Hutton to the Minnesota Daily: There are plans to sue ‘everyone.’

Donate To GopherHole
UpnorthGo4 said:
LMAO. If Kaler had been reading GopherHole he wouldn't have wondered why 100+ football players hadn't read the U's disciplinary process. There are dozens of GH posters who have been complaining for days about the players not being given due process who have not bothered to take 10 minutes to go on the U's website to read about it themselves. I even posted the entire investigation/hearing/appeal process in two different threads and nobody stopped their bitching about due process long enough to read either post. These are the same posters who have completely dismissed the EOAA report as hopelessly biased without actually reading it.
Click to expand...

Cut the sanctimonious crap.

You are more biased than anyone. You openly admitted that you judged the players guilty before the EOAA report was released. You are more disingenuous than Kaler. You are the worst person here.
 

TruthSeeker said:
Cut the sanctimonious crap.

You are more biased than anyone. You openly admitted that you judged the players guilty before the EOAA report was released. You are more disingenuous than Kaler. You are the 5 worst people here.
Click to expand...

FIFY...Upnorth has created 4 more accounts just so he could find people who agree with him.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
I even posted the entire investigation/hearing/appeal process in two different threads and nobody stopped their bitching about due process long enough to read either post.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times you need to post the same nonsense before you realize that people's complaint is with the inherent unfairness of the system AND NOT the U not following the process. Clearly the U followed the process (the victim comments aside) - no one is arguing that is not the case. People are upset that this process is the process as it seems unfair to anyone interested in basic justice for someone accused of a criminal act. For most people, we don't want a non-law enforcement authority making that determination when they lack the authority and ability to actually investigate the allegation. And as we have seen - once the allegation is public, it is not possible to ever wipe that from your reputation.

So - buy a clue for goodness sake. Understand what people are actually upset about so you can actually add something to the discourse rather than continuing to post tea prices in China.
 

bizzle22 said:
Pleading the 5th surrounded the fact that a recruit (17 years old) was involved. It had nothing to do with consent or falsifying police reports as some have implied. And lots of rape victims just want things to go away. Who would want to draw massive public attention to the fact that they were used like a blowup doll by at least 5 different guys in one night whether it was consensual or not? Few would claim everything she said is 100% accurate (ask me about last Friday night when I had a few drinks and you'll get "it was fun"), but that is no different than any other statement from a witness, accuser, or accused.
Click to expand...

You've hit on a common motive for dishonesty.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
LMAO. If Kaler had been reading GopherHole he wouldn't have wondered why 100+ football players hadn't read the U's disciplinary process. There are dozens of GH posters who have been complaining for days about the players not being given due process who have not bothered to take 10 minutes to go on the U's website to read about it themselves. I even posted the entire investigation/hearing/appeal process in two different threads and nobody stopped their bitching about due process long enough to read either post. These are the same posters who have completely dismissed the EOAA report as hopelessly biased without actually reading it.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Everyone knows that there is a process, most of us recognize the process is a sham. Because a process exists, doesn't make it due process. I've read the U's website. I've worked with Title IX recommendations first hand. Like, I literally have been a part of these issues (small part because I was in law school). But I know how it works. I've also read the website.

I don't mean this as offensive as it is going to sound, but I really think this whole fiasco is a bit too complex for you to get. There are too many moving parts for you to really wrap your head around. You find nuggets that support whatever premise you like and you run with them. I think it's gotten you to say some really weird things that I don't think you really mean. Maybe I'm just giving you too much credit.

As far as the EoAA. It is biased. I've read it. It read EXACTLY like these always read. I'm not saying you can't learn anything about the situation from reading the report, but it's certainly biased. It's like if you're reading Herodotus' description of the Persian Wars, you certainly learn things and it can helpful to paint some sort of picture, but it's obviously bias. You're hearing the Greek version.

If you read the EoAA with an open mind, you will see that it is clearly written from the alleged victim's perspective. The report explains her actions (goes to great lengths to do this). The report adds in information that is completely irrelevant to make the athletes look bad. The texting section would be the equivalent of a section of the report "Alleged Victim's Sexual History". It reads like a legal argument by her attorney. That's fine, if that is what it was (a judge would scrub a lot of the irrelevant stuff out of it). But it's a bias report written by an office with an agenda.

I really wish this subject would have came up outside the context of Gopher football. Unfortunately some people think I am railing against the EoAA for a football team. These offices are a REAL problem. I've been saying it from the beginning. These offices are a REAL problem whether or not these guys are guilty. The process will punish the guilty and innocent alike. There are a lot of people around the country wrapped up in nonsense with offices like these. I wish the case that put a spotlight on them wasn't the type of case people feel so passionate about. It's difficult to discuss Due Process when an alleged rape happened. But it is the time it is the most important. This office is incapable of being part of that process.
 


bizzle22 said:
You mean the meeting where Kaler basically pulled out the bylaws that they were complaining about and explained to the players that they were already going to get due process so there was no need to boycott over it? That meeting? I think Kaler goofed when he mentioned sexual assault publicly after the meeting, but when he met with them I would guess he was wondering how in the world there were 100+ U of M students there and none of them had bothered to read about the process.
Click to expand...

Before or after this ****storm broke? You know as well as I do (I presume) the issues with the EOAA investigatory process and that report.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
What are you talking about? Everyone knows that there is a process, most of us recognize the process is a sham. Because a process exists, doesn't make it due process.
Click to expand...

You have made this same point multiple times. I have as well - multiple times in this thread alone. At this point, it is a choice on his part to be obtuse. If he wants to discuss this point, I will continue to engage him. Otherwise, it lacks any reason to do so as he refuses to even acknowledge the point of the argument. Like I said, I have no desire to discuss the price of tea in China when that is not what the outrage is regarding.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
What are you talking about? Everyone knows that there is a process, most of us recognize the process is a sham. Because a process exists, doesn't make it due process. I've read the U's website. I've worked with Title IX recommendations first hand. Like, I literally have been a part of these issues (small part because I was in law school). But I know how it works. I've also read the website.

I don't mean this as offensive as it is going to sound, but I really think this whole fiasco is a bit too complex for you to get. There are too many moving parts for you to really wrap your head around. You find nuggets that support whatever premise you like and you run with them. I think it's gotten you to say some really weird things that I don't think you really mean. Maybe I'm just giving you too much credit.

As far as the EoAA. It is biased. I've read it. It read EXACTLY like these always read. I'm not saying you can't learn anything about the situation from reading the report, but it's certainly biased. It's like if you're reading Herodotus' description of the Persian Wars, you certainly learn things and it can helpful to paint some sort of picture, but it's obviously bias. You're hearing the Greek version.

If you read the EoAA with an open mind, you will see that it is clearly written from the alleged victim's perspective. The report explains her actions (goes to great lengths to do this). The report adds in information that is completely irrelevant to make the athletes look bad. The texting section would be the equivalent of a section of the report "Alleged Victim's Sexual History". It reads like a legal argument by her attorney. That's fine, if that is what it was (a judge would scrub a lot of the irrelevant stuff out of it). But it's a bias report written by an office with an agenda.

I really wish this subject would have came up outside the context of Gopher football. Unfortunately some people think I am railing against the EoAA for a football team. These offices are a REAL problem. I've been saying it from the beginning. These offices are a REAL problem whether or not these guys are guilty. The process will punish the guilty and innocent alike. There are a lot of people around the country wrapped up in nonsense with offices like these. I wish the case that put a spotlight on them wasn't the type of case people feel so passionate about. It's difficult to discuss Due Process when an alleged rape happened. But it is the time it is the most important. This office is incapable of being part of that process.
Click to expand...


LLD with history undergrad?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
You've hit on a common motive for dishonesty.
Click to expand...

It's amazing the fantastic lie that this woman has just completely made up. Even got them to delete text messages over it. She's good. Should be a movie. I'm sure Lifetime will be all over it. Do you think the guy who recorded the sex act between the recruit and the girl (which was either illegal in and of itself and/or was illegal to record) will make a cameo?
 



bizzle22 said:
You mean the meeting where Kaler basically pulled out the bylaws that they were complaining about and explained to the players that they were already going to get due process so there was no need to boycott over it? That meeting?
Click to expand...

