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

Donate To GopherHole
Pompous Elitist said:
The authors are essentially saying that because it was an alleged gang bang situation, black on white, etc it has very poor PR optics and that part is true. The media has taken sides and pulled out the pitchforks thus altering public opinion on the case. They also state at least twice they question the veracity of the EEOA report. These are attorneys that have been around the EEOA. They spent the other 90% of the article tearing down the EEOA. However, without the boycott the issue is probably never raised. It is likely now that this will be addresses politically and quite soon.

Again, I'm not sure you're making the point you want to make.
Click to expand...


I don't see anywhere in the article where it mentions skin color?? Are we talking about the Washpost article?
 

Gogogopher said:
I don't see anywhere in the article where it mentions skin color?? Are we talking about the Washpost article?
Click to expand...

We are talking about public perception. That was the entire point of the WaPo article. That's the narrative out there. And it's now 10-20 minnesota players. People like you are feeding the beast instead of talking it down.
 

Gogogopher said:
I am not saying the process should not be reformed. What I am saying is there are legal professionals who agree with you about the problems with the system, but say the woman was credible. Where as some on this board pretend that the problems with the system automatically make the report wrong. The report was quite thorough, and beyond the gopherhole world, beyond college football fans, most accept it as credible- since there is no proof to the contrary.
Click to expand...

The questioned the report and the people that wrote it. You're also incorrectly stating that the report is automatically wrong. It could be correct if it wasn't so clearly biased. But the obvious bias draws it into question.

This girl would not stand a chance on the stand under cross examination. Her story is a mess, the facts are a mess, her recall is a mess. It doesn't mean she is wrong and crime didn't occur. But it doesn't help prove that one did.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
The questioned the report and the people that wrote it. You're also incorrectly stating that the report is automatically wrong. It could be correct if it wasn't so clearly biased. But the obvious bias draws it into question.

This girl would not stand a chance on the stand under cross examination. Her story is a mess, the facts are a mess, her recall is a mess. It doesn't mean she is wrong and crime didn't occur. But it doesn't help prove that one did.
Click to expand...

They said the girl was credible and referred to her as a victim. But they do question the system that produced the report.

Minnesota's case is a particularly trying one, even for those like the authors with formal legal education. You and I collectively want a just, fair outcome, and that speaks to our inherent sense of decency and outrage: Here we have a very sympathetic, credible victim; we have a true question as to whether consent was obtained from the first two alleged offenders; we have a bevy of physical evidence; we have witnesses who may or may not have statements and testimony that meet the constitutional and procedural safeguards of admissibility; we have a University who has followed its own rules and the OCR's mandates to the absolute letter. Worse, given the inaction by Twin Cities prosecutors, the school may represent the only real justice available to this victim.

They also imply the U administrators were diligent and the evidence is credible. As I said above, though they question the process generally, they don't attack the U's report.

"When we try to achieve what we think approximates a just outcome, we set the stage for an abuse of the system, for administrators not quite so diligent as Minnesota, for evidence that isn't quite as credible, or, in many cases, doesn't exist beyond bare allegation or a notice of the charge -- if the accused is lucky."

http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2016/12/19/14013744/longform-inside-the-star-chamber
 

Where in Title IX does it specify the preponderance of evidence standard?

This was a mandate, along with others, handed down by a political appointee as an interpretation of the original law. Removing it and replacing it with something else will be as simple as appointing a different OCR leader.
 


Gogogopher said:
They said the girl was credible and referred to her as a victim. But they do question the system that produced the report.

Minnesota's case is a particularly trying one, even for those like the authors with formal legal education. You and I collectively want a just, fair outcome, and that speaks to our inherent sense of decency and outrage: Here we have a very sympathetic, credible victim; we have a true question as to whether consent was obtained from the first two alleged offenders; we have a bevy of physical evidence; we have witnesses who may or may not have statements and testimony that meet the constitutional and procedural safeguards of admissibility; we have a University who has followed its own rules and the OCR's mandates to the absolute letter. Worse, given the inaction by Twin Cities prosecutors, the school may represent the only real justice available to this victim.

They also imply the U administrators were diligent and the evidence is credible. As I said above, though they question the process generally, they don't attack the U's report.

"When we try to achieve what we think approximates a just outcome, we set the stage for an abuse of the system, for administrators not quite so diligent as Minnesota, for evidence that isn't quite as credible, or, in many cases, doesn't exist beyond bare allegation or a notice of the charge -- if the accused is lucky."

http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2016/12/19/14013744/longform-inside-the-star-chamber
Click to expand...

They spent the entire article tearing down the credibility of the report. They are simply saying there is a real possibility she is telling the truth and I don't think anyone disputes that. Don't you see the difference? You are 100% certain she's right. Others say, hey, wait there is a possibility this is not legitimate even if her testimony is compelling and dark.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
They spent the entire article tearing down the credibility of the report. They are simply saying there is a real possibility she is telling the truth and I don't think anyone disputes that. Don't you see the difference? You are 100% certain she's right. Others say, hey, wait there is a possibility this is not legitimate even if her testimony is compelling and dark.
Click to expand...

The ENTIRE article? You are mischaracterizing the article. I hope others read the article, and draw there own conclusions. As I stated above, they attack the system, not this particular report. Anyone who has any doubts read the article. My quotes are accurate, and I provide the context- the authors are against the system.
 

It is one of the most morally troubling things in our system of law to grasp, but the system and those constitutional safeguards were neither built nor exist for the benefit of the victims: the right to confront your accused, to be apprised of charges, to be judged by one's peers, to present witnesses and evidence on one's behalf, to be free from self-incrimination, to have a proceeding that is fundamentally fair, to have a hearing on bail, to have allegations heard quickly, to have representation at every meaningful stage of the proceedings, to have one's punishment free of unnecessary cruelty or disproportionality, not one of those are for the benefit of the victims; they exist for the accused.

We do not always live up to those standards, to be sure. But it in no way follows that we should lower the bar by placing the deprivation of constitutionally-protected rights into the hands of unelected and largely unaccountable administrators, with varying systems of what constitutes procedural fairness, with a much lower standard of evidence (that in many cases is procured by the judges themselves,) with none of the safeguards guaranteed by the constitution, and then place the entire proceeding behind a veil of secrecy.

RAINN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network,) a major advocacy outfit, summed up the entire unconstitutional morass perfectly:

"While we respect the seriousness with which many schools treat such internal processes, and the good intentions and good faith of many who devote their time to participating in such processes, the simple fact is that these internal boards were designed to adjudicate charges like plagiarism, not violent felonies. The crime of rape just does not fit the capabilities of such boards. They often offer the worst of both worlds: they lack protections for the accused while often tormenting victims."

The University of Minnesota has by all accounts acted thoroughly, diligently, fairly; it has followed the letter of the law and the very spirit of the OCR's "Dear Colleague' directives. Minnesota would claim that its system is procedurally fair in that the accused have a notice of a hearing and the chance to be heard. The university would also claim that it has met substantive due process by following the rules set forth, in this case, by the Orwellian-named Office of Civil Rights. However, the very agency tasked with protecting civil rights has instead defined out of existence the rights of the accused.

The Constitution requires that tribunals tasked with depriving citizens of their liberties must be the very institutions who most diligently respect and safeguard the rights of the accused.

Universities have the resources to do neither, and federal administrators have no constitutional authority to do otherwise.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It is one of the most morally troubling things in our system of law to grasp, but the system and those constitutional safeguards were neither built nor exist for the benefit of the victims: the right to confront your accused, to be apprised of charges, to be judged by one's peers, to present witnesses and evidence on one's behalf, to be free from self-incrimination, to have a proceeding that is fundamentally fair, to have a hearing on bail, to have allegations heard quickly, to have representation at every meaningful stage of the proceedings, to have one's punishment free of unnecessary cruelty or disproportionality, not one of those are for the benefit of the victims; they exist for the accused.

We do not always live up to those standards, to be sure. But it in no way follows that we should lower the bar by placing the deprivation of constitutionally-protected rights into the hands of unelected and largely unaccountable administrators, with varying systems of what constitutes procedural fairness, with a much lower standard of evidence (that in many cases is procured by the judges themselves,) with none of the safeguards guaranteed by the constitution, and then place the entire proceeding behind a veil of secrecy.

RAINN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network,) a major advocacy outfit, summed up the entire unconstitutional morass perfectly:

"While we respect the seriousness with which many schools treat such internal processes, and the good intentions and good faith of many who devote their time to participating in such processes, the simple fact is that these internal boards were designed to adjudicate charges like plagiarism, not violent felonies. The crime of rape just does not fit the capabilities of such boards. They often offer the worst of both worlds: they lack protections for the accused while often tormenting victims."

The University of Minnesota has by all accounts acted thoroughly, diligently, fairly; it has followed the letter of the law and the very spirit of the OCR's "Dear Colleague' directives. Minnesota would claim that its system is procedurally fair in that the accused have a notice of a hearing and the chance to be heard. The university would also claim that it has met substantive due process by following the rules set forth, in this case, by the Orwellian-named Office of Civil Rights. However, the very agency tasked with protecting civil rights has instead defined out of existence the rights of the accused.

The Constitution requires that tribunals tasked with depriving citizens of their liberties must be the very institutions who most diligently respect and safeguard the rights of the accused.

Universities have the resources to do neither, and federal administrators have no constitutional authority to do otherwise.
Click to expand...

This quote is about the AGENCY, not the specifics of the report. And when you look at the quotes I provided it makes sense. Otherwise if they think the report is so horrible why do they say the victim is credible? Why? They indict the process not this specific report. Your quote does not question the findings of the report it questions the process!
 



Gogogopher said:
This quote is about the AGENCY, not the specifics of the report. And when you look at the quotes I provided it makes sense. Otherwise if they think the report is so horrible why do they say the victim is credible? Why? They indict the process not this specific report. Your quote does not question the findings of the report it questions the process!
Click to expand...

I think it is obvious. They find the report revolting, as everyone does. It is also clear they think the report cannot be credible because of the lack of basic rights of the accused. The victim is not "credible" to me. Her crossed-up recollection of consent then not consent, the Kiondre Thomas false accusation, the memory issues make it clear she isn't credible.

These writers probably have not examined the details under a microscope quite so much as we have. You are reading WAY too much into that one word and ignoring the rest of the paper.

Go on record: is the accuser 100% legitimate and credible to you? It's either all or none here. Where do you stand?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I think it is obvious. They find the report revolting, as everyone does. It is also clear they think the report cannot be credible because of the lack of basic rights of the accused. The victim is not "credible" to me. Her crossed-up recollection of consent then not consent, the Kiondre Thomas false accusation, the memory issues make it clear she isn't credible.

These writers probably have not examined the details under a microscope quite so much as we have. You are reading WAY too much into that one word and ignoring the rest of the paper.

Go on record: is the accuser 100% legitimate and credible to you? It's either all or none here. Where do you stand?
Click to expand...

1st bolded part, They don't say that, they say the opposite.

2nd bolded part, that's your reading of the article, I think it is incorrect.

3rd bolded part, sorry I decline to play your game. Neither in the real world or on gopherhole do you set the rules. I will say the report is very persuasive that at some point in the evening there was a non-consensual sexual encounter.
 

Gogogopher said:
1st bolded part, They don't say that, they say the opposite.

2nd bolded part, that's your reading of the article, I think it is incorrect.

3rd bolded part, sorry I decline to play your game. Neither in the real world or on gopherhole do you set the rules. I will say the report is very persuasive that at some point in the evening there was a non-consensual sexual encounter.
Click to expand...


Here is what they actually wrote:

What does the change of this evidentiary threshold mean? "Preponderance of the evidence", the standard applied to civil matters is a much lower hurdle to clear, as you would expect. Essentially, one looks at the evidence, and if there's 50.1% in favor of a finding against the accused, then there is a finding against the accused. "Clear and convincing" means that the evidence has to be much more heavily weighted in favor of a finding against the accused. It is not all the way to "beyond a reasonable doubt," but the two are close neighbors.

Other changes set forth by the OCR are a restriction of the role of counsel for the respondent -- a lawyer can be present but may not represent the accused; the requirement that the complainant be permitted to appeal the decision of the college -- not just the accused; and, that the definition of sexual harassment has been broadened dramatically. That definition has taken on a life of its own that is so broad as to lack any meaning, "any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature… including verbal conduct."

The problem with the preponderance standard in this specific setting is that there’s no right of cross-examination, no right to perform an investigation on one’s behalf if accused. Let's compare this with civil trials. Those also have a "preponderance" standard, but when I'm doing a civil trial, I have the right to cross-examine witnesses, to issue my own subpoenas and compel a witness to attend in person, the right to pre-trial hearings on whether or not certain evidence is to be admitted.

In OCR cases, there's not only no constitutional protections for the accused, there are not even evidentiary protections in place: The accused can not call witnesses. The accused cannot question or enter into the record evidence of a complainant's mental state. The accused cannot enter into evidence previous statements of the complainant or previous specific actions which may indicate consent. As a practical matter of fact, there is a bias in the campus process against the accused.

Why is that so bad? If the bar to clear for a finding against the accused is only 50.1%, and there is an inherent bias against the accused from the start, how likely do you think that it is that the accused will get a fair, unbiased hearing?
 

If you can't say the girl's testimony is 100% correct then why are you arguing against the rights of the accused to a fair hearing?

Your bias is showing.

People like you like to say the accused just get kicked out of school, big deal. Well, it is a big deal. I'm not sure where you are in your education or professional career but I can assure you things like this affect entrance into other schools, professional schools, professional licensing and the like. It's a big ****ing deal. So don't tell me we can believe with 100% certainty the testimony of an accuser that has clear memory issues of the night at hand and has already been caught in a lie regarding consent with Djam and the recruit.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
Here is what they actually wrote:

What does the change of this evidentiary threshold mean? "Preponderance of the evidence", the standard applied to civil matters is a much lower hurdle to clear, as you would expect. Essentially, one looks at the evidence, and if there's 50.1% in favor of a finding against the accused, then there is a finding against the accused. "Clear and convincing" means that the evidence has to be much more heavily weighted in favor of a finding against the accused. It is not all the way to "beyond a reasonable doubt," but the two are close neighbors.

Other changes set forth by the OCR are a restriction of the role of counsel for the respondent -- a lawyer can be present but may not represent the accused; the requirement that the complainant be permitted to appeal the decision of the college -- not just the accused; and, that the definition of sexual harassment has been broadened dramatically. That definition has taken on a life of its own that is so broad as to lack any meaning, "any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature… including verbal conduct."

The problem with the preponderance standard in this specific setting is that there’s no right of cross-examination, no right to perform an investigation on one’s behalf if accused. Let's compare this with civil trials. Those also have a "preponderance" standard, but when I'm doing a civil trial, I have the right to cross-examine witnesses, to issue my own subpoenas and compel a witness to attend in person, the right to pre-trial hearings on whether or not certain evidence is to be admitted.

In OCR cases, there's not only no constitutional protections for the accused, there are not even evidentiary protections in place: The accused can not call witnesses. The accused cannot question or enter into the record evidence of a complainant's mental state. The accused cannot enter into evidence previous statements of the complainant or previous specific actions which may indicate consent. As a practical matter of fact, there is a bias in the campus process against the accused.

Why is that so bad? If the bar to clear for a finding against the accused is only 50.1%, and there is an inherent bias against the accused from the start, how likely do you think that it is that the accused will get a fair, unbiased hearing?
Click to expand...

Yup, its about the process and with the context of the quotes about the specific investigation at the U it's clear they think the victim is credible.
 


The writers write a long paper explaining how the accused have virtually no rights, the deck is stacked, evidence is withheld, the accuser's statements are not questioned and your conclusion is that the paper is 100% credible.

I can't help you.

God help us all.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
You don't see the flaw in your logic?
Click to expand...

Dude, seriously? I see what you say is the flaw. The article doesn't say the report is bad. It says the process is. I am done, for the night, we have filled a few pages on this thread.

Hopefully we can agree on mutual hatred of the Wisconsin Badgers:clap:
 


Pompous Elitist said:
If you can't say the girl's testimony is 100% correct then why are you arguing against the rights of the accused to a fair hearing?

Your bias is showing.

People like you like to say the accused just get kicked out of school, big deal. Well, it is a big deal. I'm not sure where you are in your education or professional career but I can assure you things like this affect entrance into other schools, professional schools, professional licensing and the like. It's a big ****ing deal. So don't tell me we can believe with 100% certainty the testimony of an accuser that has clear memory issues of the night at hand and has already been caught in a lie regarding consent with Djam and the recruit.
Click to expand...

100% Correct? 100% Certainty? This elevates the standard of proof from "preponderance of the evidence," all the way past "beyond the reasonable doubt" to something heretofore not known in law: "Absolute Certainty."

It is pretty easy to say something is false when you pick an impossible standard for it to be true.

Below is a guide to legal standards of proof. Please note, "Absolute Certainty," "100% Correct," and "100% Certainty" are not listed.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/legal-standards-proof.html

Also, I don't think anyone is arguing against a fair hearing, although there are clearly differences in opinion in what might constitute such a hearing.
 

1385md said:
Do you mean besides the dozens of posters that insisted the EEOA had no business even looking into the issue since the cops didn't arrest the guys?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm anxiously waiting for you to post these examples.

Either way, the comparison to Baylor is ridiculous.
 

Too many to call out, lol. Read the tone of posts in the original thread once it became public that the suspensions were due to EOAA. Or in the "We owe these guys an apology" thread. Or the "#wehadenough" thread. Or the lawsuit thread were people actually believed Hutton was "gonna sue everyone" and were talking about these players deserving millions settlements.
For many, their tone was clearly that the evil EOAA had no business filing this report.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

1385md said:
Too many to call out, lol. Read the tone of posts in the original thread once it became public that the suspensions were due to EOAA. Or in the "We owe these guys an apology" thread. Or the "#wehadenough" thread. Or the lawsuit thread were people actually believed Hutton was "gonna sue everyone" and were talking about these players deserving millions settlements.
For many, their tone was clearly that the evil EOAA had no business filing this report.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Can you please show a few? I recall seeing a number of posts that questioned the process and bias that may have existed in the report. But may have missed the occasions where posters demanded that the situation should never have been looked into by the University.
 

1385md said:
Too many to call out, lol. Read the tone of posts in the original thread once it became public that the suspensions were due to EOAA. Or in the "We owe these guys an apology" thread. Or the "#wehadenough" thread. Or the lawsuit thread were people actually believed Hutton was "gonna sue everyone" and were talking about these players deserving millions settlements.
For many, their tone was clearly that the evil EOAA had no business filing this report.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you're too lazy to show proof of the point you're trying to make?

It appears you just read what you want to read. None of those threads suggested that an investigation shouldn't have taken place. People don't like the process, which has proven to be biased in other cases like this around the country. Check out comments in articles and on social media. All 10 players are now considered rapists by the public court of opinion. It appears a few of the 10 weren't even there. Doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong but also doesn't mean they are automatically rapists. Things like that are very hard to be undone.

And even if you are right, this still isn't even close to the Baylor situation where you had coaches who knew but didn't do anything about it. The 4 players were suspended earlier this year once the investigation started by the police. The comparison is ridiculous.
 

I guess we'll agree to disagree. The threads are there for you to reread. Most likely it will never change anyone's mind at this point.
In my opinion, posts that apoloize to all players and hope they transfer to a school that appreciates them, or complains that the EOAA had no business even opening the investigation aren't complaining about HOW the investigation was handled, but are actually mad that investigation happened at all.
That is the crux of my Baylor comp - if not for the EOAA the depth of this incident never comes to light. And it seems that a lot of posters would have preferred that.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

1385md said:
I guess we'll agree to disagree. The threads are there for you to reread. Most likely it will never change anyone's mind at this point.
In my opinion, posts that apoloize to all players and hope they transfer to a school that appreciates them, or complains that the EOAA had no business even opening the investigation aren't complaining about HOW the investigation was handled, but are actually mad that investigation happened at all.
That is the crux of my Baylor comp - if not for the EOAA the depth of this incident never comes to light. And it seems that a lot of posters would have preferred that.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There might be a few, but I think most have come out and said that if what is being reported is true, then get rid of them.

The system is flawed and biased, and needs changes in my opinion. At the same time that doesn't mean something stupid and bad didn't happen that night. It's probably both in this instance.
 

I just don't like how if you don't agree 100% with the report and don't think the EOAA is great, then that means what happened isn't a big deal to you and/or all you care about is the football team. That's just not true.
 

It's all shades of grey. What you're arguing against is exactly what you're accusing the "other side" of doing. Everyone is on the same spectra, it's the people on the exteme ends of both sides that cause the poeople in the middle to get pissy.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

GophersInIowa said:
I just don't like how if you don't agree 100% with the report and don't think the EOAA is great, then that means what happened isn't a big deal to you and/or all you care about is the football team. That's just not true.
Click to expand...

I get that, but some people are dismissing the report, "since it is biased". I am not saying it's a 100% true, but there is no proof it is largely false. Victims of traumatic events have memory issues. People on the gopherhole think that makes her a liar; it doesn't. If you read the report and your initial reaction is, "Due process!"then I think you have a preconceived agenda. There has been a spectrum of responses on all sides. I think most people agree that at some point the sexual encounter crossed the line to sexual assault. Argue all you want about due process, and appropriateness of the punishment, but keep in mind that was someones daughter, sister, niece. I am not saying you did this Iowa, but some have vilified this young woman and made coments about her character- totally uncalled for.

Happy Holidays

SKI U MAH

Beat The Pack!!!
 

Gogogopher said:
I get that, but some people are dismissing the report, "since it is biased". I am not saying it's a 100% true, but there is no proof it is largely false. Victims of traumatic events have memory issues. People on the gopherhole think that makes her a liar; it doesn't. If you read the report and your initial reaction is, "Due process!"then I think you have a preconceived agenda. There has been a spectrum of responses on all sides. I think most people agree that at some point the sexual encounter crossed the line to sexual assault. Argue all you want about due process, and appropriateness of the punishment, but keep in mind that was someones daughter, sister, niece. I am not saying you did this Iowa, but some have vilified this young woman and made coments about her character- totally uncalled for.

Happy Holidays

SKI U MAH

Beat The Pack!!!
Click to expand...


Again, you come with emotional arguments that have no place in this process. The accuser did in fact change her story and falsely accuse Kiondre.

The EEOA report is the start of the process and is in fact biased. it reads like an inner monologue rather than a statement of facts. Texts that occurred hours before the alleged assault and not referring to the accuser were included to try to build an argument of the player's poor character while no mention is made of the alleged victims possible character flaws or sexual activities. What if she has a history of histrionics, psychological problems, and making police reports? Would that affect your view of someone?

The official hearing has not occurred.
 

I can tell you what could have stopped this -- a bowl of iced water tossed on the couple in coitus. Talk about shock and awe and a fast getaway.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom