-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
JJ decision
- Thread starter mtgrizrule
- Start date
FWIW, the Board of Regents met for training Monday and Tuesday, but didn't take action on anything. The board met June 28, but didn't take up anything resembling a student conduct issue. The appeal is most certainly an issue of individual privacy, which would make the actual BOR meeting on the subject off limits to the public. However, BOR would still have to post that a closed meeting occurred. Nothing has been posted.
I thought the commissioner of higher ed was next in the appeal process after Engstrom. I also thought he was the final stop. Can someone who thinks BOR has responded cite something explaining its role in the appeal process?
I thought the commissioner of higher ed was next in the appeal process after Engstrom. I also thought he was the final stop. Can someone who thinks BOR has responded cite something explaining its role in the appeal process?
go96griz said:
The University system is basically self insured through the state. Don't kid yourself, if there is money to be accounted for it will be at the cost of the taxpayers and students.
Born2BaGriz said:
Self-insurance typically works similar to having normal insurance coverage. The difference is rather than paying a carrier for coverage with a deductible you pay for small claims up to a certain level (below catastrophic coverage) out of your own self-insurance fund. Catastrophic coverage is almost always purchased through an insurance carrier in order to protect the self-insured plan from extreme risks. I don't know the state's limit before catastrophic coverage kicks in, but I am guessing this could be a very large claim in excess of the catastrophic coverage. We may be splitting hairs on this, but I don't believe the taxpayers will be on the hook for most of this claim unless it is a million or less.
I'm still holding out hope that Clay makes the right call and either flat out denies the expulsion based on the due process issues denied to JJ or that he orders a new investigation and hearing process with appropriate due process given to JJ where unbiased UM officials preside over it.
tnt said:
I'm real curious as to how you think UM is going to respond. Paoli stated he was not entitled to question the witnesses; do you believe UM is going to say he's lying and that he actually was entitled to question them? Paoli stated that JJ was not entitled to submit exculpatory evidence (the e-mail); do you believe UM is going to say he was lying and that he actually was entitled to submit that evidence? Paoli stated JJ was denied representation (only JJ could speak, not Paoli); do you believe UM is going to say Paoli was lying and actually he was entitled to speak? The list goes on. As noted above, I'm pretty confident that UM is not going to be contesting the "facts," i.e the process they used. UM will be arguing a legal conclusion, i.e. that JJ had a fair hearing even though he was not entitled to question witnesses, submit exculpatory evidence or be represented by counsel etc. The court has told UM what it thinks of that argument if UM makes it.
Tokyogriz
Well-known member
I hope Engstrom and the entire BOR with the exception of Clay get run over by the lawsuit coming. One of the greatest travesties in Montana is that the board of regents is accountable to no one and is simply a board stacked by political parties by the govenors. Pat Williams and the rest of the bor don't give two shits about um rather they are more interested in playing politics, hence their 100% support for Engstrom, Courte and the witch hunt on um for Rapists while they destroy our liberties as Americans. I will never vote for a democrat in this state again.
br fan said:
The truth is only the begining, Nobody said Paoli lied.
The court may have an opinion, but the only thing that was clear to me, is that a decision would come from a full hearing/trial not a 200 page brief from Paoli (BTW the process has been upheld a number of times most recently last month when an honor court decision was made without even the accused present (they took away his degree awarded 6 years prior)
Before any decision will be made for JJ the honor court system used similarly (including right to counsel and the role counsel plays) all over the United States will be on trial. I would guess it would maybe 10 or 15 years???? Given the whole Title IX thing, Dear Colleague letter etc etc. there is a whole bunch of people interested. Then you have to answer the question who gets to determining behavior/honor standards for a University? Does it have to rise to the level of sexual assault? Or maybe Just "too pushy" is enough. The part you are also forgetting is the Honor court 's punishment was not limited to expulsion. I'm hoping this doesn't turn into a major deal. But it isn't a slam dunk and the U writing a JJ a check.
One thing I will tell you FOR SURE is that the massive egos of University Administrators (and by connection their attorneys and reagents) have them absolutely convinced their s*** doesn't stink. Should they think they need to make a decision because of a date on a calendar, they won't. Should they think they are being forced to change a decision to avoid "litigation" or other pressure, they will become more righteous about that decision than a Jehovah Witness pulling their kids fro school to avoid a Christmas party.
go96griz said:
Insurance isn't free, bud. And indemnity insurance, which is what you're trying to explain -- not catastrophic-- gets significantly more expensive when your wounds are self-inflicted and entirely avoidable. Taxpayers and students will pick up the tab.
I'm happy to see that a few cooler heads seem to be prevailing somewhere in the process now. Probably they are aware of some of the cases that have developed like UM's that haven't worked out so well. One happened at Brown University, and had been written about by a professor named KC Johnson, who has been closely following the Department of Justice rules that required universities to adopt lower proof standards for sexual assaults on campuses.
KC Johnson is the man who did incredible work in following the Duke lacrosse case and, probably more than anyone else, forced authorities to exonerate the players. He's a real strong advocate for civil liberties.
Anyway, he's done reporting on a case at Brown University in which a Brown coed accused an athlete there of sexually assaulting her. The coed was the daughter of a prominent Brown alum, and her allegations led to the student being expelled. But because others were suspicious of her story and investigated her story to a deeper level, it was discovered that she was making the whole thing up. But the holes in her story weren't exposed earlier because she couldn't be cross examined during the honor court process.
The upshot was that her family and the university ended up paying the accused big bucks in an out-of-court settlement.
Here's one of KC Johnson's accounts of the whole matter. This has been happening at other schools, too.
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2011/12/a_black_eye_for_brown_in_a_con.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
KC Johnson is the man who did incredible work in following the Duke lacrosse case and, probably more than anyone else, forced authorities to exonerate the players. He's a real strong advocate for civil liberties.
Anyway, he's done reporting on a case at Brown University in which a Brown coed accused an athlete there of sexually assaulting her. The coed was the daughter of a prominent Brown alum, and her allegations led to the student being expelled. But because others were suspicious of her story and investigated her story to a deeper level, it was discovered that she was making the whole thing up. But the holes in her story weren't exposed earlier because she couldn't be cross examined during the honor court process.
The upshot was that her family and the university ended up paying the accused big bucks in an out-of-court settlement.
Here's one of KC Johnson's accounts of the whole matter. This has been happening at other schools, too.
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2011/12/a_black_eye_for_brown_in_a_con.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Spanky said:
Neither, even PR would have trouble seeing a connection. Dad paid off the administration. No complaint, no examination, etc.
Had JJ's alleged victim NOT filed a complaint, not had a rape kit, torn leggings, and "marks" etc etc. it would be a little more applicable.
tnt said:
I agree that the court did not make a decision and that before it ever does it will permit both sides to make their arguments. This is from UM's current on-line version of the code:
1. The Accused. A student accused of violating the Student Conduct Code has
certain rights:
a. The right to be advised that a complaint is being investigated, and the right
to be advised of the potential charges.
b. The right to review the evidence.
c. The right to decline to make statements.
d. The right to submit a written account relating to the alleged charges.
e. The right to know of the identity of individuals who will be present at an
administrative conference or a Court hearing.
f. The right to have a person of choice, including legal counsel, present
throughout any and all proceedings provided for in this Code.
g. The right to a period of time to prepare for a hearing, and the right to
request a delay of the hearing for exigent circumstances.
h. The right to hear and question witnesses and the accuser.
i. The right to present relevant evidence and witnesses.
j. The right to timely adjudication of charges as provided in this Code.
I'm pretty sure the court read the above before issuing the order, because it commented about the old burden of proof as still being in UM's on-line version. Perhaps the new version of the code has additional substantive changes, but I was unaware that the honor court no longer permits witnesses to be interviewed, or requires JJ to give up his right to remain silent if he desires to defend himself. If that is the case then the honor system throughout the US should be put on trial. But I don't think it does. In reality UM will be on trial for failing to follow its own rules.
tnt said:
Not to name a name...I'll take the higher road.
(And no, I don't mean the President)
Bear Axed said:
Goes to show you can't believe everything you read online.... It should be an interesting call. What it breaks down to is a guy is: accused of rape He can no longer be tried on campus under the standards he used to because between the time the supposed rape occured and the trial, the federal government decided that new rules should be used so now. what is the school to do apply the old rules and get in trouble with the feds? apply the new rules and get in trouble with the accused's lawyer (who can't say anything anyway under either set of rules) or let a possible rapist walk around campus and get in trouble by everyone else.
Like I said a 200 page missive from a lawyer and federal judges musings isn't going to solve it.
tnt said:
What? That's the most misleading chronology I've seen put forth. The federal government did not "decide new rules should be used" between the time this charge was brought and the hearing took place. Who the hell told you that? Good luck finding anything to support that spin.
The Department of Education rolled out the preponderance of evidence standard April 4, 2011.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
One of the first requirements is that everyone be notified of the change in standards, which UM did not do. UM kept its old standards posted and then, surprise!!, opted for new ones without proper notice.
And what's up with your reference to "torn leggings." Don't you mean "torn leggings?" presented as a question by the medical examiner, rather than a statement of fact as Couture, and now you tnt, have tried to spin it?
Don't stroke that narrative too much, tnt. You'll hurt yourself.