Oh, is that what happened?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TruthSeeker said:
Cut the sanctimonious crap.

You are more biased than anyone. You openly admitted that you judged the players guilty before the EOAA report was released. You are more disingenuous than Kaler. You are the worst person here.
Click to expand...

It's pointless to respond to him. Multiple people have brought this up many times but he just ignores it and posts the same thing over and over.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
What are you talking about? Everyone knows that there is a process, most of us recognize the process is a sham. Because a process exists, doesn't make it due process. I've read the U's website. I've worked with Title IX recommendations first hand. Like, I literally have been a part of these issues (small part because I was in law school). But I know how it works. I've also read the website.

I don't mean this as offensive as it is going to sound, but I really think this whole fiasco is a bit too complex for you to get. There are too many moving parts for you to really wrap your head around. You find nuggets that support whatever premise you like and you run with them. I think it's gotten you to say some really weird things that I don't think you really mean. Maybe I'm just giving you too much credit.

As far as the EoAA. It is biased. I've read it. It read EXACTLY like these always read. I'm not saying you can't learn anything about the situation from reading the report, but it's certainly biased. It's like if you're reading Herodotus' description of the Persian Wars, you certainly learn things and it can helpful to paint some sort of picture, but it's obviously bias. You're hearing the Greek version.

If you read the EoAA with an open mind, you will see that it is clearly written from the alleged victim's perspective. The report explains her actions (goes to great lengths to do this). The report adds in information that is completely irrelevant to make the athletes look bad. The texting section would be the equivalent of a section of the report "Alleged Victim's Sexual History". It reads like a legal argument by her attorney. That's fine, if that is what it was (a judge would scrub a lot of the irrelevant stuff out of it). But it's a bias report written by an office with an agenda.

I really wish this subject would have came up outside the context of Gopher football. Unfortunately some people think I am railing against the EoAA for a football team. These offices are a REAL problem. I've been saying it from the beginning. These offices are a REAL problem whether or not these guys are guilty. The process will punish the guilty and innocent alike. There are a lot of people around the country wrapped up in nonsense with offices like these. I wish the case that put a spotlight on them wasn't the type of case people feel so passionate about. It's difficult to discuss Due Process when an alleged rape happened. But it is the time it is the most important. This office is incapable of being part of that process.
Click to expand...

It also cuts both ways.

Posted this on another thread. Here's an example from Stanford where the school originally just threw the 2011 compliant out. Turns out the guy may be a serial abuser who has struck again. Now Stanford is cooperating with a federal Office for Civil Rights investigation into the matter.

Haven't heard of it? Me either. Guess he wasn't a Football player.

"STANFORD — An explosive new lawsuit alleges that Stanford University’s lax responses to reports of physical and sexual abuse permitted the same student to victimize at least four young women during his undergraduate years.

The university’s failure to promptly investigate and discipline the young man jeopardized the safety of women across campus, violating federal anti-discrimination law, alleges the suit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

Instead of triggering an investigation into one student’s disturbing allegations that the man she had once dated strangled and raped her after she began losing consciousness in 2011, an academic adviser suggested she drive to the beach to take care of her mental health, the suit says.

A campus counselor disapproved of the shoulder-baring sweater the young woman wore to a counseling session, the complaint adds, asking if she put herself in risky situations to appear “sexually available.” Residence hall staff to whom she later reported her concerns promised to tell the male student that assaulting women was “not okay,” the suit says.

The plaintiff, a different student identified in the complaint as “Ms. Doe,” said the man violently assaulted her in 2014 when she refused to engage in oral sex – an allegation that was confirmed by a Stanford investigation later that year, the complaint says.

“Women will not have an equal opportunity to succeed academically until the epidemic of sexual violence on campus ends,” said Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, an attorney for Equal Rights Advocates, a San Francisco-based civil rights organization that filed the complaint. “Institutions like Stanford need to be held accountable for their failure to recognize the severity of these crimes and to comply with Title IX” of the Civil Rights Act.

Already under close scrutiny — and federal investigation — for its handling of its sexual assault problem, Stanford issued a statement Monday saying that it felt “deep sympathy” for the plaintiff in the case and that it was cooperating with a federal Office for Civil Rights investigation into the matter.

“Sexual assault and sexual misconduct is abhorrent and antithetical to the values of our campus — we take these matters very seriously and have zero tolerance for such violence,” the Stanford statement said.

Stanford did not acknowledge mishandling the case, which was reported by the Huffington Post and Palo Alto Weekly last January. In its statement, the administration suggested that its hands had been tied because one or more of the victims did not wish to pursue a formal investigation. “Without the cooperation of victims,” the statement said, “regrettably the university is very limited in what it can do.”

But the complaint argues that the first victim — who repeatedly raised the incident with various campus employees — initially was discouraged from making a formal complaint after the 2011 incident, and that campus officials failed to connect the dots when other women came forward with complaints about the same man — who was referred to in the suit only as “Mr. X.”

In 2012, when the same woman again raised the issue after hearing rumors that the man might have assaulted other female students, the suit says, a professional residence hall staffer promised her in an email that staffers would give him a stern talking-to. In the email, according to the suit, the staffer wrote that officials would convey that the physical and sexual assaults “were not okay and that he has a very serious problem with anger.”

In February 2014, the plaintiff said in the complaint, the man — whom she had previously dated — twisted her arm behind her back and told her to go kill herself after she refused to have sexual contact with him.

A third woman reported in June 2014 that the man became “violently angry” when she refused to have sex with him, “threw a table at her and punched her in the face while holding a shampoo bottle, splitting her lip.” The woman, a Stanford student, took a leave of absence from school after the incident, according to the suit.

The complaint mentions a fourth case involving another female Stanford student but does not provide details.

In July 2014, Stanford found the student responsible for “serious sexual misconduct” and banned him from campus, the suit says — but by then, he had already graduated. The complaint says that Stanford failed to enforce the ban and the no-contact orders and that the man continued to contact the plaintiff — and even returned to campus.

The plaintiff, now a graduate student at Stanford, said she spotted the man dining with another young woman at an on-campus restaurant in February.

“Alarmed and traumatized, Ms. Doe sought assistance from Stanford public safety officers,” the complaint says. “The officers told her that there was no official record of the ban and they could neither arrest Mr. X nor remove him from campus.”

Stanford law Professor Michele Dauber, an advocate for sexual assault victims, said cases like this one show how important it is for campuses to conduct timely investigations and remove perpetrators from campus before they can harm others.

“We have to send a clear and unambiguous message to perpetrators,” Dauber said, “that this kind of conduct is serious and it’s not tolerated.”

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/...ult-complaints-against-alleged-serial-abuser/
 

bizzle22 said:
It's amazing the fantastic lie that this woman has just completely made up. Even got them to delete text messages over it. She's good. Should be a movie. I'm sure Lifetime will be all over it. Do you think the guy who recorded the sex act between the recruit and the girl (which was either illegal in and of itself and/or was illegal to record) will make a cameo?
Click to expand...

Is it possible one of the impartial EOAA attorneys has joined us?

It is not at all implausible. These are not emotionally mature individuals (all of them). I'll allow you to fill me in on the deleted text messages. What did the texts contain?Is deleting a text message an admission of guilt or necessarily prove anything? I just deleted some texts today. Some people delete texts. The video tape could be a problem for Djam but has nothing to do with the allegations of rape. In fact it prove he was not guilty of rape. Fair trade.
 




Class_of_99 said:
On the video, Djam should be investigated by the police for this. This does not require the underage minor to press charges, it is entirely within their control.
Click to expand...

Can you link to the appropriate statute - thanks. It is interesting they didn't act on it unless there is an aspect being overlooked here.
 



Iceland12 said:
It also cuts both ways.

Posted this on another thread. Here's an example from Stanford where the school originally just threw the 2011 compliant out. Turns out the guy may be a serial abuser who has struck again. Now Stanford is cooperating with a federal Office for Civil Rights investigation into the matter.

Haven't heard of it? Me either. Guess he wasn't a Football player.

[/url]
Click to expand...

Absolutely, it cuts both ways. I am not saying sexual assault isn't a real thing and that it isn't a problem on college campuses. My issue is that this kind of office is carrying out investigations and making recommendations (which everyone can see now what I meant. . . they are damn near mandatory).

I'd be fine if this kind of office was liason. These things were reported to campus police and if the student felt campus police didn't do enough, she could go to them for assistance. However, this office should not be conducting investigations, they should not be making official statements (like they did last year) and they should hold themselves up to a higher standard if they ever do write reports.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
This is what I found. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=617.247&year=2016

Seems pretty cut and dried on the surface. Possibly a mistake in age defense if this thing gets escalated? It will be interesting to see what happens there.
Click to expand...

That statute doesn't mean what it says. Someone already asked about this, and I answered. I am unable to repost it right now. If you check my message history, you will see where I talk about this statute and how additional language has been read into it by the Minnesota courts.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Hutton was interviewed by Channel 5. He will file 10 lawsuits per player in the next 2-3 days. Three main things they're looking for.

1. Injunctive relief to play in bowl game. Should play until hearing complete.

2. Want hearings moved out from under U, since they've already come to conclusion.

3. Complete dismissal of charges.

Also defamation against Coyle, Kaler, and female.
Click to expand...

I assume that if they were going to pursue some type of an injunction that would allow them to play on Tuesday we would have seen it by now. Nothing has been reported, correct?
 

What a country. Where else can you destroy the reputation and financial interests of your employer in one fell swoop. Then you turn around and claim that you are a victim and sue everyone that had to deal with your mess. What a country. Pretty sad state of affairs.
 

It's everyone right?

I haven't gotten any notice. My lawyer hasn't called.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Absolutely, it cuts both ways. I am not saying sexual assault isn't a real thing and that it isn't a problem on college campuses. My issue is that this kind of office is carrying out investigations and making recommendations (which everyone can see now what I meant. . . they are damn near mandatory).

I'd be fine if this kind of office was liason. These things were reported to campus police and if the student felt campus police didn't do enough, she could go to them for assistance. However, this office should not be conducting investigations, they should not be making official statements (like they did last year) and they should hold themselves up to a higher standard if they ever do write reports.
Click to expand...

You might want to read this story about a U student who said she was raped and couldn't get any action from the police. Finally, got her first action from the EOAA Office which got things going and not by being liaisons. There are no absolutes in dealing with this problem on a college campus but you keep making it that with it's black or it's white. Maybe judicial law is supposed to work like that in theory but it sure as hell doesn't.

http://www.startribune.com/after-au...e-her-rapist-u-student-fought-back/398051931/
 

This thought crossed my mind when I was thinking about the leaked EOAA report and my question involves Hutton so I thought this might be the place for the question. If Hutton leaked the report, would he be guilty of any malfeasance if it was done without the consent of his client? Just curious.
 

Mulligan said:
You might want to read this story about a U student who said she was raped and couldn't get any action from the police. Finally, got her first action from the EOAA Office which got things going and not by being liaisons. There are no absolutes in dealing with this problem on a college campus but you keep making it that with it's black or it's white. Maybe judicial law is supposed to work like that in theory but it sure as hell doesn't.

http://www.startribune.com/after-au...e-her-rapist-u-student-fought-back/398051931/
Click to expand...

She was just on MPR with Tom Weber minutes ago.
 


Herd said:
What a country. Where else can you destroy the reputation and financial interests of your employer in one fell swoop. Then you turn around and claim that you are a victim and sue everyone that had to deal with your mess. What a country. Pretty sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...

+1000.
 

Herd said:
What a country. Where else can you destroy the reputation and financial interests of your employer in one fell swoop. Then you turn around and claim that you are a victim and sue everyone that had to deal with your mess. What a country. Pretty sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...

Yes 100% and just think Hutton wanted the AD job when it was open.
 


It's Friday. On the 18th, KSTP reported Lee Hutton was going to file multiple lawsuits asking for injunctive relief. Nary a word as far as I know. Has he become concerned Hennepin County may reopen the investigation?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom