Post: #1

Judgements are finally coming in on lawsuits from men expelled from schools without due process. And it is costing schools money.

Montana quarterback receives $245K settlement for university’s ‘unfair and biased’ rape investigation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...stigation/

Quote:As of November, more than 50 pending lawsuits have been filed nationwide by men who say they were unfairly expelled from college after being accused of sexual assault, according to Inside Higher Ed.

“Almost every week, there’s at least one more suit like this,” Samantha Harris from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education told the website. “It’s a very rapidly emerging area of law. Up until this point, it’s an area that has not been super fleshed out by the courts, and earlier lawsuits have been largely unsuccessful. But that’s starting to change.”

Post: #2

Post: #3

Post: #4

I lived in Missoula and knew jordy johnson , stand up dude. Good on him for suing those fucks. Another football player got shook and took a plea, got ten years.

Both cases were obvious bullshit but the court system over there is extremely archaic. They threaten to max out the sentence if you lose in trial.

Crimes that in my home state would be 10k bonds or 1k are 100k plus in montana it's a joke.

Post: #5

Finally these guys are getting hit where it hurts, the pocket book. We just need that frat to get a nice 7 figure judgment against rolling stone.

Post: #6

Dear Rape Mattress girl:



I hope that thing is stuffed full of money.

Post: #7

Post: #8

Excellent! Now here's to hoping charges will be filed against the girls who wasted time and resources for false accusations.

Post: #9

(02-17-2016 03:46 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

OP your title took the words right out of my mouth. Hopefully this really is the tide turning and not a few anomalies that only get our hopes up. Hopefully they can set a legal precedent.

In the UK there is a footballer (soccer player) named Ched Evans who was convicted of rape in what appears to be a case of regret = rape. I strongly suspect (90%+ sure) that he is innocent, and for years he has adamantly protested his innocence. He has since been released but he has been publicly shamed to the point where even after doing his time he lost his $1,500,000 per year career with his original team, and any other team that contemplated signing him was hounded into submission. So, he is still unemployed. The problem with footballers is that they have a very short prime from 18-30. Even if Ched Evans wins an appeal and his conviction is reversed, he has lost literally millions upon millions in earnings, and he cannot go back to his old job earning the same amount because he will be too old by then. He got 2 years in prison but the destruction of his livelihood is much worse than the false imprisonment. What is worse is that he has been told that if he admits he was wrong and shows genuine remorse for what happened, he may be allowed to play again. Yet he maintains he is innocent. Team mates and family have called the accuser a "money grabbing slut" and the accuser also posted a message to a friend saying that she was "winning".

This settlement in the US for $245,000 is good. But still there is a long way to go. If Ched Evans is innocent, which he most likely is, then he had about 5 years left of his prime. He was paid $30,000 per week, so ~$1,500,000 per year and $7,500,000 total earnings lost, over 30 times more than the judgment given in favor of the Montana quarterback. There is no way Ched Evans can get such a sum of money back, and he still has all the stigma and all the restrictions of a sex offender. $245,000 is a start, but we have a long way to go. I hope that one day we can have true justice for the falsely accused, not just in the USA but in the UK/AU/CA too.

Rape and sexual assault hysteria has a long way to go before it gets drastically reduced to remotely rational levels.

For those not familiar with the case:http://sheddingoftheego.com/2015/06/02/r...hed-evans/

Post: #10

(02-17-2016 11:03 PM)Snowplow Wrote:  Excellent! Now here's to hoping charges will be filed against the girls who wasted time and resources for false accusations.

One step at a time.

Post: #11

Paul Nungesser needs some help - Columbia is trying to dismiss the case on the basis of free speech.

I want to see Mattress girl's life burn.

Post: #12

Lol her life is already fucked ever since she did that porno. I'm pretty sure even Gillebrand doesn't believe her anymore. Her 15 minutes are up.

Post: #13

Certainly an encouraging development.

The root of the madness has been a push by the Department of Education to make universities shift the standard of evidentiary proof to the lowest threshold possible: a preponderance of the evidence.

Quote:Grievance procedures that use . . . higher standard[s] are inconsistent with the standard of proof established for violations of the civil rights laws, and are thus not equitable under Title IX. Therefore, preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard for investigating allegations of sexual harassment or violence.

What that means is that if the university's adjudicatory body finds it more likely than not that sexual misconduct occurred (anything over a 50% likelihood), they will kick the male student out. If a male student has the misfortune of finding himself in the typical "he said, she said" scenario, the adjudicatory body will kick him out if they find the female slightly more credible. If you understand this, it doesn't take a great deal of insight to realize why they call them "kangaroo courts." If the decisionmaker puts the thumb ever so slightly on the scale in favor of the female student, the male will always get the boot.

And the definitions of conduct that Title IX disciplinary bodies may use to discipline a student is laughable. Again, from the DoE:

Quote:Sexual violence . . . refers to physical sexual acts perpetrated against a person’s will or where a person is incapable of giving consent due to the victim’s use of drugs or alcohol. An individual also may be unable to give consent due to an intellectual or other disability. A number of different acts fall into the category of sexual violence, including rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, and sexual coercion. All such acts of sexual violence are forms of sexual harassment covered under Title IX.

It's pretty much shooting fish in a barrel. Did you have some drinks and finger bang? Guilty. Did you do drugs and and get a blowjob? Guilty. Did she regret the sex? Guilty.

Compounding the problem is an absence of procedural due process. A student has a property interest in his continued enrollment at the university he attends and a liberty interest in his reputation. An expulsion for sexual misconduct would seriously hinder a student's ability to complete his education and maintain good standing in the community in which he lives. Given that the stakes are so high, the student deserves strong procedural safeguards to protect against an erroneous deprivation of his property and liberty interests.

But the tribunals created by the universities under Title IX are ill-equipped to provide sufficient due process. Many of the people who preside over the hearings do not have a legal education. The bodies furthermore do not have the jurisdiction to compel witnesses to testify, empower parties to gather evidence, or issue orders to make an adversarial system function efficiently. Formal rules of evidence are not firmly applied (allowing in suspect proof such as hearsay) and a set body of law does not govern save for a collection of progressive platitudes. The adjudicators frequently have little more than a roving commission to do as they see fit.

It's little wonder that the foundation of Title IX is collapsing and that the victims of the system I described above are winning large judgments or settlements. I hope that the litigation drives the universities who continue this madness into oblivion.

The cynic in me, however, does not see this happening. Most universities carry insurance that will indemnify them whenever they incur liability. It's one of the reasons tuition costs are so high. Even if the insurance fails to kick in, the schools still have their endowments. The University of Montana, for example, has an endowment of $176 million. Harvard has an endowment of $37 billion. A couple of lawsuits a year would be a drop in the bucket for most of them. And many will likely consider it worth it.

Post: #14

I think the tide may be turning and if a republican wins the election we could see a dramatic shift. Several have targeted the department of education which is at the root of the matter. I'm also watching Senator Langfords challenge to the DOE, accusing them of overreach.

Post: #15

(02-18-2016 12:34 AM)kaotic Wrote:  Paul Nungesser needs some help - Columbia is trying to dismiss the case on the basis of free speech.

I want to see Mattress girl's life burn.

With the mattress! Why do I have a sudden urge to listen to a certain Eminem song....

Post: #16

(02-18-2016 02:26 AM)Habano Wrote:  The cynic in me, however, does not see this happening. Most universities carry insurance that will indemnify them whenever they incur liability. It's one of the reasons tuition costs are so high. Even if the insurance fails to kick in, the schools still have their endowments. The University of Montana, for example, has an endowment of $176 million. Harvard has an endowment of $37 billion. A couple of lawsuits a year would be a drop in the bucket for most of them. And many will likely consider it worth it.

It isn't purely the endowments that are the issue.

Its that if a university gets a reputation as being an anti-male or celibate campus, male applications will drop. When a university gets a reputation as a clam fest, women will stop applying too.

This was proven when in the light of the epidemic of boys doing worse than girls in high-schools, colleges were forced to introduce affirmative action towards boys to even the numbers out.

In the long term, student numbers would have dropped at feminist campuses if the tribunals got out of hand. Because that means a drop in tuition $$$ this would eventually have the colleges on the side of overturning or re-evalating the relevent parts of Title IX.

Post: #17

Title IX has been around for a while, it was the "Dear Colleague" letter in 2011 that began this latest craze of rape hysteria.

If Trump wins, it may change, but the cucks have been onboard with this.

Post: #18

Maybe the tide is turning on a few fronts.

Read an article about how Mizzou has lost millions in alumni donations - already pledged money that they refused to donate - based on the nonsense going on there. Money is getting so tight that the university makes weekly trips to beg the state for more. The democrat governor wants to further cave to the protestors and give them an extra $26.8 million a year...for reasons.

Fortunately, republican state officials are refusing.

Quote:At a press conference Thursday, Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard, R-Joplin, used just one word to describe the university’s relations with legislators.

‘Terrible,’ Richard said. ‘Every time they show up (to the Capitol), it gets worse. I suggest they don’t show up.’

Post: #19

(02-18-2016 08:00 AM)Speculation Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 02:26 AM)Habano Wrote:  The cynic in me, however, does not see this happening. Most universities carry insurance that will indemnify them whenever they incur liability. It's one of the reasons tuition costs are so high. Even if the insurance fails to kick in, the schools still have their endowments. The University of Montana, for example, has an endowment of $176 million. Harvard has an endowment of $37 billion. A couple of lawsuits a year would be a drop in the bucket for most of them. And many will likely consider it worth it.

It isn't purely the endowments that are the issue.

Its that if a university gets a reputation as being an anti-male or celibate campus, male applications will drop. When a university gets a reputation as a clam fest, women will stop applying too.

This was proven when in the light of the epidemic of boys doing worse than girls in high-schools, colleges were forced to introduce affirmative action towards boys to even the numbers out.

In the long term, student numbers would have dropped at feminist campuses if the tribunals got out of hand. Because that means a drop in tuition $$$ this would eventually have the colleges on the side of overturning or re-evalating the relevent parts of Title IX.

Possible. It would be good if market forces put some pressure on the schools that caused them to change their behavior. But like a lot of men on this forum, I see the majority of the American schools (save for the STEM departments) as a lost cause.

A handful of 18 year-old freshmen may make the decision to pick one school over another because of Title IX, but I think most of them are unaware of what Title IX is. Even if they know, I don't see it playing a large role in their decision. I think only a handful fully grasp the dire situation they could find themselves in down the road.

The elite schools in this country could institute a policy where 1 in every 5 men was shot before graduation (to equalize for the alleged sexual assaults on campus, of course) and they would still probably get enough male applications to fill up the school many times over.

Post: #20

(02-17-2016 11:55 PM)ChickenLover9T9 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 03:46 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

OP your title took the words right out of my mouth. Hopefully this really is the tide turning and not a few anomalies that only get our hopes up. Hopefully they can set a legal precedent.

In the UK there is a footballer (soccer player) named Ched Evans who was convicted of rape in what appears to be a case of regret = rape. I strongly suspect (90%+ sure) that he is innocent, and for years he has adamantly protested his innocence. He has since been released but he has been publicly shamed to the point where even after doing his time he lost his $1,500,000 per year career with his original team, and any other team that contemplated signing him was hounded into submission. So, he is still unemployed. The problem with footballers is that they have a very short prime from 18-30. Even if Ched Evans wins an appeal and his conviction is reversed, he has lost literally millions upon millions in earnings, and he cannot go back to his old job earning the same amount because he will be too old by then. He got 2 years in prison but the destruction of his livelihood is much worse than the false imprisonment. What is worse is that he has been told that if he admits he was wrong and shows genuine remorse for what happened, he may be allowed to play again. Yet he maintains he is innocent. Team mates and family have called the accuser a "money grabbing slut" and the accuser also posted a message to a friend saying that she was "winning".

This settlement in the US for $245,000 is good. But still there is a long way to go. If Ched Evans is innocent, which he most likely is, then he had about 5 years left of his prime. He was paid $30,000 per week, so ~$1,500,000 per year and $7,500,000 total earnings lost, over 30 times more than the judgment given in favor of the Montana quarterback. There is no way Ched Evans can get such a sum of money back, and he still has all the stigma and all the restrictions of a sex offender. $245,000 is a start, but we have a long way to go. I hope that one day we can have true justice for the falsely accused, not just in the USA but in the UK/AU/CA too.

Rape and sexual assault hysteria has a long way to go before it gets drastically reduced to remotely rational levels.

For those not familiar with the case:http://sheddingoftheego.com/2015/06/02/r...hed-evans/

Followed this case for months when it happened. I stated it was "regret rape" and stood by my decision even when found guilty. All because he was a famous footballer so he was an easy target for the media to influence the decision. If it would of been your average Joe the so called victim wouldn't of said a word. But the laws in the UK are pathetically bias towards women so he didn't stand a chance but i hope he wins the appeal.

Post: #21

Yeah, anyone who is in the UK or has ties to the UK is aware of it as this was a case of nationwide rape hysteria.

I mentioned that I am 90% sure he is innocent. Let me put it another way. If I am 90% sure he is innocent beyond reasonable doubt, then I am 10% sure he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 10% for me is another way of saying "This is an outside possibility but the overwhelming bulk of evidence points to the opposite conclusion." No one can ever be 100% sure of anything they have not seen first-hand, especially where prosecution attempts to distort events to their ends.

What is certain is that you cannot convict if 9 times out of 10 you believe he is innocent beyond reasonable doubt. It makes you wonder, how on earth did a jury, who are meant to be reminded of this, decide with the scant evidence available, that Ched Evans was truly guilty beyond reasonable doubt? I believe that the members of the jury being members of the general public are just as caught up in the rape hysteria and mainstream media lies as any other member of the public. Thus the emotionally driven hysteria pollutes the rational forebrain and leads to irrational decisions based in primal emotional reactions rather than more objective consideration of the law.

The court proceedings are public record. Ched Evans has been granted an appeal, which means that they have deemed there a good chance of the conviction being overturned. If there is any modicum of justice and objectivity, the conviction will be overturned and Ched Evans can get back to playing football again. He should also seek damages for lost earnings but I doubt he would receive any. A "not guilty" verdict in this legal environment would be more than you would expect let alone judgments in his favor on damages.

Post: #22

Bumping this thread because I thought this might be a good place for it:

Texas student commits suicide after Title IX kangaroo court

Quote:If every other egregious example of a male student denied due process after being accused of sexual misconduct gets ignored – this one should not be.

A male student who was accused of sexual harassment committed suicide just days after the University of Texas at Arlington ignored its own policies in order to punish him. The accused student’s father, a lawyer acting as the administrator of his son’s estate, is now suing the school for violating his son’s Title IX rights.

College administrators, as well as members of the media and legislators, would do well to remember the name Thomas Klocke. Klocke, a straight male, was accused by a gay male student of writing anti-gay slurs on his computer during a class. Klocke vehemently denied the accusation, and administrators who investigated the incident acknowledged there was no evidence to support the accuser’s claims, yet Klocke was still punished.

......

Klocke insisted that what happened in that mid-May class in 2016 was completely different than what the accuser claimed. Klocke said his accuser made unwelcome sexual advances toward him. Klocke rejected the advances, telling his eventual accuser that he was straight. The lawsuit suggests that this rejection led the accuser to make up his story, possibly out of fear that he himself could be accused of sexual misconduct

Tldr; Gay hits on straight guy and gets rejected. Gay makes false accusation and ruins guy's life through Title IX. Guy kills himself. Dad sues the shit out of university.

The usual false accusation, this time with a gay accuser putting the 'Queen' back into Drama Queen.

The sooner Title IX is scrapped, the better.

Post: #23

^^^
I read the story last night and it made my blood boil. Googling the administrators involved, it appears as though they are going into hiding to a degree and hopefully there can at least be some scalps to show for this horrible outcome. However, the title of the article is a bit misleading.

Title IX certainly does suck, but in this case, it wasn't even administered properly. The VP and "student integrity" coordinator didn't even inform the designated Title IX official (who is the designated person to head up these investigations) of the situation and instead took it upon themselves to selectively enforce certain aspects of Title IX investigatory and disciplinary procedures based on their own whims and what they wanted the eventual outcome to be.

So, essentially, these two took an already awful Title IX system and made it THAT much worse.

Reading that the original complainant was on a buddy-buddy, first-name basis with the VP made me nuts. THIS is how badly the deck is stacked against guys in college these days. Sickening.