Credibility of EOAA Report

[Spoofin]

There are very simple answers to your questions. She pleaded the Fifth because that is what her attorney advised here to do. She had consensual sex with a 17 year old high school student. And she made the players agree not to sue her in civil court because that is what her lawyer advised here to do. Lawyers insert that kind of thing in every contract they negotiate. It would be malpractice for them not to. People file lawsuits against innocent victims every day whether they are justified or not. They often do it just to harass the person they are suing. If you don't know that then you don't know any lawyers.

You guys continue to ignore the fact at least one or more of the players admitted that they heard the girl say she wanted the sex to stop at some point after the first couple of guys came through the door. Any sexual activity that occurred after that was rape. Needless to say, we are not going to let you ignore that inconvenient fact. It is going to continue to be brought up in every thread.

Thanks for letting me know what I think and ignore. Brilliant. I could have swore this thread and my point was about the bias of the EOAA report. You just don't get it.

I was one of the first to ask if that language was common in settlements and was told by 2 lawyers in here that it is not.

I have not and will not advocate for the players here. I do find it amazing that they get no due process, do not get to tell their side of the story, and yet there are people like you that will take part of an interview that was posted not in its entirety in a bias report and start yelling rape when the police and DA didn't even think there was enough to charge them (lower level of requirement than the EOAA). But yeah, it is me being closed minded as I must be some pro-rape guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GophersInIowa]

Some of you people are disgusting. Take your maroon and gold goggles for second and realize there way more to life than football. None of you would be trying to defend any these guys had they not been football players if your being honest with yourself, you'd see that.

I thought this was a place for discussion? Questioning and discussing things isn't defending someone. There are many examples of the EOAA at other schools being pretty bias toward athletes. Doesn't mean it happened here, just that it could have.

None of us would be even talking about this if it didn't involve the football players because it wouldn't be news.

 

[GhostofBronko]

Not in good taste but what does that prove other than these guys are not from high class backgrounds? She was willing to tag-team two guys she had just met. We are not talking about a sweet little girl here.

Hearsay? Or regret?

 

[minny01]

Thanks for letting me know what I think and ignore. Brilliant. I could have swore this thread and my point was about the bias of the EOAA report. You just don't get it.

I was one of the first to ask if that language was common in settlements and was told by 2 lawyers in here that it is not.

I have not and will not advocate for the players here. I do find it amazing that they get no due process, do not get to tell their side of the story, and yet there are people like you that will take part of an interview that was posted not in its entirety in a bias report and start yelling rape when the police and DA didn't even think there was enough to charge them (lower level of requirement than the EOAA). But yeah, it is me being closed minded as I must be some pro-rape guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is exactly the problem that I have with some of these people. You either agree completely with them, or you're wrong. There can't be a middle ground in their minds.

 

[supadupafly]

Thanks for letting me know what I think and ignore. Brilliant. I could have swore this thread and my point was about the bias of the EOAA report. You just don't get it.

I was one of the first to ask if that language was common in settlements and was told by 2 lawyers in here that it is not.

I have not and will not advocate for the players here. I do find it amazing that they get no due process, do not get to tell their side of the story, and yet there are people like you that will take part of an interview that was posted not in its entirety in a bias report and start yelling rape when the police and DA didn't even think there was enough to charge them (lower level of requirement than the EOAA). But yeah, it is me being closed minded as I must be some pro-rape guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree 100%. Have a strong feeling what you and what the team (and others around the country have dealt with this....Duke lacrosse, Virginia/Rolling Stone, Yale basketball, etc) are referring to here will be addressed nationally/federally on January 21st. When the new federal Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, hopefully rescinds the unlawful, insanely unconstitutional, anti-male activist driven DOE "guidelines" (guidelines, not actual law mind you) relating to university investigations that the Obama administration put in place back in 2011. A guideline......in typical Obama fashion put in place without passing any actual legislation and completely bypassing the role of Congress to create actual law. There are a lot of ridiculous "executive orders" and "guidelines" that are going to be rescinded in January 2017.

This ridiculous guideline, which absurdly hold federal funding over public universities heads, by forcing them to essentially and imo unconstitutionally eliminate the correct and traditional understanding of being afforded due process under the ACTUAL law. Guidelines which unfairly and severely impact male students (all male students, not just student-athletes) and put them in basically completely untenable and unconstitutional positions of being "guilty until proven innocent" (rather than the constitutionally afforded precedent of innocent until proven guilty in an actual court of law) in a university settings while simultaneously stripping them of virtually all semblance of the constitutional right to due process.

It is not the role of activist driven, ideologically driven, rogue university committees and departments (i.e. like the EOAA office which is almost completely void of any diversity of gender in it's department....6 of 7 are females mostly from activist backgrounds) to play judge, jury and executioner. It is the role of ACTUAL judges and juries in the ACTUAL legal system long established in the United States.

To some on here that have been arguing on behalf of this ridiculously unlawful, "guideline enabled", kangaroo court system, which the EOAA office is unconstitutionally allowed to operate under, due to the Obama administration's reckless implementation of their unconstitutional federal DOE "guideline" in 2011, you're wrong. And hopefully this kangaroo court nonsense will be coming to an end in 2017.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

It's sad that this is even an issue. I don't want to politicize it. People on the left, right, and center all agree the EOAA and the OCR guidelines are fatally flawed. That fact hasn't awakened in some of the reptilian minds that assume all allegations are true, because they just know it.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

There are very simple answers to your questions. She pleaded the Fifth because that is what her attorney advised here to do. She had consensual sex with a 17 year old high school student. And she made the players agree not to sue her in civil court because that is what her lawyer advised here to do. Lawyers insert that kind of thing in every contract they negotiate. It would be malpractice for them not to. People file lawsuits against innocent victims every day whether they are justified or not. They often do it just to harass the person they are suing. If you don't know that then you don't know any lawyers.

You guys continue to ignore the fact at least one or more of the players admitted that they heard the girl say she wanted the sex to stop at some point after the first couple of guys came through the door. Any sexual activity that occurred after that was rape. Needless to say, we are not going to let you ignore that inconvenient fact. It is going to continue to be brought up in every thread.

You have, literally, no idea what you're talking about.

#1- It is her privilege, she took the 5th Amendment. Why do you think she was advised to take the 5th? You can ONLY take the 5th for situations where you could face criminal ramifications for what you're going to say.

#2 - What are you talking about malpractice? It is EXTREMELY rare to have that kind of language in a situation involving sexual assault. Extremely rare. I'm not the only one saying it, one of the posters here is prosecutor and he said the only thing. That kind of language is standard, boiler-plate language in a lot of contracts, it is extremely rare to be included in situations where you agree to drop a a no-contact order. Extremely rare.

#3 - Yeah, that is a piece of evidence that certainly makes it seem non-consensual. However, your statement like it is definitive is absolutely illogical. Read that paragraph again.

 

[highwayman]

Please don't stop.

Please. Don't. Stop.

Think about it. Only people that know exactly what happened were there. No one else.

 

[Ewert86PC]

Because if you don't believe her that means you have to believe the players who have every reason in the world to tell any lie they can think of to avoid prison time, stay on the football team, keep their scholarship, and not get kicked out of the U. That would make you a moron, wouldn't it?

I'm calling major bias BS here. This all-or-nothing, him vs her mentality is part of the problem. Both parties can be flawed in their recollections which makes neither of them victims or villians.

Remember when you point a finger at someone, your hand has three fingers pointing back at you.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I'm calling major bias BS here. This all-or-nothing, him vs her mentality is part of the problem. Both parties can be flawed in their recollections which makes neither of them victims or villians.

Remember when you point a finger at someone, your hand has three fingers pointing back at you.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

That statement sums that idiot up right there.

By that strand of logic (I use that term very loosely here), everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty. Everyone! The accused would always have a reason to deny (they would be facing criminal charges).

That idiot gets offended when you refer to this as a witch hunt then he says things like that. He is truly a creepy moron.

 

[Jack jones]

How many schools in the Big Ten even have a EOAA committee? I tried to google it but to no avail. Appreciate someone helping.

 

[Jack jones]

I agree 100%. Have a strong feeling what you and what the team (and others around the country have dealt with this....Duke lacrosse, Virginia/Rolling Stone, Yale basketball, etc) are referring to here will be addressed nationally/federally on January 21st. When the new federal Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, hopefully rescinds the unlawful, insanely unconstitutional, anti-male activist driven DOE "guidelines" (guidelines, not actual law mind you) relating to un
iversity investigations that the Obama administration put in place back in 2011. A guideline......in typical Obama fashion put in place without passing any actual legislation and completely bypassing the role of Congress to create actual law. There are a lot of ridiculous "executive orders" and "guidelines" that are going to be rescinded in January 2017.

This ridiculous guideline, which absurdly hold federal funding over public universities heads, by forcing them to essentially and imo unconstitutionally eliminate the correct and traditional understanding of being afforded due process under the ACTUAL law. Guidelines which unfairly and severely impact male students (all male students, not just student-athletes) and put them in basically completely untenable and unconstitutional positions of being "guilty until proven innocent" (rather than the constitutionally afforded precedent of innocent until proven guilty in an actual court of law) in a university settings while simultaneously stripping them of virtually all semblance of the constitutional right to due process.

It is not the role of activist driven, ideologically driven, rogue university committees and departments (i.e. like the EOAA office which is almost completely void of any diversity of gender in it's department....6 of 7 are females mostly from activist backgrounds) to play judge, jury and executioner. It is the role of ACTUAL judges and juries in the ACTUAL legal system long established in the United States.

To some on here that have been arguing on behalf of this ridiculously unlawful, "guideline enabled", kangaroo court system, which the EOAA office is unconstitutionally allowed to operate under, due to the Obama administration's reckless implementation of their unconstitutional federal DOE "guideline" in 2011, you're wrong. And hopefully this kangaroo court nonsense will be coming to an end in 2017.

+1000

 

[CurveballJesus]

There are very simple answers to your questions. She pleaded the Fifth because that is what her attorney advised here to do. She had consensual sex with a 17 year old high school student. And she made the players agree not to sue her in civil court because that is what her lawyer advised here to do. Lawyers insert that kind of thing in every contract they negotiate. It would be malpractice for them not to. People file lawsuits against innocent victims every day whether they are justified or not. They often do it just to harass the person they are suing. If you don't know that then you don't know any lawyers.

You guys continue to ignore the fact at least one or more of the players admitted that they heard the girl say she wanted the sex to stop at some point after the first couple of guys came through the door. Any sexual activity that occurred after that was rape. Needless to say, we are not going to let you ignore that inconvenient fact. It is going to continue to be brought up in every thread.

Not to pile on (but mostly to pile on), like Bob and others have said, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I am a lawyer and worked for the courts creating and processing hundreds if not over a thousand Restraining Order cases. I cannot recall a single instance of agreeing not to bring a civil suit in any type of settlement.*

*Personal pet peeve here, once an HRO or OFP is dismissed by agreement or dismissal, the file is closed and there is no more legal authority for anything in that case to be enforced. So technically, the settlement is legally unenforceable as a court order.

 

[kcf]

If this is such a biased, preordained-outcome, facts-be-damned report, why does it reach so many conclusions that begin with "the evidence is insufficient to support a finding..."?

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Not to pile on (but mostly to pile on), like Bob and others have said, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I am a lawyer and worked for the courts creating and processing hundreds if not over a thousand Restraining Order cases. I cannot recall a single instance of agreeing not to bring a civil suit in any type of settlement.*

*Personal pet peeve here, once an HRO or OFP is dismissed by agreement or dismissal, the file is closed and there is no more legal authority for anything in that case to be enforced. So technically, the settlement is legally unenforceable as a court order.

There is a first time for everything. I am not the one who said the language preventing lawsuits made it into the agreement. Others in GH have been saying it for days. If that is incorrect information then I accept your piling on. If the girl's attorney tried to get the language into the agreement then go tell the attorney that she didn't know what she was doing. However, I am guessing she is pretty good at her job. The only possible explanation for her to try to include the language was to avoid harassing lawsuits against her client from the players. The player's attorney is already talking to the media about suing the victim.

 

[Wally]

Sue her for withholding evidence from EOAA

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Sue her for withholding evidence from EOAA

Absolutely, and she would have a counterclaim against the players for lying and withholding evidence from the EOAA. Who do you think the EOAA would support in those lawsuits? The EOAA report documents many instances where they believe players lied or withheld information from them. That is one of the reasons why the players who didn't have sex with the girl were suspended from the U. Much of the evidence came from the 10 players themselves, their teammates, and other witnesses. It's all in the EOAA report. You should read it.

 

[Spoofin]

There is a first time for everything. I am not the one that said the language preventing lawsuits made it into the agreement. Others in GH have been saying it for days. If that is incorrect information then I accept your piling on. If the girl's attorney tried to get the language in the agreement then go tell the attorney that she didn't know what she was doing. However, I am guessing that she is pretty good at her job. The only possible explanation for her to try to include the language was to avoid harassing lawsuits against her client from the players. The player's attorney is already talking to the media about suing the victim.

Uh, you were the one who said that language was common in settlements. Now you are backtracking. Only interested in presenting facts, right? "Sure not going to believe a bunch of football players over this girl". You can go home now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Uh, you were the one who said that language was common in settlements. Now you are backtracking. Only interested in presenting facts, right? "Sure not going to believe a bunch of football players over this girl". You can go home now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He had absolutely no idea what he was talking about when he said, he shoots from the hip.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Uh, you were the one who said that language was common in settlements. Now you are backtracking. Only interested in presenting facts, right? "Sure not going to believe a bunch of football players over this girl". You can go home now.

If that is how you interpreted my response to your post it is my fault for not being more clear. I don't have a clue about restraining orders. I was only trying to answer your question about why the language would be in the agreement. You and others tried to make it into something that bears on the credibility of the victim.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

There is a first time for everything. I am not the one that said the language preventing lawsuits made it into the agreement. Others in GH have been saying it for days. If that is incorrect information then I accept your piling on. If the girl's attorney tried to get the language in the agreement then go tell the attorney that she didn't know what she was doing. However, I am guessing that she is pretty good at her job. The only possible explanation for her to try to include the language was to avoid harassing lawsuits against her client from the players. The player's attorney is already talking to the media about suing the victim.

"There is a first time for everything." I thought you said it was so standard that a lawyer could face malpractice if they didn't add that boilerplate language? With all of the suspensions, we should see if you have any eligibility left, that's an IMPRESSIVE backpedal.

He wasn't piling on. He was stating a fact. People like you get offended by facts.

It makes sense for the girl's attorney to get that kind of language. It is common place to try to put language into agreements that is unenforceable especially language that "protects you from civil liability". You see this with tickets to sporting events and that kind of stuff. The point of it is that there is a certain percentage of the population that will read those things, think it has teeth and go the other way.

Why would you guess her attorney did a good job? I have no idea if she did a good job or not, but I am shocked you think her attorney did a good job. This is a case that you're certain involved rape and she wasn't able to present enough evidence to get the players charged? To get over that menial little hump? I can't believe you think she did a good job.

The only possible explanation? Are you really that dense? Are you unable to infer anything? There is another HUGE possibility. . . she lied during the investigation and would be liable. That is the most obvious inference. I can't say that I know that's why they asked for it, but that's the obvious inference anyone with a fully functioning brain would make (especially considering she took the 5th).

 

[Spoofin]

If that is how you interpreted my response to your post it is my fault for not being more clear. I don't have a clue about restraining orders. I was only trying to answer your question about why the language would be in the agreement. You and others tried to make it into something that bears on the credibility of the victim.

Yeah, for some reason that is how I interpreted your response...

There are very simple answers to your questions. She pleaded the Fifth because that is what her attorney advised her to do. She had consensual sex with a 17 year old high school student. And she made the players agree not to sue her in civil court because that is what her lawyer advised here to do. <b>Lawyers insert that kind of thing in every contract they negotiate. It would be malpractice for them not to. </b>People file lawsuits against innocent victims every day whether they are justified or not. They often do it just to harass the person they are suing. If you don't know that then you don't know any lawyers.

Bearing on her credibility? I'll try this again, slower, I brought this and pleading the 5th up in response to a discussion on the credibility of the EOAA report into regards to items they glossed over or in this case didn't even include in the report. But hey, you are just here to report facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UpnorthGo4]

"There is a first time for everything." I thought you said it was so standard that a lawyer could face malpractice if they didn't add that boilerplate language? With all of the suspensions, we should see if you have any eligibility left, that's an IMPRESSIVE backpedal.

I stand by my statement (with clarification). It would be malpractice to not at least try to include exculpatory clauses in most contracts.

He wasn't piling on. He was stating a fact. People like you get offended by facts.

Re-read his post. He told me he was (mostly) piling-on. My response was that I accepted it because I posted incorrect information.

It makes sense for the girl's attorney to get that kind of language. It is common place to try to put language into agreements that is unenforceable especially language that "protects you from civil liability". You see this with tickets to sporting events and that kind of stuff. The point of it is that there is a certain percentage of the population that will read those things, think it has teeth and go the other way.

Why would you guess her attorney did a good job? I have no idea if she did a good job or not, but I am shocked you think her attorney did a good job. This is a case that you're certain involved rape and she wasn't able to present enough evidence to get the players charged? To get over that menial little hump? I can't believe you think she did a good job.

Again, I stand by my statement. I said "I am guessing she is pretty good at her job. I don't know who she is but I assume she must be experienced because this is such a high profile case.

The only possible explanation? Are you really that dense? Are you unable to infer anything? There is another HUGE possibility. . . she lied during the investigation and would be liable. That is the most obvious inference. I can't say that I know that's why they asked for it, but that's the obvious inference anyone with a fully functioning brain would make (especially considering she took the 5th).

You got me. There is more than one explanation for her trying to avoid a lawsuit. But I think you agree with me that including exculpatory clauses to avoiding harassing lawsuits is another good reason. And it is probably is the best reason because as a college student I assume she can deal with a suit for damages by the players by declaring bankruptcy.

If the girl was at risk of being sued for lying, so are the players. The evidence is in the EOAA report and it doesn't come from the victim. It comes from the interviews of the 10 players, their teammates, and other witnesses who had personal knowlege about what happened that night. If one or more players said they heard the girl try to stop the sex during the 90 minutes it was going on and other players denied it happened - that is lie.

.

 

[Bisker82]

If that is how you interpreted my response to your post it is my fault for not being more clear. I don't have a clue about restraining orders. I was only trying to answer your question about why the language would be in the agreement. You and others tried to make it into something that bears on the credibility of the victim.

Here, let me help you by highlighting the only thing you said that makes sense

 

[WoodburyTim]

Some very interesting information about the way the EOAA conducted this investigation about to come out.

 

[zman]

Some very interesting information about the way the EOAA conducted this investigation about to come out.

Opinion, or do you know something?

 

[Spoofin]

Some very interesting information about the way the EOAA conducted this investigation about to come out.

AWsr stated AWjr didn't have a parent or attorney present during interview as he was told he didn't need it as he was just a witness. Whether or not that is OK for the EOAA, it really shouldn't be.

It will be interesting to hear other aspects such as that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WoodburyTim]

Opinion, or do you know something?

Stuff I have heard, not 100% sure it is true since it 2nd hand.

But you know how the police report said they recorded the interviews they did? Well the EOAA did not and it appears that would be for a reason.

 

[WoodburyTim]

AWsr stated AWjr didn't have a parent or attorney present during interview as he was told he didn't need it as he was just a witness. Whether or not that is OK for the EOAA, it really shouldn't be.

It will be interesting to hear other aspects such as that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sort of true. There was an attorney present for the player interviews, it was the victims attorney........

 

[Spoofin]

Sort of true. There was an attorney present for the player interviews, it was the victims attorney........

Well, I heard she did a good job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk