The real details in the "unsealed document" - shocking

[mtgrizrule]

duplicate post

 

[mtgrizrule]

Griz-O-Matic are you saying it's not shocking the accusations against Coture, Arofnosky, and to a lesser extent Engstrom in this 300 page report? Did you read through it yet?

I'm saying you're at the 0.2K point of a 5K race. I can read all three hundred pages and can come away with the assumption that U.M f***[*] up and JJ is going to get paid big for that mistake regardless of what happens in the future. You are right, the accusations against Coture, Arofnosky and Engstrom are shocking, almost as shocking as the alleged accusations that started this whole shit storm.

This discussion is starting to get eerily similar to getting tazed, everyone calling bullshit, taking a 1/2 a quarter off, then pleading guilty.

You don't know what you're taking about. I've read the entire bunch of docs. You are obviously too lazy to even look at them, but you're attacking BWahlberg, who is trying to report what's on the docs for the board (and doing a good job). The issues regarding the conduct of university officials and the university are real and significant. Even the federal judge agreed generally with the complaints about them. Almost nothing in this thread is about the accusations between the accuser and accused. Because you are too lazy to even look at the docs, you don't know what Wahlberg is talking about, yet you still want to attack him.

BW has done a great job of summarizing this. As for those being to lazy to read the docs, call it what you want. For me, it has become a sure cure for insomnia tonight, and only a few pages in, it worked. Good night egrizzers. :thumb:

 

[moose/squirrel]

Finally near the end of the document you find a 2 page bulleted summary prepared on behalf of Dean Coture that outlines his case against the accused student:

- The accused student texts the alleged victim, she picks him up to watch a movie at her place, in her room.

- They had been to multiple dances together, have been on at least 1 date, and had kissed before.

- Roomates were there playing video games.

- Kissed on her bed with shirts off.

- Accused student presses the issue, alleged victim says, "No, not tonight." Report states that she says this many times. Pressed onto the bed, tries to push him back with her legs.

- Afterwards accused student gets a towel to clean up, alleged victim texts roomates, "I think I was raped". She then drives him somewhere. Later she picks up a friend from the bar who notices her crying, she tells him she thinks she was raped.

- Next day she goes to SARC and gets counciling, red marks on her chest, evidence of vaginal intercourse.

- Lots of redaction after this, looks like a suggestion that the offical filing of a claim takes place a few weeks later though.

-------

Of this as you read it straight forward it's open and shut. However the claims that her information changed by the defense and then a refusal by Coture to admit it (even though also being told by her) is where it gets odd. As earlier suggested, if this case is so open and shut why was Coture so obviously biased and apparently immediately "out to get" this accused student? The victim in the revealed text even shows that Coture has promised to fight for her - a clear title 9 violation stating the investigation must be without bias.

You should be ashamed of yourself Wahlberg, the title of this thread makes me sick. You're taking the Plaintiffs court filing (without a response from the alleged victims representative), and using it to try to cast doubt on the alleged victim. This federal case was brought by the alleged perpetrator and dismissed at his request. What was the point of the case in the first place? I hope it wasn't to get documents out there in the interweb without a response from the other party. This isn't a popularity contest. Grow up (better yet grow a pair), and at least wait until you have more facts before you start casting your bullshit around.

Before you throw rocks you should take your own advice and quit jumping to conclusions. I'm more than happy to wait for the results of the pending investigations. I don't see you as impartial and can't really take you seriously, Wahlberg is trying to keep it real, so I'll take his take over your screed. You should run for the city council where facts are not that important, at least not in Missoula.

 

[EastCoastGriz]

We all know who this involves and it doesnt suprise me that UM has gone the other direction attacking male students with the current hysteria around sports and sex assaults.

The current/or previous 6 months of the UM situation was NEVER about real justice or getting to a truthful resolution of any accusations.

Thanks Royce. Your such a great leader.

Half this board is more worried about perceptions than actual truth. Humanity always operates at its best when it runs around attacking people based on perceptions doesnt it.

I care nothing about perception and every thing about the truth.

 

[GrizPony]

Griz-O-Matic are you saying it's not shocking the accusations against Coture, Arofnosky, and to a lesser extent Engstrom in this 300 page report? Did you read through it yet?

I'm saying you're at the 0.2K point of a 5K race. I can read all three hundred pages and can come away with the assumption that U.M f***[*] up and JJ is going to get paid big for that mistake regardless of what happens in the future. You are right, the accusations against Coture, Arofnosky and Engstrom are shocking, almost as shocking as the alleged accusations that started this whole shit storm.

This discussion is starting to get eerily similar to getting tazed, everyone calling bullshit, taking a 1/2 a quarter off, then pleading guilty.

I am curious about one thing given your shocked state. If the accuser truly changed her statement significantly during the proceedings, would you be shocked? Or is your shock meter only capable of being set off by defendant's alleged conduct, even if that conduct may not be shocking based on the change in the accusation?

 

[GrizMusician]

Griz-O-Matic are you saying it's not shocking the accusations against Coture, Arofnosky, and to a lesser extent Engstrom in this 300 page report? Did you read through it yet?

I'm saying you're at the 0.2K point of a 5K race. I can read all three hundred pages and can come away with the assumption that U.M f***[*] up and JJ is going to get paid big for that mistake regardless of what happens in the future. You are right, the accusations against Coture, Arofnosky and Engstrom are shocking, almost as shocking as the alleged accusations that started this whole shit storm.

This discussion is starting to get eerily similar to getting tazed, everyone calling bullshit, taking a 1/2 a quarter off, then pleading guilty.

I am curious about one thing given your shocked state. If the accuser truly changed her statement significantly during the proceedings, would you be shocked? Or is your shock meter only capable of being set off by defendant's alleged conduct, even if that conduct may not be shocking based on the change in the accusation?

Zaaaaaammmmmmm!!! :lol:

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[UMGriz75]

The University of Montana has a problem, all right.

As a Federal Judge just pointed out, it's in Main Hall.

 

[grizchamp]

BWahlberg or anyone, what's the exact quote, in a Paoli letter, where he refers to the University/College in Bozeman, or something like that, and doesn't say Montana State? I saw it earlier, but can't find it now. Reminded me of Bobby Hauck's references to State.

If I remember correctly, he states something along the lines of... "The University in Bozeman was able to update their Student Code of Conduct..." or something like that.

 

[Allezchat]

Keep in mind that a judge threw this out when it was presented there is another side certainly.

Actually no he didn't, he threw it out at the defendant and Paoli's request.

Only read through the first page, and don't have time to go through the other ones right now, but if someone has already addressed this, I appologize, but my understanding was that the judge dismissed the lawsuit at the lawyer's request when the judge did not grant the temperary injunction. It was because of that the lawyer requested it be dismissed.

 

[grizatwork]

Of course there are 2 sides of the argument grizomatic. This unsealed document actually doesn't give the accused side at all. It does reveal what the accuser said, and that does have some accusations that could very well be bad for the accused. I think what Brint was pointing out was that the accused was not allowed to present any type of defense and in fact the judge ruling on this made the point that it was actually a pretty gross abuse of power.

I am on record as stating that there needed to be a change in the structure in Missoula because of the spiraling bad publicity coming out of the football team. Removing the football coach and head of the athletic department may have been a step in the right direction. I presume time will tell. However, it appears as if Couture was angry about the alleged gang rapists getting off and was going to punish the first athlete that crossed his path regardless of due process. It seems as if they overreacted.

I think Brint was shocked at the process and not minimizing the severity of the accusations. If this was the process, count me as shocked as well. I am reserving judgement because we still don't have all the information, but this really paints the whole process in a pretty bad light and hardly unbiased as it is supposed to be.

 

[WaGriz4life]

Keep in mind that a judge threw this out when it was presented there is another side certainly.

Actually no he didn't, he threw it out at the defendant and Paoli's request.

Only read through the first page, and don't have time to go through the other ones right now, but if someone has already addressed this, I appologize, but my understanding was that the judge dismissed the lawsuit at the lawyer's request when the judge did not grant the temperary injunction. It was because of that the lawyer requested it be dismissed.

The case was filed by the plaintiff on May 8, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the university proceeding (pending a determination of the proper standard). On May 8, the judge denied issuing a temporary restraining order against the university. The university decision was dated May 23. The judge ordered the parties to show cause why the complaint (to stop the university proceeding) was not now moot. On June 22, the plainfiff asked that the complaint be dismissed. On June 26, the judge dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiff can file another complaint on the subject in the future, and ordered the court file to be unsealed (except for certain name).

The judge's statement about the poor univessity process, presumably including the changing of the standard during the proceeding, seems to invite another complaint. A case could be brought for a preliminary injunction (and tro) to stop the university from expelling the plaintiff. A court might accept the argument that the plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by allowing the university to expel and that the plaintiff is likely to win the argument on process, especially the changing of the standard.
While the changing of the standard in mid-stream had been known and discussed, it looks like the university process and bias, of the dean and others (as discussed in this thread), were worse than anyone had known.

 

[spider]

The idea that Paoli used the Federal Court proceeding as a means to shed light on the facts is probably not accurate. At the June 22, 2012 show cause hearing, Paoli specifically requested the file remain sealed, even though the case was to be dismissed. See p. 8.

"Plaintiff Doe argues this case should be kept sealed because if the contents of the file are made public, it may influence the decision making of law enforcement officials with regard to any investigation or potential criminal prosecution of Plaintiff Doe." See p. 6.

Additionally, the case was not necessarily dismissed at Paoli's choosing. Yes, he did make an oral motion to dismiss without prejudice, but only because the Court thought the case moot and required the parties to appear for a show cause hearing. Essentially, Judge Christensen said, "The issues are moot. The complaint should be dismissed. Appear to demonstrate why the Court is wrong." In a literal sense, yes, Plaintiff Doe's attorney dismissed the case. However, he did so only because the Judge recognized the cause to be moot and Paoli probably felt he had no sound basis for continuing the action.

 

[PlayerRep]

The idea that Paoli used the Federal Court proceeding as a means to shed light on the facts is probably not accurate. At the June 22, 2012 show cause hearing, Paoli specifically requested the file remain sealed, even though the case was to be dismissed. See p. 8.

"Plaintiff Doe argues this case should be kept sealed because if the contents of the file are made public, it may influence the decision making of law enforcement officials with regard to any investigation or potential criminal prosecution of Plaintiff Doe." See p. 6.

Additionally, the case was not necessarily dismissed at Paoli's choosing. Yes, he did make an oral motion to dismiss without prejudice, but only because the Court thought the case moot and required the parties to appear for a show cause hearing. Essentially, Judge Christensen said, "The issues are moot. The complaint should be dismissed. Appear to demonstrate why the Court is wrong." In a literal sense, yes, Plaintiff Doe's attorney dismissed the case. However, he did so only because the Judge recognized the cause to be moot and Paoli probably felt he had no sound basis for continuing the action.

Correct. But also note that the judge noted that the only relief sought by Paoli was a preliminary injunction to the stop university court hearing from proceeding, and that hearing had already occurred and the decision rendered.

 

[grizfan95]

Griz-O-Matic

 

[UMGriz75]

Charles Couture gave every impression to anyone listening that the "accused" was going to get a "fair trial and fast hanging" and if the only way to do that was to prevent him from offering any kind of defense, or time to prepare one, or to offer the UM hearing panel any exculpatory evidence as he was ordinarily bound to do, then that's exactly what the "accused" was going to get.

Note that the rapidity of which the hearing was set and noticed, and that this was within the time frame that Couture could have done the same thing with the Saudi student, and did nothing but exchange friendly conversations with the student.

I've got a notice on my desk at the moment to a student charged under the conduct code, giving the student exactly five business days notice of a hearing at 10:00 a.m. in Couture's office. With three days for regular postage mailing, the student had exactly two business days to prepare. Couture notices in his letter, "please notify me three days in advance of the meeting if you are going to be accompanied by an attorney."

In that instance, three days in advance happened to fall on a Saturday. Couture was not in. Three "business days" in advance of the hearing put it the day before the student actually received the notice in the mail.

"Kangaroo Court" does not do justice to Kangaroos, let alone a University.

 

[UMGriz75]

The Federal Judge's comment on the University's conduct of this disciplinary proceeding is really shocking.

The Judge is an experienced attorney who well knows the implications of ober dicta in legal opinions.

Let's just suggest that, for him to make note of the University's shameful conduct, in a simple dismissal in which he did not need to do that, offers that he felt strongly about what he had read and heard in the Courtroom, enough so that it "shocked the conscience" enough to deserve the strong comment.

What it does show is the consistency with which Main Hall conducts its business under the alleged "leadership" of Royce Engstrom: arbitrary, capricious, and without concern for the students or for the institution. It's all about THEM.

It is consistent with the way Engstrom treated Pflugrad and O'Day, and it is consistent with how it generally deals with students and faculty alike.

 

[Flathead Griz]

It appears that Engstorm and company feel it is important to make JJ appear as guilty as possible. Without him being guilty, Engstrom loses his justification for firing Pflugrad and O'Day.

 

[grizatwork]

It appears that Engstorm and company feel it is important to make JJ appear as guilty as possible. Without him being guilty, Engstrom loses his justification for firing Pflugrad and O'Day.

Not sure about that. I am not sure that one has anything to do with the other. Engstrom really did not need any further justification for what he did with Pflugrad and O'Day. Change in leadership is enough to not renew contracts. In fact, my guess is that something came to light with the numerous investigations going on, especially the NCAA one that he felt he needed to change the leadership to be proactive.

I think this is Couture compensating for the Saudi student and alleged gang rape thing. It sounds like he was out to make a statement and did just that.

 

[funny water]

It appears that Engstorm and company feel it is important to make JJ appear as guilty as possible. Without him being guilty, Engstrom loses his justification for firing Pflugrad and O'Day.

this!

 

['68griz]

It appears that Engstorm and company feel it is important to make JJ appear as guilty as possible. Without him being guilty, Engstrom loses his justification for firing Pflugrad and O'Day.

this!

this +1