Judge Lawless enumerated a lengthy list of due process violations (1):

  • Shannon had not been informed of the accuser’s name or given access to the evidence used against him.
  • The university did not investigate the allegation or “weigh the credibility of the evidence in light of the nature of the allegation.”
  • Shannon had not been allowed to attend the hearing.
  • The university issued its ruling “without any findings of fact or reasoning for the decision.”

When Shannon rejoined his team on the court, the crowd greeted him with whistles, towel-waving, and sustained applause (2).

In years past, a student accused of sexual assault likely would have faced fevered protests and petitions demanding his immediate removal (3). But the tide of public opinion is turning.

One lawsuit recently filed against George Mason University opened with this laughable introduction (4):

“George Mason University would rather lose in court than lose in the press. In its handling of false misconduct allegations against Mr. Wright, the University repeatedly and flagrantly violated Title IX regulations and its own policies. In a clear showing of bias, the University hosted Mr. Wright’s false accuser as a #metoo speaker on campus, paid her and her co-conspirator hundreds of thousands of dollars each, made public statements in support of her and against Mr. Wright, retaliated against him for his lawsuit, and used different standards.”

The Title IX high-jinks are taking a financial toll, as well.

In August, a jury awarded $4 million to Peter Steele whose sexual assault case was mishandled by Pacific University, ruling the institution had intentionally caused the man emotional distress (5).

Then in December, a Philadelphia jury awarded Dr. John Abraham a record-setting $15 million award for egregious Title IX offenses by Thomas Jefferson University (6).

Even state Supreme Courts are losing patience with Title IX over-reach. In June, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Yale University’s Title IX procedures “lacked important procedural safeguards,” opening the door to costly defamation lawsuits against the institution (7).

Then in January, the Washington Supreme Court weighed in, ruling that Washington State University was not liable for protecting a student from a sexual assault that occurred off-campus (8).

Attorney Scott Greenfield has posited that “activists sought to increase their powers on campus to control the actions of their male peers, while ignoring whether it had anything to do with the purposes of Title IX” (9).  Indeed, there is a growing perception that campus Title IX offices are staffed by gender ideologues, not legal professionals (10).

Citations:

  1. https://www.wcia.com/sports/your-illini-nation/judge-rules-in-favor-of-shannon-jr-in-temporary-restraining-order-case/
  2. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/svF9tNiMQEo
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/camp/mob-justice/
  4. https://titleixforall.com/title-ix-lawsuits-database/#new-title-ix-lawsuits-database/lawsuits4/all-lawsuit-info4/65a5ffdd9e46b40027e82b6d/
  5. https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2023/08/jury-awards-4m-to-student-who-said-pacific-university-mishandled-sexual-assault-complaint-against-him.html
  6. https://www.lindabury.com/firm/insights/15m-verdict-for-surgeon-who-claimed-employer-mishandled-its-investigation-into-sexual-assault-allegations-against-him-and-was-the-product-of-anti-male-bias.html
  7. https://cases.justia.com/connecticut/supreme-court/2023-sc20705.pdf?ts=1687953693
  8. https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1010451.pdf
  9. https://blog.simplejustice.us/2020/05/08/did-doe-forget-why-title-ix-exists/
  10. https://www.campusreform.org/article/watch-campus-title-ix-offices-staffed-by-ideologues/20026
Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Title IX

To Thwart Harmful Changes to Federal Title IX Policy, Candidates for Office Are Invited to Sign Pledge

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

To Thwart Harmful Changes to Federal Title IX Policy, Candidates for Office Are Invited to Sign Pledge

WASHINGTON / January 17, 2024 – Proposed changes to the federal Title IX law have become a flash-point of controversy in the upcoming 2024 elections. The new policy, which is expected to expand the definition of sex to include “gender identity,” would have destructive effects on women’s sports, gender transitioning among children, parental rights, free speech, and due process (1).

Title IX is the law designed to curb sex discrimination in schools. The U.S. Department of Education is vowing to release a new Title IX regulation in March (2).

Some have charged that Title IX has become “weaponized” to curtail free speech (3) and curb due process (4). Last month, a jury awarded a historic $15 million verdict against Thomas Jefferson University for flagrant due process violations by its Title IX office (5).

Abuses of the federal law have become a recent focus of heated debate:

  • Numerous attorneys general and federal lawmakers have issued statements of opposition (6).
  • 25 Republican governors have called on the Biden administration to withdraw its proposed changes to Title IX. (7)
  • Title IX has been hotly discussed during the Republican presidential debates (8, 9).
  • Presidential candidates Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump have both issued statements calling for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education (10).

In response, SAVE is inviting candidates for federal, state, or local office to sign the “Candidate Pledge to Protect Schools, Children, and Families from the Federal Title IX Plan.” The Pledge states,

When elected to office, I pledge to work to assure that:

  1. Schools and other organizations shall utilize the traditional binary definition of “sex.”
  2. Schools shall obtain prior consent from parents for any use of gender pronouns, or gender-dysphoria counseling or treatments.
  3. Parents shall have the right to examine and opt their children out of any school curricula dealing with sexuality and gender identity.
  4. Schools shall only allow biological females to participate in women’s sports, enter women’s locker rooms, and use women’s bathrooms.
  5. Schools shall adhere to Constitutional due process procedures to protect falsely accused males from Title IX complaints.
  6. Schools and other institutions shall fully uphold Constitutional free speech guarantees.

The Candidate Pledge can be viewed online (11).  To date, 44 lawmakers have signed the statement (12). The elected officials come from the following 19 states: Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Candidates can indicate their support for the Pledge by sending a confirmatory email to: rthompson@saveservices.org

Citations:

  1. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/
  2. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/12/08/new-title-ix-regulations-pushed-march
  3. https://www.iwf.org/2022/08/08/weaponizing-title-ix-to-punish-speech/
  4. https://www.nas.org/reports/dear-colleague
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/2023/12/15-million-verdict-against-thomas-jefferson-univ-signals-fall-of-believe-women-movement/
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/lawmakers/
  7. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/12/politics/republican-governors-letter-transgender-sports-ban-title-ix/index.html
  8. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/watch-5-key-takeaways-on-education-from-the-1st-gop-presidential-debate/2023/08
  9. https://www.saveservices.org/2023/10/second-republican-presidential-debate-addresses-title-ix-issues/
  10. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/
  11. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Candidate-Pledge-to-Protect-Schools-Children-and-Families2.pdf
  12. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/lawmakers/pledge/
Categories
Department of Education Due Process False Allegations Innocence Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault Title IX

To End ‘Kangaroo Courts,’ Lawmakers Need to Remove Qualified Immunity from Corrupt Title IX Officials

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

To End ‘Kangaroo Courts,’ Lawmakers Need to Remove Qualified Immunity from Corrupt Title IX Officials

WASHINGTON / January 9, 2024 – Recent incidents reveal that many campus Title IX offices are ignoring fundamental due process protections for the falsely accused, resulting in college disciplinary committees being dubbed “Kangaroo Courts.” Given that these biases are so egregious and likely intentional, lawmakers need to enact laws to remove qualified immunity from campus Title IX personnel.

These are three recent examples of egregious due process violations:

Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia: After he was sexually assaulted by a female resident, physician John Abraham reported the incident to his supervisor at the university. But inexplicably, his complaint was not forwarded to the Title IX office and never investigated (1). Abraham was forced from his faculty position before any investigation could be conducted.

In December, a jury decided in favor of Abraham, awarding him $11 million in compensation for financial losses and $4 million in punitive damages for the university’s “outrageous conduct.” (2)

University of Maryland, College Park: A UMD student recently sued the University of Maryland, accusing the institution of a biased disciplinary proceeding (3). The lead investigator in the case was Jamie Brennan, who had previously posted on her Facebook page a quote stating, “I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been.”

The man’s lawsuit notes, “Investigators are supposed to ‘identify discrepancies’ in the stories and ‘ask the hard questions.’…In this case there were several discrepancies for which there was no follow-up and certainly no ‘hard questions’… When asked to explain her conduct, Brennan retorted, ‘that was not something we sought to obtain.’” (4)

University of Tulsa, Oklahoma: Impartiality is the foundation of due process. But at the University of Tulsa, the Title IX coordinator made a video promising accusers that they “will be believed.” (5)  A similar promise was not made to falsely accused students.

No surprise, a sex discrimination lawsuit alleged the same Title IX coordinator had restricted an accused student’s access to evidence and treated him as guilty throughout the process. In August, the case was remanded to the Tulsa County District Court for final resolution (6).

These three incidents are not the exception to the rule. An analysis of 175 lawsuits decided in favor of the falsely accused student concluded that in most cases, the judicial decisions were based on the fact that colleges were failing to observe the most fundamental notions of fairness, often so gross as to suggest that sex bias was the motivating factor (7).

Indeed, recent actions by the federal Department of Education that flout basic requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act have been denounced as a “contempt of court” and “contempt of law.” (8)

Given the continuing lack of good faith on the part of the Title IX personnel, lawmakers must consider the removal of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is the legal doctrine that shields officials from personal accountability when they violate a citizen’s constitutional rights.

The drive to end qualified immunity for unscrupulous police officers now enjoys broad support, including from U.S. senator Mike Lee (9), Americans Against Qualified Immunity (10), and the National Police Accountability Project (11).  An online petition, “End Qualified Immunity!” has garnered nearly 130,000 signatures (12).

It’s time to eliminate qualified immunity for corrupt Title IX officials and bring an end to the campus Kangaroo Courts.

Links:

  1. https://casetext.com/case/abraham-v-thomas-jefferson-univ-1
  2. https://www.inquirer.com/health/thomas-jefferson-university-john-abraham-rothman-federal-jury-20231211.html
  3. https://titleixforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Doe-v.-University-of-Maryland-Complaint-Cover-Sheet-12-27-2023.pdf
  4. https://titleixforall.com/gender-bias-title-ix-officers-jamie-d-brennan-and-carolyn-hughes/
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68lrF9_Coxk
  6. https://casetext.com/case/holmstrom-v-univ-of-tulsa-2
  7. https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/
  8. https://amgreatness.com/2024/01/04/title-ix-in-2024-confusion-contempt-of-court-congress/
  9. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f8fbea06-cfc6-48da-9369-db9906710e9b/a-policy-agenda-for-social-capital.pdf
  10. https://aaqi.org/
  11. https://www.nlg-npap.org/ia-qi/
  12. https://www.change.org/p/united-states-supreme-court-end-qualified-immunity-45a5ea6b-28b8-4108-afc1-7e7477840660
Categories
Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Harassment Title IX

Department of Education Must Renounce Its Reckless Title IX Plan

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Department of Education Must Renounce Its Reckless Title IX Plan

WASHINGTON / December 7, 2023 – On March 8, 2021 President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order directing the Department of Education (DOE) to draft a new regulation redefining the meaning of sex to include “gender identity.” (1) The DOE issued a draft regulation on June 23, 2022 (2), but without explanation, missed two self-imposed deadlines to release the final version in May and October of 2023. (3)

In the meantime, attorneys general filed several lawsuits, and dozens of federal and state lawmakers voiced strong opposition to the Biden proposal (4).

The new regulation is feared to have far-reaching and harmful effects on due process for the falsely accused, free speech, gender transitioning of children, and parental rights (5).

In particular, the policy’s impact on women’s sports has sparked considerable debate. Over the past two years, public opinion has shifted away from support for transgender participation in women’s sports. The most recent Gallup poll found that 69% of Americans say that persons should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth sex. These numbers include pluralities of Republicans (93%), Independents (67%), and Democrats (48%). (6)

Opposition to the Title IX regulation has further accelerated in recent months.

First, presidential candidates Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Donald Trump issued calls for the abolition of the Department of Education (7).

In September, 59 organizations signed a letter calling for the resignation of Office for Civil Rights director Catherine Lhamon for repeated and willful violations of the U.S. Constitution: Article 1 regarding the legislative powers of Congress, the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment (8).

In November, Rep. Lisa McClain, chairwoman of the Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on Health Care, along with House Education and Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, sent a letter of concern to DOE Secretary Miguel Cardona. They wrote,

“The Committees are concerned that your efforts to gut due process protections for accused and accusing students, redefine ‘sex discrimination’ to include ‘gender identity,’ and otherwise abandon established regulations protecting women and girls are improperly motivated and destructive to American students.” (9)

On December 5, the House Oversight Committee convened a hearing on “The Importance of Protecting Female Athletics and Title IX.” The hearing highlighted cases in which female athletes had been injured by their male-bodied competitors (10).

“Reckless” can be defined as actions taken without thinking or caring about the consequences. Accordingly, the Biden Administration’s proposal to revamp the Title IX law must be seen as reckless in the eyes of political candidates, federal and state lawmakers, and the American public.

Links:

  1. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/03/08/executive-order-on-guaranteeing-an-educational-environment-free-from-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-including-sexual-orientation-or-gender-identity/
  2. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-proposed-changes-title-ix-regulations-invites-public-comment
  3. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/it-looks-like-we-won-t-have-final-title-6355975/
  4. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/lawmakers/
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/
  6. https://news.gallup.com/poll/507023/say-birth-gender-dictate-sports-participation.aspx
  7. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/
  8. https://www.saveservices.org/2023/09/59-groups-call-for-assistant-education-secretary-catherine-lhamon-to-resign-for-violating-oath-of-office/
  9. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/house-republicans-press-cardona-influence-outside-title-ix
  10. https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/the-importance-of-protecting-female-athletics-and-title-ix/
Categories
Department of Education Free Speech Gender Agenda Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Arrogant and Corrupt: Presidential Candidates and Others Call for Abolition of U.S. Department of Education

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Arrogant and Corrupt: Presidential Candidates and Others Call for Abolition of U.S. Department of Education

WASHINGTON / November 13, 2023 – Based on revelations of wasteful and ideologically driven policies (1), three Republican presidential candidates are now calling for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education:

  1. Ron DeSantis: In response to the question, Are you in favor of eliminating any agencies: “We would do education, commerce, energy, and the IRS….With the Department of Education, we reverse all the transgender sports stuff. Women’s sports should be protected.” (2)
  2. Vivek Ramaswamy: “I would shut down the U.S. Department of Education…Do I favor 6-year-olds being educated on sexuality and gender ideology? No, I don’t.” (3)
  3. Donald Trump: “We’re going to end education coming out of Washington, DC. We’re going to close it up – all those buildings all over the place and people that in many cases hate our children. We’re going to send it all back to the states.” (4)

Earlier this year, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced H.R. 899 that states simply, “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2023.” (5)

In addition, 55 state lawmakers are now calling to abolish the Department of Education (6).

In September, 59 organizations signed a letter calling for the resignation of Office for Civil Rights director Catherine Lhamon for repeated violations of the U.S. Constitution: Article 1 regarding the legislative powers of Congress, the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment (7).

During the past month alone, SAVE has identified two instances of serious misconduct by DOE officials:

  1. In 2021 the Department of Education issued a Title IX regulation that disregarded the Administrative Procedure Act requirements for public review and comment (8).
  2. An attorney representing the Department of Education repeatedly made false statements to federal judges in a hearing about its 2021 Title IX regulation (9).

The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights also is seeking to overturn a milestone Supreme Court decision, Davis v. Monroe, which defined “sexual harassment” as actions that are pervasive, severe, and objectively offensive (10). Now, the DOE is attempting to expand the definition of sexual harassment as to dramatically infringe upon free speech rights.

The Heritage Foundation has developed a plan to implement the agency’s abolition. The plan calls for block grants to the states, transfer of selected functions to other federal departments, and a discontinuation of the remaining functions (11).

Citations:

  1. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/
  2. https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1674143045661360130
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3BnxoAqOho
  4. https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/13/politics/trump-department-of-education-states-2024/index.html
  5. https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395519
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/
  7. https://www.saveservices.org/2023/09/59-groups-call-for-assistant-education-secretary-catherine-lhamon-to-resign-for-violating-oath-of-office/
  8. https://www.saveservices.org/2023/10/department-of-education-made-a-mockery-of-apa-law-to-fast-track-lethal-transgender-policy/
  9. https://www.saveservices.org/2023/11/department-of-education-attorney-lied-repeatedly-to-federal-judges-about-title-ix-rule/
  10. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/sexual-harassment-college-campuses#:~:text=On%20our%20nation’s%20college%20campuses,programs%20that%20receive%20federal%20funding.
  11. https://www.saveservices.org/2023/07/plan-to-abolish-or-overhaul-the-u-s-department-of-education/

Posted: https://www.saveservices.org/2023/11/arrogant-and-corrupt-presidential-candidates-and-others-call-for-abolition-of-u-s-department-of-education/

Categories
Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Department of Education Attorney Lied, Repeatedly, to Federal Judges about Title IX Rule

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Department of Education Attorney Lied, Repeatedly, to Federal Judges about Title IX Rule

WASHINGTON / November 8, 2023 – On June 22, 2021, without advance warning or notice, the OCR issued a new Title IX Rule that changed the definition of sex to include “gender identity.” (1). The regulation warned schools that OCR intended to “fully enforce Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education programs and activities.”

In response, the Attorneys General from 20 states — AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, and WV — brought a lawsuit against the DOE, alleging the Title IX Rule was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (2).  Nearly one year later, on July 15, 2022, the District Court of Tennessee issued a Temporary Injunction against the directive (3).

Not surprisingly, the U.S. Department of Education appealed the ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court. The Court heard oral arguments on April 26, 2023. A recording of the hearing reveals that David Peters, the trial attorney representing the Department of Education, 10 times made the claim that the Rule was not binding and did not impose any new requirements on schools (4).

The attorney’s mention of “these documents” refers to the contested 2021 Rule:

  1. 2:00 minutes: “They don’t address what constitutes prohibited sex discrimination”
  2. 3:08: The Department of Education is “not enforcing these documents.”
  3. 4:20: “These documents are not what’s being enforced.”
  4. 5:50: “These documents don’t address regulated entitles’ obligations.”
  5. 7:00: “The Department has vowed to enforce Title IX, not these documents”
  6. 9:15: “These documents would be entitled to no deference at all.”
  7. 9:45: “These documents do not impose any obligations on the states because they are not enforceable in any way.”
  8. 14:00: “They don’t create any legal rights or obligations and they wouldn’t be accorded any weight in any adjudication.”
  9. 14:55: “The duty is to comply with Title IX, not these documents.”
  10. 18:00: “These documents do not create legal obligations.”

Subsequent to the hearing, the Department of Education opened three enforcement actions that are based on the disputed 2021 Rule:

  • Forsyth County Schools, Georgia (5).
  • New College, Florida (6).
  • Taft College, California (7).

The fact that these enforcement actions were initiated based on the contested 2021 Rule, reveals the Department of Education attorney repeatedly misrepresented the truth to the panel of federal judges.

The federal Code of Ethics states, “An employee shall not engage in criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral or disgraceful conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the government” (8). Overt dishonesty by an attorney representing the federal government cannot be tolerated or condoned in the United States legal system.

Citations:

  1. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/22/2021-13058/enforcement-of-title-ix-of-the-education-amendments-of-1972-with-respect-to-discrimination-based-on
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/AG-Complaint-8.21.2021.pdf
  3. https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/TennesseeOrderOpinionPI.pdf
  4. https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_audio/audio/04-26-2023%20-%20Wednesday/22-5807%20State%20of%20Tennessee%20v%20Department%20of%20Education%20et%20al.mp3
  5. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/04221281-a.pdf
  6. https://libertyunyielding.com/2023/09/11/biden-administration-investigates-conservative-education-official-who-opposes-dei-and-ze-zir-transgender-pronouns/
  7. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USED/bulletins/376a57f
  8. https://www.justice.gov/jmd/ethics-handbook
Categories
Campus Department of Education Due Process Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Judicial Bias Rewarded?

Judicial Bias Rewarded?

Philip A. Byler

November 4, 2023

In this disturbing period of our country’s history, the last thing we need are judges who are promoted to a U.S. Court of Appeals judgeship for having greatly tilted the scales of justice in a case in favor of a big institutional litigant against an individual seeking to vindicate due process and federal non-discrimination rights. But that is precisely what appears to be happening with respect to Northern District of Indiana U.S. Magistrate Judge Joshua Kolar and Plaintiff John Doe (“John Doe”) in Doe v. Purdue.

Significance of Judge (now Justice) Barrett’s Opinion in Doe v. Purdue.

On June 28, 2019, the Seventh Circuit, in an opinion written by then Judge (now Justice) Amy Coney Barrett, upheld an action brought by John Doe claiming due process violations and Title IX discrimination by Purdue when it suspended John Doe for alleged sexual misconduct with an ex-girlfriend.  Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019).  The national importance of the due process rulings of then Judge (now Justice) Barrett in Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d at 661-664, 667, cannot be understated, holding: (i) that John Doe had pleaded a stigma-plus liberty interest; (ii) that Purdue’s disciplinary process was woefully deficient and did not provide due process, citing among other things not giving John Doe the investigation report and not holding a real hearing (“Purdue’s process fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension”); and (iii) that the District Court on remand was to consider the expungement of the disciplinary file (“we instruct the court to address the issue of expungement on remand”).

When then Education Secretary DeVos announced on May 6, 2020, what would be the current due process Title IX regulations, she pointed to three cases that were particularly instructive, one of which was the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Doe v. Purdue. “Secretary DeVos Announces New Title IX Regulation,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTb3yfMNGuA; U.S. Department of Education Press Release, “Secretary DeVos Takes Historic Action to Strengthen Title IX Protections for All Students,” May 6, 2020; 34 C.F.R. 106.45.    Secretary DeVos noted that it was a three-woman panel with then Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the author of the opinion. “Secretary DeVos Announces New Title IX Regulation” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTb3yfMNGuA.

When Judge Barrett was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court, her Doe v. Purdue opinion was a subject of attention.  Defending Judge Barrett’s opinion in the Wall Street Journal was K.C. Johnson, “Sex, Due Process and Amy Coney Barrett,” Wall Street Journal, Oct. 1, 2020.  Purdue responded with its defiant defense, “Purdue Responds on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Title IX Opinion,” Wall Street Journal, Oct. 12, 2020.  Judge Barrett’s opinion has been a thorn in Purdue’s side, and Purdue has not wanted to live in accordance with it.

Magistrate Judge Kolar’s Biased Treatment of Doe v. Purdue On Remand and the Circumstances of John Doe’s Seventh Circuit Stay Motion.

So, here it is November 2023, 4½ years after Doe v. Purdue was issued, and where are we?  In that time, we have been before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joshua Kolar, who has been acting as the judge for all purposes and who in July 2023 was finally subjected to a motion to recuse for pervasive bias by John Doe because Magistrate Judge Kolar “has made common cause with Purdue counsel to frustrate John Doe’s effort to vindicate his due process and Title IX rights and to undermine and eviscerate [current U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Barrett’s opinion in this case” (Byler Decl., Dist. Ct. DE 257-1 p. 2).  Strong language, yes, but the truth.

The latest development is that John Doe has moved in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to stay proceedings in the District Court, invoking the interests of judicial integrity and safeguarding the fairness of a trial in this case, given the extraordinary circumstances in the case. Magistrate Judge Kolar was subject to a motion to recuse for pervasive bias for Purdue made by John Doe on July 9, 2023, and is subject to a still pending appeal to the Seventh Circuit filed on September 7, 2023, of Magistrate Judge Kolar’s denial of recusal for bias.  Magistrate Judge Kolar, with four years’ experience as a Magistrate Judge and none as an Article III District Judge, was nominated on July 27, 2023, to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit by the Biden Administration.  When Magistrate Judge Kolar denied the recusal for bias motion on August 14, 2023, he did not disclose the fact that he was nominated to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit.  When Magistrate Judge Kolar appeared on September 6, 2023, before a Senate Committee, he did not disclose that he had been subject to a motion to recuse for pervasive bias favoring Purdue.

John Doe and his counsel first learned of Magistrate Judge Kolar’s nomination to be a judge on this Court when the Northern District of Indiana federal court announced in a press release on October 11, 2023, that there would  be an anticipated opening for a Magistrate Judge position given Magistrate Judge Kolar’s nomination to be a judge on this Court; and (vi) Magistrate Judge Kolar continues on insisting that he be the trial judge in this case and has scheduled a trial date.

John Doe’s Stay Motion to the Seventh Circuit        

The stay motion to the Seventh Circuit submitted three key documents concerning Magistrate Judge Kolar’s bias.

Exhibit A to the stay motion was the 33-page Declaration of John Doe’s lawyer [Dist.Ct. DE 257-1] that was submitted in support of the motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Kolar for pervasive bias favoring Purdue and that details the bias case against Magistrate Judge Kolar.  Importantly, the Byler Declaration states [DE 257-1, pp. 6-7]:

Plaintiff is not relying upon the mere fact of adverse rulings but upon the manifestations of “judicial predispositions that go beyond what is normal and acceptable,” and show a case of “pervasive bias.”  Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. at 551. In particular, Magistrate Judge Kolar’s July 2, 2021, August 11, 2022 and February 14, 2023 opinions mishandled the law in a way an impartial judge would not do, misstate the factual record in a way an impartial judge would not do, and do so all to Purdue’s benefit, establishing Magistrate Judge Kolar won’t be impartial due to pervasive bias.

In the July 2, 2021 opinion, Magistrate Judge Kolar found spoliation over 11 Snapchat personal photographs and short videos that were made well after John Doe’s suspension at Purdue and that were inadvertently deleted when John Doe cleared memory on his cell phone.  Magistrate Judge Kolar acknowledged the Snapchat posts not to be prejudicial (“there is nothing in the record to indicate whether the files were in fact adverse to Plaintiff’s case” (DE168, p. 29)), but Magistrate Judge Kolar still speculated that “it was not inconceivable” the 11 Snapchat personal posts might be potentially relevant to John Doe’s desired Navy career — without giving an explanation how it was conceivable, much less actually relevant (DE168, p. 16), which a glance at the Snapchat listing showed it wasn’t. Magistrate Judge Kolar nevertheless lambasted John Doe for the deletion, ordered payment of Purdue’s attorney fees (which were claimed to be $30,000 and which would wrongly burden John Doe’s effort to vindicate his due process and Title IX rights), and outlined jury instructions regarding what were irrelevant documents [Dist Ct. DE168], even though adverse inference instructions require intentional destruction and relevance.  Crabtree v. Nat’l Steel Corp., 261 F.3d at 721; Keller v. United States, 58 F.3d 1194 (7th Cir.1995).  What’s worse, the spoliation order was made in the background of John Doe’s full compliance with Purdue’s scorched earth discovery.

In the August 11, 2022 opinion, the Magistrate Judge Kolar essentially reversed Judge (now Justice) Barrett’s opinion on due process.  Before the Seventh Circuit in 2019, Purdue had argued that Plaintiff John Doe had engaged in self-defamation by authorizing the release of the university disciplinary files to the Navy.  That argument then was premised on the NROTC only learning of John’s disciplinary case because of John’s authorization of disclosure to the Navy ROTC.  Judge Barrett stated in her opinion Purdue’s position: “The university maintains that it has not and will not divulge John’s disciplinary record without his permission.  The Navy knows about it only because John signed a form authorizing the disclosure after the investigation began.”  928 F.3d at 661.  Purdue cited Olivieri v. Rodriguez, 122 F.3d 406 (7th Cir.1997), where a voluntary disclosure was the reason for an employment discharge in a situation that the Seventh Circuit considered speculative whether the disclosure would ever be called for.  Judge Barrett, however, rejected Purdue’s argument (928 F.3d at 652):  “John’s case is different. He does not claim simply that he might someday have to self-publish the guilty finding to future employers. Instead, John says that he had an obligation to authorize Purdue to disclose the proceedings to the Navy.”

In fact, the discovery record, which only made John Doe’s case stronger, made Purdue’s argument and Magistrate Judge Kolar’s ruling about self-defamation wholly untenable.  Indisputably: (i) the NROTC knew about the disciplinary proceeding well before the May 24, 2016 authorization because on April 4, 2016, Jane Doe first went to the NROTC to make her accusations; (ii) Purdue first learned of Jane Doe’s accusations from the NROTC; and (iii) according to the NROTC Commander, the NROTC was looking to the Purdue investigation from the start.  According to Plaintiff John Doe, the Navy wanted “in the loop” (DE183-5, tr 21-22) and he was in no position to refuse the authorization” (DE208-1 ¶ 7).  Magistrate Judge Kolar’s derision, as speculative, military realities framing John Doe’s obligation to disclose only underscores how Magistrate Judge Kolar was willing to kowtow to Purdue in essentially reversing Judge (now Justice) Barrett’s opinion.

Additionally, the August 14, 2022 opinion with respect to Magistrate Judge Kolar’s proof of falsity requirement to establish a stigma plus liberty interest, which the Seventh Circuit has never adopted, gave a purported review of triable issues that did not reflect the factual discovery record (which made John Doe’s case stronger) but that contributed significantly to the August 11 Opinion being a propaganda piece for Purdue.  Magistrate Judge Kolar, in a partisan slip, repeated what were the allegations of Jane Doe when in fact she never testified, which was in distinct contrast to John Doe who repeatedly testified.    Magistrate Judge Kolar referred to what were 133 pages of John Doe-Jane Doe texts in accordance with Purdue’s jaundiced misreading as admissions of guilt (which they weren’t) based on Purdue’s misleading excerpting without discussing John Doe’s testimony on the texts that he alone had provided.  There was also no good impartial reason for Magistrate Judge Kolar to ignore that: (i) John Doe was not provided an opportunity to review the investigation report during the disciplinary case, (ii) the investigation report included only short portions of 7 pages of the 133 pages of texts (the selected portions did not include texts showing an ongoing relationship after Jane Doe’s claims), and (iii) Vice President Rollock and Dean Sermersheim did not know that there were 133 pages of texts submitted by John Doe to the investigators.  Magistrate Judge Kolar further did not address the fact that the three-person panel of the Advisory Committee on Equity and Dean Sermersheim, never met and never heard any direct testimony from Jane Doe and did not have the opportunity to ask any questions of Jane Doe.

In the February 14, 2023 opinion, Magistrate Judge Kolar ignored the Navy Regulations for Officer Development (“ROD”) which clearly substantiated that John Doe could not properly refuse authorization of disclosing the Purdue disciplinary documents to the Navy.  The Navy ROD compelled giving authorization, would make John subject to sanction upon refusing authorization, and required disclosure upon re-application due to a permanent federal record (DE208-3) – which even the Magistrate Judge Kolar’s August 11 opinion indicated would make summary judgment inappropriate (DE206, pp. 16-17) but which Magistrate Judge Kolar avoided on reconsideration, so much lacking in impartiality Magistrate Judge Kolar had become.  Instead, Magistrate Judge Kolar essentially adopted Purdue’s dismissal of the Navy ROD as “a set of internal Navy rules, not law” and Purdue’s denial that the Navy ROD had the force of law to compel executing the authorization (DE221, p. 12).  That, however, leads to the absurd, erroneous result that a Navy ROTC midshipman who acts per the requests of his Navy superiors and the obligations reflected in the Navy ROD has no due process rights. Purdue’s position that whether Purdue’s disciplinary process complied with Fourteenth Amendment due process is “immaterial” (DE213, p. 12) and the Magistrate Judge Kolar ’s effective adoption of that position reflects how much at odds Purdue and Magistrate Judge Kolar are with Justice Barrett’s Doe v. Purdue opinion.

Exhibit B to the stay motion was Magistrate Judge Kolar’s opinion denying the recusal for bias motion without disclosing the fact that he was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court.  [Dist. Ct. DE 261.] Magistrate Judge Kolar’s opinion avoided the actual reasons establishing the pervasive bias in this case presented and certified in the Byler Declaration [Dist. Ct. DE 257-1], and instead gave rationalizations and inapposite general propositions to justify his functioning as a biased trial judge in an important case.  Magistrate Judge Kolar’s failure to disclose avoided the nomination to the Seventh Circuit being identified as the extra-judicial source of bias favoring Purdue documented in the Byler Declaration.

Exhibit C to the stay motion was John Doe’s Notice of Appeal [Dist. Ct. DE 267] that from pages 1 to 5 invoked the Seventh Circuit case law establishing the jurisdiction of the Seventh Court for the appeal of what is often called a collateral order and from pages 7 to 38 dissected Magistrate Judge Kolar’s opinion denying the recusal for bias and demonstrates that Magistrate Judge Kolar yet again avoided the actual reasons establishing the pervasive bias in this case presented in the Byler Declaration and has no real answers to the bias case against him.

Chronology of Events

The chronology of pertinent events helps show Magistrate Judge Kolar’s bias in Doe v. Purdue and his nomination to the Seventh Circuit:

­July 9, 2023: John Doe moves to recuse Magistrate Judge Kolar for bias, submitting Declarations by John Doe and his lawyer. [Dist. Ct. DE 257, 257-1, 257-2.]

­July 19, 2023: Purdue submitted a short Response to the recusal for bias motion that did not take on the facts presented and analysis in the Byler Declaration.  [Dist. Ct. DE 258.]

­July 25, 2023: John Doe submitted a Reply in further support of the motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Kolar for bias, replying to the few arguments of Purdue.  [Dist. Ct, DE  260.]

­July 27, 2023: The White House Briefing Room announces in a White House Statement and Release, “President Biden Announces Thirty-Sixth Round of Judicial Nominees” (July 27, 2023), that Magistrate Judge Kolar is nominated to the Seventh Circuit.

­August 14, 2023: Magistrate Judge Kolar issues an opinion denying John Doe’s motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Kolar for bias.  In that opinion, Magistrate Judge Kolar does not disclose that he has been nominated to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit.  [Dist. Ct. DE 261] Magistrate Judge Kolar sets a trial date of November 28, 2023.  (Dist. Ct. DE 262.]

­September 6, 2023: Magistrate Judge Kolar appears before a Senate Judiciary Committee and does not disclose he had been subject to a motion to recuse for bias favoring Purdue in a case he had been overseeing for four years.  YouTube: Circuit Court Judge Nominees Face Senate Judiciary Committee – YouTube.

­September 7, 2023: John Doe files a Notice of Appeal of Magistrate Judge Kolar’s opinion denying John Doe’s motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Kolar for bias.  [Dist. Ct. DE 267.]

­September 11, 2023: John Doe’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Kolar’s denial of the motion to recuse for bias is assigned Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 23-2764.

­September 13, 2023: Magistrate Judge Kolar issues an order requesting the parties to submit status reports whether the Court retains jurisdiction over the case in light of John Doe’s Notice of Appeal. [Dist. Ct. DE 270.] This Court issues an Order requesting John Doe to submit a “Jurisdictional Memorandum” by September 26, 2023.

­September 21, 2023: Purdue files a report in the District Court taking the positions that Magistrate Judge Kolar should await whether the Seventh Circuit accepts jurisdiction of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 23-2764   [Dist Ct. DE 271] and that Magistrate Judge Kolar should proceed with pretrial motions anyway based on inapposite interlocutory cases (not collateral order cases).

­September 26, 2023: John Doe files in the Seventh Circuit the requested “Jurisdictional Memorandum” showing this Court has jurisdiction of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 23-2764.  John Doe also files in the District Court the requested report showing that Magistrate Judge Kolar does not have jurisdiction of the case if the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 23-2764, but if the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction, Magistrate Judge Kolar should not take any action as urged by Purdue, which would have Magistrate Judge Kolar proceed to decide pretrial issues critical to the fairness of a trial, particularly the motion in limime, while the Seventh Circuit is deciding whether Magistrate Judge Kolar has demonstrated bias and a lack of impartiality such that Magistrate Judge Kolar should be recused from deciding pretrial and overseeing the trial.  [Dist. Ct. DE 272.]

­October 11, 2023: John Doe and his counsel first learn of Magistrate Judge Kolar’s nomination to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit when the Northern District of Indiana federal court announced in a press release on October 11, 2023, that there would be an anticipated opening for a Magistrate Judge position given Magistrate Judge Kolar’s nomination to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit.

­ October 27, 2023: Magistrate Judge Kolar holds a status conference during which he announces that the trial set to begin November 28, 2023, is still on subject to whether the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 23-2764. [Dist. Ct. DE 277.]   During the teleconference, Magistrate Judge Kolar again failed to address his nomination to be a Judge to the Seventh Circuit, even though counsel for John Doe in a pre-teleconference email inquired what the subjects of the teleconference would be given Magistrate Juge Kolar’s highly relevant nomination.

Magistrate Judge Kolar’s Bias and Nomination to the Seventh Circuit

Magistrate Judge Kolar failed to disclose his own nomination to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit when denying John Doe’s motion to recuse for bias favoring Purdue.  Magistrate Judge Kolar’s nomination to be a judge to the Seventh Circuit, with four years’ experience as a Magistrate Judge and none as an Article III District Judge, has more than just the appearance of being the extra-judicial source of bias favoring Purdue; applying res ipsa loquitur, the nomination establishes the extra-judicial source of bias favoring Purdue.

Phil Byler was the lawyer for Plaintiff John Doe in Doe v. Purdue.  Mr. Byler is a 1976 graduate of the Harvard Law School, who then clerked for two years to the Hon. John W. Peck of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit before entering the private practice of law. Mr. Byler briefed and orally argued: Immuno A.G. v. Dr. Jan Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 567 N.E.2d 1270, 566 N.Y.S.2d 906 (Kaye, J.), cert denied, 500 U.S. 954 (1991); Doe v. Columbia, 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (Leval, J.); Doe v. Purdue, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J.); Doe v. MIT, 46 F.4th 61 (1st Cir. 2022) (Selya, J.); and Mesnard v. Campagnolo, 47 Ariz. Cases Dig. 21, 489 P.3d 1184 (2021).

Categories
Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Following Sage Blair Lawsuit, 67 Groups Call on DOE Officials Suzanne Goldberg and Catherine Lhamon to Resign

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Following Sage Blair Lawsuit, 67 Groups Call on DOE Officials Suzanne Goldberg and Catherine Lhamon to Resign

WASHINGTON / November 1, 2023 – Seeking to fulfil Joe Biden’s campaign promise (1), acting director Suzanne Goldberg at the Department of Education commenced work on a Title IX regulation that would redefine “sex” to include “gender identity.” Less than six months after Joe Biden took office – and sidestepping legal requirements for public review-and-comment — the new regulation was issued on June 22, 2021. (2)

Just weeks after the unlawful policy took effect, Sage Blair informed officials at Appomattox County High School in Virginia that she had decided to identify as a male. Her plan to be referred to with a new gender pronoun and use the boys’ bathroom was met with skepticism. Sadly, Sage’s parents were not informed of these developments until weeks later.

Sage, 14, had experienced mental health problems as a child, and her condition now took a turn for the worse. Sage dropped out of school and left her home. Her life turned into a nightmare as she was drugged, sex trafficked, and repeatedly raped (3).

After Sage was rescued, her parents filed a lawsuit against the high school, charging:

“All of this could have been prevented if Sage’s parents had been fully apprised of her mental state and given the opportunity to provide the necessary mental health counseling when she first began questioning her identity. Instead, both the school district and public defender’s office decided they knew better than the parents. As a result of their arrogance, Sage was victimized multiple times over.”

When Goldberg began to draft the new regulation, serious safety concerns about medical services for transgender youth already had been documented in Finland, Sweden, and elsewhere (4). In England, the High Court ruled that youth under the age of 16 were unlikely to be mature enough to give informed consent to take puberty blockers (5). But Goldberg and her boss, Catherine Lhamon, blithely pushed ahead.

On October 24, House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx rapped the knuckles of the Department of Education for subverting the “constitutional authority vested in Congress.” (6)

One week later, 67 organizations endorsed a letter calling for the resignation of Suzanne Goldberg and Catherine Lhamon:

“Encouraging hundreds of thousands of children and youth to transition to a different sex represents a radical medical experiment…These violations of the Administrative Procedure Act are unlawful, willful, and utterly contrary to the public interest. We call on you to immediately resign your positions at the U.S. Department of Education.”

The letter, signed by 67 national and state organizations, is available online: https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Suzanne-Goldberg-and-Catherine-Lhamon-Coalition-letter-11.1.2023.pdf

Citations:

  1. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/biden-vows-a-quick-end-to-devos-sexual-misconduct-rule-241715
  2. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/22/2021-13058/enforcement-of-title-ix-of-the-education-amendments-of-1972-with-respect-to-discrimination-based-on
  3. https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-what-happened-sage-blair-appomattox-county-high-school-lawsuit-controversy-explored
  4. https://www.city-journal.org/article/yes-europe-is-restricting-gender-affirming-care
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/02/tavistock-trust-whistleblower-david-bell-transgender-children-gids
  6. https://mailchi.mp/decf4da998e1/foxx-ed-has-no-respect-for-congressional-authority?e=b85b5cdf85