We finally have the lawsuit that could break one of the worst parts of Title IX

From Hotair:

We’ve covered far too many stories of the “campus rape culture” here and the frequent miscarriages of justice ( on both sides) which result when colleges attempt to replace the judicial system when dealing with potential felonies taking place on their property. It’s generally depressing news, even in the rare cases a court is dragged in to correct the outcome. Now, however, Robby Soave at Reason Magazine brings us news that a lawsuit is underway which might put an end to these problems. One former student who was banned from campus at the University of Virginia amid allegations of sexual abuse without ever seeing a judge or jury is going to court, not against the University which hijacked the legal system, but against the US Department of Education.

A University of Virginia law student who was accused of sexual misconduct and banned from campus—years after the alleged incident—is suing the U.S. Education Department for giving UVA no choice but to rule against him.

His lawsuit is a direct challenge to the legality of the campus kangaroo courts the federal government claims are required under Title IX. Lawyers representing the student, John Doe, argue persuasively that he would have been found innocent of wrongdoing if not for the Obama administration’s insistence that universities adjudicate sexual assault under the preponderance of evidence standard.

This makes Doe’s lawsuit the strongest legal assault on Title IX to date. If successful, it could undo some of the damage wrought by OCR’s crusade to remove elements of due process from campus rape trials.

The reason this is an important case is described in full by Soave but it boils down to the fact that this is the first significant instance where the plaintiff (listed as John Doe in this case) is not going after the university for violating his rights, but after the Department of Education for creating the problem in the first place. Under a new interpretation of Title IX during the Obama administration applying to the section forbidding gender discrimination, colleges are instructed to use the lowest standard of proof – preponderance of evidence – when determining if a student is guilty of some form of sexual assault. Doe’s case was a sketchy one at best, as described in the Reason article, and the former state supreme court justice who heard the case for the university concluded that she was forced to admit there might have been a 51% chance that Doe was guilty. Doe was also forbidden any normal semblance of defense or the ability to cross examine during the proceedings. She stated that had the case been subject to the normal standard of evidence for a criminal case she would likely not have been able to find him guilty.

I hope the UVA student crushes them

UVA Dean Defamed In Rolling Stone Article Takes On Major Feminist Organization

From The Daily Caller:

The University of Virginia dean who is suing Rolling Stone for defamation has asked a federal judge to force the National Organization for Women (NOW) to turn over its correspondence with lawyers for the woman whose false rape claims are the centerpiece of the debunked article, “A Rape on Campus.”

Attorneys for the dean, Nicole Eramo, allege that NOW, the largest feminist group in the U.S., and the lawyers for the false rape accuser, Jackie Coakley (“Jackie”), engaged in a “publicity stunt” by jointly crafting a Jan. 6, 2016 open letter criticizing Eramo for “re-victimiz[ing]” the fabulist.

Defendants in the $7.5 million lawsuit — which include Rolling Stone and its reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely — have indicated that they plan to introduce the letter as evidence in the case.

But the letter is a case of self-dealing, suggests Eramo’s lawyer, Thomas Clare. And he is asking the federal court to force NOW to comply with a subpoena for its communications with Jackie’s attorneys at the firm Stein Mitchell.

Question? How does one "re-victimize" someone who was NOT a victim of a crime?

Eramo has faced numerous roadblocks in her attempt to compel discovery from Jackie, who has gone into hiding.

The former UVA student has refused to produce emails and text messages that she exchanged during the time period of her fabricated rape claims and with Erdely.

The Judge should order Coakley to provide the email or be jailed for contempt of court.

"Jackie's" Lawyers Implicitly Admit "Jackie" Made Up "Haven Monahan" Just Like She Made Up Her "Terminal Illness"

From Ace of Spades HQ:

I'll get to that last part in a second. It's not new, but I'd forgotten about it. This bitch is so crazy I can't even keep up with her crazy bitch shit.

Her lawyers concede that that when they searched the "Haven Monahan" account, they were doing so to determine if Jackie had control of any documents discoverable by subpoena.

Ergo, the "Haven Monahan" account hosts documents belonging to "Jackie."

Lawyers for "Jackie," the woman who claimed to Rolling Stone that she had been gang-raped at a University of Virginia fraternity party have finally acknowledged that their client created the fake rapist alleged to have orchestrated the attack.
..........

The lawyers claimed they only accessed the email account to confirm Jackie no longer possessed the documents requested by Dean Nicole Eramo, who is suing Rolling Stone after being negatively portrayed in the article. Eramo was described as being callous and indifferent toward sexual assault accusers, and is now suing for millions of dollars.

Jackie's lawyers had previously sent a letter to Eramo's attorneys — four days after they accessed the email address -- saying "Jackie was not in possession of these emails." This led to the belief that the attorneys had lied and failed to comply with a court order.

Eramo's attorney told the Washington Post that Jackie's lawyers had finally admitted to accessing the fake email address, proving that Jackie created Monahan, "a point they've refused to answer all along."

Lawyers for Jackie had also written in previous court documents that Team Eramo was pursuing "unhinged" efforts to "harass and abuse" Jackie by bringing up Monahan. Jackie's lawyers also still maintain that their client is a sexual abuse victim.

So if you're searching for documents under Jackie's control in an email account under the name "Haven Monahan," this is Jackie's account. QED.

Ashe Schow brings up the other lies this bent idiot made up, one of which I'd forgotten completely about.

The "I just got gang-raped" story wasn't the first story Jackie used to gain sympathy and romantic interest from the boy she had a crush on.

The first attempt was the tale of her terminal illness.
..........

Apparently Jackie's Cancer of the Heart had only one cure -- a hot beef injection from Duffin.

I'll bet she suffers from borderline personality disorder too. Face it, she's just nuts.

New ‘Mattress Girl’ Lawsuit -- Obscene Drawing of Cleared Man ‘Displayed on Campus’

From HeatStreet via H/T at Instapundit:

EXCLUSIVE: See the obscene “revenge porn” of Nungesser by “mattress girl”, showing him naked and aroused, displayed in Columbia’s campus art gallery for two weeks

Columbia professor Jon Kessler—a defendant in new suit —’referred to the mattress as “the site of [her] rape,” implying fellow student Nungesser was guilty’

I think she suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder otherwise known as '3rd Wave Feminism!'

While the truth remains elusive, Nungesser’s lawsuit marshals an impressive array of facts contradicting Sulkowicz’s account, including the lack of any evidence that she seemed traumatized or had visible injuries after being—according to her—anally raped, hit in the face and violently choked. It also contains the new allegation that Sulkowicz tried to persuade an unnamed female Columbia student to bring charges against Nungesser in order to “support her as a woman.”

Unlike other accused men who have sued colleges in recent years, Nungesser was not expelled but ultimately cleared of all charges including Sulkowicz’s. The ex-girlfriend’s complaint was dismissed; Nungesser was initially found “responsible” on the third charge but exonerated on appeal, an extraordinary outcome in the complainant-friendly system of campus “justice.” Yet another complaint, brought during Nungesser’s senior year by a male student who claimed Nungesser had sexually groped him during a conversation three years earlier, was also closed without a hearing as lacking in credibility. Columbia’s internal report on the investigation, a photocopy of which I was able to obtain from a confidential source, went so far as to hint that this accusation could be the product of a collective vendetta. (Nungesser’s lawsuit explicitly claims it was instigated by Sulkowicz.)

More like vindictive bitch!

But while Nungesser was able to graduate, the lawsuit persuasively argues that Sulkowicz’s activism and the surrounding publicity caused him serious harm—abetted by Columbia officials who refused to recognize him as an innocent man and treated his exoneration as an embarrassing inconvenience.

Think of the damages, an Ivy League educated man who can't get a job.

New Lawsuit Could Totally Destroy Obama’s Sexual Assault Crusade

From The Daily Caller:

A former Colorado State University-Pueblo (CSUP) launched a daring lawsuit against the Obama administration Tuesday, claiming illegal Department of Education policies resulted in him being kicked out of school for sexual assault, despite an incredibly weak case against him.

Grant Neal, a student-athlete at CSUP, claims in his lawsuit that he is the victim of an almost preposterous railroading by the collegiate sex police, reports The Denver Post. Many men have claimed they were wrongfully convicted thanks to a “he said, she said” situation where a girl’s accusation without any further evidence was enough to get them kicked out. But in Neal’s case, his alleged victim actually consistently denied ever being raped.

So aren't we supposed to believe the victim? Oh wait, there isn't a victim.

Read the article about the case at Reason.

Student expelled for sexual assault for something other people did

From Ashe Schow at The Washington Examiner via H/T at Instapundit::

New, yet Victorian, views of sex on college campuses have led to a return to the days when men were the ultimate protectors of women. This view says that women who drink cannot be held accountable for their actions, and are to be viewed as victims. Men who drink, meanwhile, are to be held accountable for their actions (and the actions of the women around them), and are to be viewed as perpetrators.

Now comes a story out of California, in which a male student (referred to in court documents as John Doe) was expelled for consensual sex because the accuser did not like what other men involved in the group sexual activity did to her. The University of Southern California determined Doe was somehow responsible for preventing and stopping what the other men did, even though his accuser gave no indication she didn’t like the contact. When she finally did show displeasure with the activities, by all accounts, Doe immediately stopped engaging in sexual contact with her and left.

Even stranger, Doe was found in violation for sexual assault because he allegedly left his accuser after the sexual activity, which may have endangered her. So here a student is being branded a rapist because he didn’t sufficiently protect a woman from other people or from what could have happened after the sexual activity.

He’s a male, which makes him guilty.

And will soon walk away with several million dollars!

Brown University student sues his accuser for defamation.

From Ashe Schow at The Washington Examiner via H/T at Instapundit:

We should see more lawsuits like this. False accusers should be named and punished.

At some point during the party, the two began a lengthy conversation, and as the party ended, they began kissing. “The couple continued their intimate conversation and public displays of affection among a group of mutual friends in another dormitory room down the hall,” John’s complaint says. At some point Jane texted her friends that she might be about to “hook up” with John.

The two decided to go back to John’s dorm, and once there, continued kissing and touching each other on John’s bed. John says Jane was an active, willing participant who “passionately” kissed John’s neck, leaving a hickey. John’s lawsuit claims Jane “expressed her consent and pleasure” with the sexual activity and at no time did she “express in actions or words that she was uncomfortable or withdrawing her consent.”

Jane said she did not want to have sex that night, and John said okay, but the two continued kissing. John escalated the sexual touching and asked Jane: “Do you like this?” The lawsuit says Jane nodded her head and said “yes.”

John then says that Jane guided his hand and told her what she wanted him to do. Jane then stood up and said again that she didn’t want to have sex, that she had to go meet a friend she had previously agreed to meet, but that she would see John again at her birthday party the next day.

John says Jane kissed him goodbye and left his room.

“In the week that followed, John Doe was unaware that Jane Doe considered herself the victim of sexual assault,” the lawsuit says.

John’s lawsuit suggests that Jane made the accusation against him after he didn’t talk to her at her birthday party the next day.

John is suing his accuser for defamation based on statements she made to other students at Brown that were false. The people she made the claims to would later testify on her behalf. Some of the false statements included her claim that she was “covered in bruises” despite claiming in future statements that she was only attacked on her lip and neck (which had no bruises according to Facebook photos and a medical report).

Like I said ...................

Once the accusation is proved to be false, she is no longer a victim, I agree she should be named AND punished.

College's hypocrisy on standard of evidence when it comes to accused students

From Ashe Schow at The Washington Examiner via H/T at Instapundit:

Burden of proof for thee, but not me: A Vermont college was ordered to halt the expulsion of a student who was expelled for sexual assault without being given a hearing. But what the college argued in its defense was rather interesting.

Middlebury College used a “preponderance of evidence” standard (meaning campus administrators have to be just 50.01 percent sure an assault was committed) even before the Department of Education mandated colleges to lower the bar on proof of charges against students. But when it came to defending itself from this student’s lawsuit, the college demanded the higher standard of “clear and convincing” evidence that it had wronged him.

In a footnote of the judge’s decision to halt the expulsion, noticed by Samantha Harris of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the college argued for the higher standard of proof.

“Middlebury argues a higher standard — requiring Plaintiff to demonstrate ‘a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits’ — applies because an injunction will provide plaintiff with substantially all the relief sought and the relief cannot be undone and because plaintiff seeks to alter rather than maintain the status quo,” the footnote reads.

The reason the male student was able to get his expulsion halted was that he showed that he would have a “likelihood of success on the merits” and that he would suffer irreparable harm if the federal court did not issue a preliminary injunction.

So, to recap, when accusing students of a felony, a low threshold of evidence is okay, but when accused of unfairness, Middlebury wants the charges to clear a higher bar. Nice legal double standard, if you can get it.

The twisted logic is just astounding. Plus the moxie to make such a filing ........

It kinda of reminding me of the old joke about the orphan, who threw himself at the mercy of the court, after being convicted for murdering his parents.

2014 in review -- The men strike back

From the "Community of the Wrongly Accused",

2014 was a watershed year -- it was the year it became apparent to a lot of folks with no personal stake in the issue that gender extremists have gone too far pushing their agendas on sexual assault. There is finally a mainstream backlash against rape culture hysteria. The rape culturalists are still winning, but for the first time, they have prominent opposition. ..............

The Backlash

The Rolling Stone debacle might have been a tipping point, because suddenly, the mainstream media discovered that an important college "rape" story was filled with holes -- this, combined with other blows to the rape culture meme, led more and more people to realize that the Rolling Stone debacle is symptomatic of a culture that has allowed gender extremists to dominate the public discourse on sexual assault.

Time to shame the Radical Feminists out of the mainstream.

Prof. Alan Dershowitz -- "Harvard's policy was written by people who think sexual assault is so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense."

From the "Community of the Wrongly Accused",

It's a great quote, and it appears in this week's Time Magazine in a story about the letter published last week in the Boston Globe signed by 28 Harvard law professors voicing strong objections to the school's one-sided, feminist-inspired sexual misconduct policies.

But when Dershowitz continued and said that people accused of rape should have a full and fair opportunity to defend themselves, Time pooh-poohed it: "It's a noble idea, but . . . ."

The "but" included Time's observation that "a student disciplinary hearing is a civil matter, not a criminal one." This a frequent refrain from people who are willing to tolerate the academy's hostility to due process as the price of battling the sexual assault "epidemic." It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and Time ought to know better.

What Time and others who chant that line don't seem to understand is that in civil cases, the defendant is afforded all manner of evidentiary protections that colleges routinely deny young men accused of sex offenses.

I can't wait for a Harvard law student to sue his own school for violating his civil rights under Title IX.

Rape Culture Theory Ensnares Innocent Men

From Legal Insurrection:

No one wants a woman blamed for being sexually assaulted because she wore a skimpy outfit. Likewise, many fear a sexually assaulted woman will be blamed because of her drunkenness. It is common thinking that because no one should ever be sexually assaulted, no blame should ever be put on them.

Under the new sexual assault definition, though, a consenting woman can later claim (and have a charge initiated because) there was really no consent because she was too drunk.

So if the male doesn't call her after ward or simply gets her mad at him. These new proposed rules allow the woman to change her mind about consent, after the fact. She can make a sexual assault accusation out of spite.

Booth noted that incidences in which the woman is drunk beyond her ability to consent are the ones that “encompass the bulk” of the sexual assault cases she sees.

Studies have shown that the majority of unwanted sexual encounters experienced by collegiate women occurred when they were intoxicated. Yet the roundtable panelists adamantly rejected the suggestion that sexual assault prevention education should encourage reduced alcohol consumption. ..................

In fact, take the case of Lewis McLeod. He is suing Duke University for expelling him for what he and the local police say was a false allegation of sexual assault.

Attending the trial, John H. Tucker of Raleigh-Durham’s Indyweek reported, dean Sue Wasiolek was asked in court whether both parties would be considered guilty of rape and thereby expelled if they engaged in sex while both were intoxicated to “incapacity.”

This is the same "Dean Sue" the false accused Duke Lacrosse players were told to trust after the false rape allegation.

The dean responded, “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

In the new climate of sexual assault pseudolaw, the female apparently has no responsibility other than to say yes, which can be revoked anytime, including after the sex is over.

Let that sink in. The dean responded, “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

The woman does have ANY responsibility in this scenario. The dean responded, “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

And the Feminist wonder why men don't take them seriously. The dean responded, “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

It seems as if the new system is designed to destroy as many men as possible. The dean responded, “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

Title IX civil right lawsuit for discriminating against men! ! ! ! !

K.C. Johnson -- College Attorneys Face the War on Due Process.

From Instapundit:

It should come as little surprise that in a movement so dismissive of due process that these concerns have attracted virtually no interest from either OCR or the activists. This attitude appears to have taken aback even the Democratic senators who have affiliated themselves with the issue. As FIRE’s Susan Kruth recounted, at a recent Senate roundtable on the issue, Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal wanted to know “what lawmakers can do to ensure that students’ due process rights are respected.”

The activists weren’t interested in responding to Blumenthal; Georgetown Law Research Fellow Nancy Chi Cantalupo told the senator that as long as colleges followed their own procedures, whatever they might be, the school had provided sufficient due process. Indeed, as Kruth noted, the logic of Cantalupo’s expressed support for an “even playing field” between accuser and accused would be a dispensing of the presumption of innocence—a development that has effectively occurred at many schools.In the end, unless judges intervene, the situation seems likely to get worse for due process rather than better.

If I were a college admissions officer — or treasurer — I’d be deeply troubled about how this will impact college attendance.

Time for a Class Action Lawsuit against the College using the Big Tobacco template and drain the College's Endowments. One hopes this will force these schools to reprioritize their spending priorities and get the Administrators to realize gender studies, ethic studies, LBGT studies et. al. are not serious academic area, but ego/guilt driven field of studies used to increase the Professorships of those who could not compete in serious field of studies. They were all created to "balance" the ethnic population of professors to please the Gods of Progressivism.

College Lawyers Confront a Thicket of Rules on Sexual Assault

From Instapundit:

IT’S GOING TO MAKE SOME PLAINTIFF’S LAWYERS RICH: College Lawyers Confront a Thicket of Rules on Sexual Assault.

In conversations with lawyers here at the annual meeting of the National Association of College and University Attorneys, nearly all stressed that colleges want to protect students from sexual violence, and that it is the right thing to do. But even as colleges work to do so—and to meet the administrative and legal requirements that now entails—lawyers here expressed frustration that their institutions were being held to a different standard than even law-enforcement agencies and were being given increasingly complex rules that sometimes go well beyond their capacity.

That’s because colleges aren’t law-enforcement agencies. Student disciplinary procedures should be for things like plagiarism and cheating, not violent crimes — or made-up quasi-crimes. Meanwhile, reading about the administrative burdens (enormous) being placed on colleges by a policy that will exacerbate enrollment problems and male under-representation (which makes women less likely to attend) makes me wonder if this whole policy wasn’t formulated by someone sneakily trying to burst the higher education bubble.

Time to bankrupt and start over with all these institutions of higher learning. They are now institutions of indoctrination.

Title IX Suit Filed Against University of Oregon On Behalf of Male Students.

From Instapundit:

WAVE OF THE FUTURE: Title IX Suit Filed Against University of Oregon On Behalf of Male Students.

Former Eugene City Councilor Kevin Hornbuckle has filed a civil rights complaint on behalf of three University of Oregon students who were kicked off the basketball team in the wake of sexual misconduct allegations.

Hornbuckle said he submitted his Title IX complaint against the UO on Monday through the website of the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education.
“The basic problem is that rape accusations are effectively forever,” Hornbuckle said Tuesday. “And the University of Oregon as well as the media have gravely harmed these three players, probably for the rest of their lives.”\ 

In failing to defend the three players, and by “publicly impugning their character and morals,” the UO administration “participated in generating a climate of hysteria,” Hornbuckle wrote in his complaint.

If this flies, a lot of schools will be at risk.

Just search Google for the "Duke Lacrosse Rape Case."