Thursday, February 11, 2016

Complaining Witnesses Sue University of Tennessee for Giving Accuseds Due Process

University of Tennessee is being sued by six women who alleged they are victims of sexual assault because UT's administrative hearing process gives those who are accused of sexual assault the right to an attorney, the right to cross examine witnesses, and the right to an evidentiary hearing in front of an administrative law judge in accordance with the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act..  The Plaintiffs allege that this process is unfair and that University of Tennessee is the only college that uses this type of administrative hearing process.

One of the remedies sought by the Plaintiffs is an injunction to prevent UT from using the administrative hearing process that is in place in order to quash the Accused's right to an attorney, the right to cross examine witnesses, and the right to an evidentiary hearing in front of an administrative law judge.

UK False Rape Culture

There are two false rape stories that have recently come out of the UK that are truly sad for the falsely accused.

The first story regards a woman who accused Lord Leon Brittan, a Tory, who died while the investigation was pending, yet police fully justified their two and a half year investigation into allegations made by a reportedly mentally ill woman.  He was cleared four months before his death, unbeknownst to him, but I can't imagine what it would be like to spend the last two years of my life on this Earth under a cloud of suspicion for a rape that I did not commit.

The second story regards a woman who accused a man of sexually penetrating her in a subway station.  He was investigated and prosecuted, even though there was video evidence of the alleged assault that clearly showed that he did not and that he could not have assaulted his accuser. A jury deliberated for 90 minutes before acquitting him of all charges.

His accuser’s motivation for pursuing ​the allegations​ against him ​remain unclear, but Pearson concedes “you have to question her state of mind”. 

Though he thinks it is too soon to tell what the lasting impact of the ordeal on him will be, it has made him understandably wary of public transport; he now keeps his arms up and in full view on the tube and says he would never get in a lift with a woman if she were on her own. ​

With the aquittal now behind him, what does he hope, for the future?

“I would like a change in the CPS and the way they carry out their work. There is some sort of systemic fault. Maybe it is to do with funding being cut, maybe it is to do with inexperienced people being put in charge of things they are not capable of doing.”

A CPS spokesman said: “There was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial. We respect the decision of the jury.”

“That’s the reverse of an apology really isn’t it?” says Pearson.

The woman who accused this man was a celebrity of some sort, although her identity has remained anonymous.  Of course, this story is coming off the heels of another frivolous CPS prosecution of Louis Richardson who was fully acquitted a few months ago.

I wonder if this is the system into which Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is hoping to transform the US military, since she often mentions other countries who have shifted to allowing civilians prosecutors to deal with military offenses. The US military received $257 million to fight sexual assault, but I have the same astute opinion that the falsely accused Mr. Pearson has.  Do they take frivolous allegations because they are worried about a funding cut, or is it because they have inexperienced people being put in charge of prosecutions they are not capable of doing?

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

The arrogance of the progressive news media

In the article posted below, which appeared in the Washington Post, a writer named Callum Borchers--who "covers the intersection of politics and media," whatever the hell that means--makes himself the poster boy for the arrogant liberal news media.

Borchers urges his fellow journalists to show some understanding for Trump and Sanders supporters who are "backward, closed-minded or unsophisticated" and who see the world in black-and-whites. Borchers tries to explain that journalists don't have a liberal bias, and in the process proves that journalists have a liberal bias.

Borchers insists it's not a liberal bias, damn it, it's actually a "more-nuanced worldview"--his exact words. Borchers posits this very unhelpful example:
When immigrants come to the United States illegally, it’s a journalist’s job to find out what drives them to risk their lives to get here, what they contribute to the economy and what it’s like to exist in the shadows. A journalist can’t just say “they broke the law” and leave it at that. 
In other words, what some people call liberal bias — in this case, giving voice to undocumented immigrants — is often fundamental reporting.
Borchers' premise is two-fold: (1) Journalists have a duty to humanize illegal immigrants, and (2) the great unwashed masses do not have the sophistication to humanize them. Let's dispel both prongs.

First, journalists do not have a duty, under any standard, to humanize people who break the law, regardless of their intentions or economic station. As readers of this blog know, journalists hardly ever do it for men and boys accused of sexual assault--including the multitudes of wrongly accused men and boys that we've chronicled here. And on those rare occasions when they do it, they are criticized for it. Do you remember when CNN was taken to task for actually saying a few words about the Steunbenville boys found guilty of rape that made them sound like human beings? When it comes to sexual assault, journalists march in lockstep to their moral superiors in the sexual grievance industry, and are very happy to say, "they broke the law” and leave it at that. That they don't take this approach when it comes to illegal immigrants speaks to a palpable political bias.

Second, the idea that middle America regards immigrants as sub-humans seems to be a bit of projection on the part of journalists--most of whom, truth be told, make good livings in nice, clean, safe offices where they have little occasion to interact with lower class people.

The fact is, most people understand that illegal immigrants are escaping a life of despair and are looking for something better. Most people understand that they have hopes and dreams and fears, that they laugh, love, and cry, that they worry about their loved ones, do acts of kindness for others, get hungry and feel pain. Most Americans do not hate them because they are "different," and are not offended that they are here. But most Americans are offended that they are here illegally. Most Americans don't know the criteria for achieving legal status, but they know that there is a law and that it ought to be followed. If the law is no good, then it ought to be changed the way laws are always changed.

Or is that world view not sufficiently nuanced for a sophisticated journalist like Mr. Borchers?

So, yes, Mr. Borchers, there is a liberal bias in the news media, and your painfully liberally biased piece proves it. The motivating impulse of the mainstream news media is a compulsion to disabuse traditional Americans of their supposedly unenlightened notions. Journalists reduce middle America to vile caricature and assume the worst about them--they assume middle America hates people who are not like them--but on Sunday, they plop themselves into their favorite pew at church to pray like hypocrites, then go home to clean their guns. We have a president with a similar mindset, and that's why the news media not only roots for him but has never seriously challenged him on anything, especially when he launches broadsides on traditional America (e.g., "they cling to their guns or religion"; "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon," etc.).

In other words, most journalists are liberal snobs who think they know it all.

Like you, Mr. Borchers.
___________________________

Here is his awful op-ed:

Chuck Todd says journalists acted like ‘snobs’ in dismissing Donald Trump. He has a point.
Donald Trump has called journalists “dishonest,” “third-rate” and a bunch of “lying, disgusting people.” But the latest unflattering name for media members comes from within the press corps’ own ranks.

NBC’s Chuck Todd (dubbed “Sleepy Eyes” by Trump, for those keeping score at home) said over the weekend that -- by initially dismissing the billionaire’s candidacy -- many journalists behaved like “snobs.”

“I think a lot of us were snobs about it. And we were wrong about it,” Todd said Sunday during a panel discussion about campaign coverage in Manchester, N.H., that was co-sponsored by Time magazine and the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. “The story is not about Trump. The story is about the electorate that he tapped into.”

Todd makes a good point that is worth fleshing out. There were plenty of legitimate reasons to discount Trump at the outset — chief among them his flagrant violation of so many political commandments. (To wit: Thou shalt not disparage entire minority groups. Thou shalt not insult war heroes. Thou shalt not talk about debate moderators’ menstrual cycles.)

Generally speaking, reporters covering Trump have never seen a presidential candidate behave like him and succeed. With no precedent, it was only natural to be highly skeptical of his viability.

But I don’t think the media’s snobbery was primarily about a religious enforcement of the rule book. It was about a failure to understand everyday people whose view of America’s place in the world seems backward, closed-minded or unsophisticated to many journalists.

Reporters and editors are trained to be open-minded — to tell the other side of the story. For example: When immigrants come to the United States illegally, it’s a journalist’s job to find out what drives them to risk their lives to get here, what they contribute to the economy and what it’s like to exist in the shadows. A journalist can’t just say “they broke the law” and leave it at that.

In other words, what some people call liberal bias — in this case, giving voice to undocumented immigrants — is often fundamental reporting.

At the same time, however, journalists’ perspectives can easily become skewed in a profession where virtually everyone they interact with (colleagues, interview subjects, expert sources) promotes this more-nuanced worldview. The nature of the job can cause them to underestimate the number and influence of people who see issues in black-and-white terms — people to whom undocumented immigrants are lawbreakers who need to be deported. Period. End of story.

The same, by the way, can be said of what's happening on the Democratic side of the ledger. Journalists have been under-estimating Bernie Sanders for months, thinking people simply wouldn't embrace a septuagenarian socialist with a pretty black-and-white message pitting average Americans against Wall Street -- which Sanders has painted with the broad brush of "fraud" -- and embracing policies that often seem no more practical than the ones Trump is advocating.

If journalists don’t spend enough time talking to these people — and they don’t — they’re liable to assume there aren’t very many and that any candidate who deals in harsh absolutes will find nothing but fringe support.

That’s the snobby mistake the media made with Trump.

Film Director Does Not Understand the US Criminal Justice System

In the "Keine scheisse, Sherlock" department, and to piggyback on the story below:

Kirby Dick, who wrote and directed The Hunting Ground, told ThinkProgress[,] “The criminal justice system resoundingly resides in favor of the perpetrator.”

Of course, it does Kirby Dick!  What part of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by competent evidence" do you not understand?  This is the standard that is supposed to prevent innocent men from languishing in prison for a crime they did not commit.

Quite a few years ago, law enforcement understood this concept and would start out by investigating all the facts of a case to determine if the allegations were true, so they could assist prosecutors in meeting this standard.  They had to start out by trying to prove that the allegations were true beyond a reasonable doubt.  They asked tough questions.  They gathered evidence.  They reconciled themselves to the premise that if an accused is guilty, then the investigator is his worst enemy, but if he is innocent, then the investigator is his best friend.

But, lately, law enforcement seems to act as if they maintain the attitude that if a man is accused, then law enforcement is his worst enemy regardless of guilt or innocence.  When they receive a statement from an alleged victim, then that's really all they need to arrest somebody.  If they ask tough questions that a defense attorney surely will ask, then they are called "victim blamers."  Instead, the sexual grievance industry demands that law enforcement "Start by Believing."  And, believe they do.

"Start by Believing" gives bad cops an excuse to be lazy, and their departments are paid to be lazy.  When the number of sexual assaults prosecuted in a jurisdiction increase, then that means they get more grant money from the Violence Against Women Act, which has contributed over $6 billion in grants since it was passed in 1994.  So, why fight the system?  If a thorough investigation yields less cases, then that means less money, so whatever you do as investigator, don't look for evidence that proves innocence! 

And there is a dearth of people who lobby or advocate for the rights of the falsely accused in Congress.  The only politician I have even heard speak of the due process rights of the Accused was Marco Rubio in reference to college disciplinary boards, and a state legislator in Georgia.

So, what happens when a government places immense political pressure on prosecutors to prosecute every offense and reduce the "favoritism" shown to the accused in the justice system?  You get cases like this one in the UK.  You get one of many courts-martial like this one in the military involving Airman Brandon Wright, or this one involving a woman with the initials "B.S." who said she was on top, fellated the convicted while on his back, and enjoyed the sex the night it happened, or this one involving Major Kit MartinYou get cases like this one, where the accused is not cleared by law enforcement, even after DNA excluded him as the victim's rapist, and the victim gets murdered by the actual rapist.  These are cases that a high school student could show that the accused is the falsely accused.

So, yes, Kirby Dick, our system of justice is resoundingly in favor of the accused because it is supposed to make law enforcement search for the truth, which on many occasions is that the accuser is lying or mistaken.   It strengthens our system by ensuring that prosecutors have the evidence they need to prove the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so they may become the convicted.  Quite simply, convictions should be based on evidence, not the prosecutor's rhetoric.

And while I'm at it, Kirby, did you actually read Ariana Klay's Court-martial transcripts before you gave her a starring role as one of your victims in "The Invisible War"?  If not, then you are about as lazy at directing "documentaries" as cops are at investigating sexual assault nowadays.  Although, you are one heck of an advocate.

Film director said: "This falsely accused thing drives me nuts.”

Kirby Dick, director and writer of The Hunting Ground and a member of the rush-to-judgment club when it comes to rape claims, said this: “This falsely accused thing drives me nuts.”

But what else should we expect from Kirby Dick? The Hunting Ground is a shockingly biased exercise in extremist political propaganda intent on further chipping away the rights of presumptively innocent college men. It is filled with first-hand, and very dramatic, accounts of purported sexual assaults—classic “he said-she said” claims—except the filmmakers didn’t bother to acknowledge even the possibility that there might be more than one side to any of the stories they presented. None of the women’s stories—none of them—were challenged with competing evidence that might cast even the slightest doubt on them. The overall effect is akin to a 1970s radical feminist rant that insists women must always be believed solely because they cried “rape.” The film has been attacked by scholars with impeccable credentials--their reward was to be accused of hating women.

Dick's latest insensitivity toward the community of the wrongly accused is unspeakably callous. His hateful comments are an affront not only to readers of this blog but to all persons of goodwill.

If Kirby had said, "This HIV/AIDS thing drives me nuts," he'd be a pariah. But since he trivialized the victimization of the wrongly accused, he's a feminist icon.

My guess is the "falsely accused thing" also drives Brian Banks nuts.

And the young men falsely accused at Hofstra University.

And Jonathan Montgomery.

And Matt Folino.

And the falsely accused men of the Duke lacrosse team.

And the families of Jay Cheshire, Stephen McLaughlin, and all the young men who took their lives after being falsely accused.

And all the men falsely accused by Christina Nadine Nelson,Jayne Stuart, Emily Riker, Heather Brenner, Elizabeth Jones and all the other false accusers.

And the families of Wesley Lord, Devin LaSalle, Cory Headen, Sumbo Owoiya, Cody Wightman, Johran McCormick, Michael Zenquis, and all the other young men and boys who were beaten or murdered after being falsely accused.

And I could go on and on and on and on, but you get the point. Dick should spend a few months reading through this blog and its predecessor--if he devoted a few hours to it every day, he probably could read through it by September. Perhaps he'd learn a small measure of humility.

And by the way, Mr. Dick, as a matter of policy, this blog insists that no one trivialize the victimization of victims of sexual assault.

It is possible to advocate for a cause without being a Kirby Dick about it.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Feminists tell young women they are going to hell if they don't vote for Hillary

That "feminism" is a morally and intellectually bankrupt movement run by certified loons is self-evident. By way of example, we've reported here that America's most prominent feminist, the presumptive Democrat Party nominee Hillary Clinton, told rape accusers they have "the right" to be believed until the evidence shows the accused is innocent--that is, guilty until proven innocent.

Now that young female Democrats are hopping on the Bernie bandwagon, the feminist establishment is aghast that young women aren't marching in lockstep to their moral superiors in the sexual grievance industry--you see, Hillary is entitled to the unthinking devotion of every young woman by reason of their common vaginas. So the feminist high command has trotted out a couple of ossified relics of feminism's inglorious past to shame young women into voting for Hillary: Madeleine Albright, a former secretary of state who, apparently, thinks Serbs who dare to protest atrocities against them are "disgusting," and the Grand Poobah of feminists, Gloria Steinem.

These dinosaurs believe young women are idiots, woefully incapable of thinking for themselves. Forget about that "women's right to choose" nonsense when it comes to how they should vote, they need to kowtow to the venerable old women of the feminist movement.

So why do these two icons say young women gravitate to Bernie? Of course it has nothing to do with Hillary's lack of trustworthiness, her moribund agenda, or the fact that she's willing to change her positions in whatever direction Bernie breaks wind.

Steinem thinks young women are abandoning shipt because--wait for it--young women want to follow the boys, and the boys are for Bernie.

Albright thinks it's because women women can be judgmental toward one another.

Can you say "sexist"? I mean, with misogynists like that, who needs misogynists?

Albright also said, "There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!"

There you have it. If you ever wonder why so few women identify as feminist, you need only look to the stupid and awful things they constantly say.

The good thing is that to most young women, the names Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem will be about as relevant to their lives as the name Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cotwa
Follow me: https://twitter.com/PierceCotwa

Marco Rubio's Meltdown



The upcoming presidential election is going to be extremely important for the issues we talk about here. Saturday night's Republican debate was eye-opening.

It started at the 14:35 mark in the video embedded here. Sen. Marco Rubio launched into a criticism of President Obama--he "dispelled" a fiction that no one had brought up in the debate, and his statement garnered applause:
And let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, to make America more like the rest of the world.
All well and good. But less than two minutes later, in the middle of answering scathing criticism from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that had nothing to do with the fact that President Obama doesn't know what he's doing, Rubio once again "dispelled" the same fiction he had just discussed:
But I would add this. Let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is trying to change this country. He wants America to become more like the rest of the world. We don't want to be like the rest of the world, we want to be the United States of America. And when I'm elected president, this will become once again, the single greatest nation in the history of the world, not the disaster Barack Obama has imposed upon us.
One minute and 18 seconds later, as if he were caught in a time-warp, Rubio said:
Here's the bottom line. This notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he's doing.
It was an embarrassing several minutes. Christie called him on it, made him look foolish, and rattled him. I watch all the debates, and I like Marco Rubio, but unless he's reciting his canned talking points, he's stiff, nervous, and, truth be told, he may not be ready for prime time. Certainly, Christie is a bulldog--one of the toughest debaters we've seen in these debates--and his attack on Rubio has been off-putting to people inclined to root for Rubio. But Christie would not have been able to rattle Rubio's far craftier, far more skilled contemporary, the brilliant Sen. Ted Cruz. Like him or hate him, Cruz can speak fluently off the top of his head all night long about pretty much any subject at issue, and he's unflappable. The contrast with Rubio is striking.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Monday, February 1, 2016

Air Force Times Prints Names of Accused Airman Who Were Acquitted or Had Charges Dismissed

Thanks to "The Invisible War," a perception exists that the United States Military is in the middle of a rape epidemic.  Every other year since 2008, it seems that Congress is amending the UCMJ to ensure that those accused of sex offenses are brought to trial.  In fact, Senator Claire McCaskill has made it clear that she uses "a single yardstick to measure each idea on the table: will it better protect victims, and lead to more prosecutions[.]"

The Air Force Times often reports the name and rank of Airmen who are accused of a sex crime, as well as a brief synopsis of what the Airman is accused.  Then, after each Court-martial, the Air Force, as well as all US Services, releases on a monthly basis the results of their Courts-martial.  But, the Air Force does not release the names of the Airmen who were acquitted of all charges or who had charges dropped prior to their Court-martial.

Instinctively, I think this practice is good because protecting the identity of the accused who has been acquitted will allow an individual's identity to remain anonymous and not searchable.  However, this practice does nothing to expose how many of our Servicemen are being acquitted at Courts-martial, who have had their careers placed on hold, and who have faced a severe injustice by the fact that the case was tried.

When a Servicemember is acquitted at a Court-martial, a verbatim record of trial is not produced, as it is for convictions.  The Servicemember typically wants to move on in their career and not expose themselves to further scrutiny because they are trained to be quiet professionals.  So, the public is not bombarded with the number of our Servicemen who are falsely accused of crimes, the way the public is bombarded with the number of allegations of sexual assault.

Having been a civilian Court-martial defense practitioner for eight years and a Trial Defense Service Attorney with the Army for two years, I have seen the most ridiculous charges brought against Servicemembers.  In fact, some cases I've seen or heard about that are prosecuted by these so-called "Special Victim Prosecutors" lead to only one of two conclusions: (1) They don't believe the alleged victim, but are driven by politics like Mike Nifong; or (2) they do believe the alleged victim and are incompetent to practice law. I recently represented a client where the evidence of his innocence was overwhelming, the Article 32 Investigating Officer recommended a dismissal because the alleged victim was not credible, and the case still went to trial.  My client was fully acquitted, but nobody except for the military panel who acquitted him and those who viewed the trial from the gallery will ever know how absurd the fact that he even stood trial was.

So, perhaps it is high time that those Servicemembers who have faced the injustice of the military justice system and have been acquitted speak out, so the public better understands how politically driven Courts-martial have become.  And, by publishing the names of the acquitted, the Air Force Times might actually be doing a good thing.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Off-topic: Thirty years ago today: a space tragedy that could have been avoided

That morning, thirty years ago today, I remember hearing on the radio about how icy conditions in Florida might again delay the launch of the space shuttle that day. I thought nothing of it--space launch delays were common, and the launch had been delayed the previous day. Then, a few hours later at the office, an attorney colleague of mine was in tears--she told me that Space Shuttle Challenger had exploded 73 second after liftoff killing all seven astronauts aboard. The culprit was a faulty O-ring seal. The mission was widely publicized because Christa McAuliffe would have been the first teacher in space.

It was a launch that never should have occurred. NASA was under pressure to launch when it shouldn't have. The launch was supposed to occur the previous day but got postponed, and the night before, CBS news anchor Dan Rather led off CBS’s evening news with these words: “Yet another costly, red-faces-all-around space shuttle-launch-delay. This time, a bad bolt on a hatch and a bad-weather bolt from the blue are being blamed.” The news broadcast painted NASA technicians as bumblers. The Washington Post later said that pressure from the news media may explain the imprudent decision. Public outcries, or perceived public outcries, often interfere with prudence and are responsible for all manner of bad decisions.

On that night in 1986, President Ronald Reagan postponed his State of the Union Address and instead spoke to the nation about the tragedy. It was among the greatest presidential speeches of our time--pitch perfect in tone and content. Reagan's reputation as "The Great Communicator" was well-deserved, never more so than that night when the nation needed to be consoled and assured. Reagan famously concluded his speech by talking about the crew of the Challenger: “We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye--and slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.”

EDIT: I just saw this great article about the speech.



Wow.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Georgia lawmaker tells sexual grievance industry to go to hell

State Rep. Earl Ehrhart (R-District 36) told university presidents: “If you can’t provide the students of this state due process, don’t come looking for money.”

Read about it here.

So, you don't think there's a sexual grievance industry?

The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights claims it needs to hire hundreds of new employees--hundreds--to handle its increasing backlog of nearly 200 unresolved cases.

Read about it here.

Monday, January 25, 2016

Scary thought for the day: the sexual grievance cartel makes Bernie Sanders look right-wing

Sanders' position on college sexual assault is far more reasonable than Hillary's and the rest of her ilk. See here and here.  That's how far gone the sexual grievance cartel is.

Not a safe place for young men

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
Georgia Tech has expelled or suspended nearly every student it has investigated for sexual misconduct in the past five years, according to reports viewed by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The school has also handed down stiff penalties to fraternities, including one in which members were accused last summer of hurling racial slurs at a black female student.
“We’re going to let the taxpayers of Georgia understand why there is not a safe place on the Georgia Tech campus for their sons to receive due process,” said state Rep. Earl Ehrhart, chairman of the House committee that allocates funding to Georgia’s colleges, who is hosting the hearing.
Read the article here.

Friday, January 22, 2016

Woman falsely accused boy of rape because 'she requires attention, even if it's negative'--but she won't go to jail

Sapphire Phillips, 21, who previously had made false claims of rape and robbery, falsely accused a 17-year-old boy of rape after they had a consensual sexual encounter.

Phillips lied because she felt "used" by the boy, because she felt guilty about cheating on her partner, and because she "requires attention, even if it's negative."

The boy was arrested and spent 20 hours in police custody. He was forced to undergo a forensic examination. It is not difficult to imagine that this was the worst experience in his young life.

Phillips eventually admitted she lied and that her encounter with the boy was consensual.

“It’s a strategy she uses when she can’t cope with a situation,” explained a probation officer. “She requires attention, even if it’s negative.”

Yet, Phillips was spared jail time. You read that correctly--she will not serve any jail time for trying to destroy the life of a boy, even though this was the third time she had made a false claim about a serious criminal matter.

This is not the first time we've seen cases like this. Remember the woman who sent a college student to jail for five years over a rape lie because "I've always seemed to need some drama in my life. Otherwise I get bored"?

In this post from 2014, we chronicled a few of the more outrageous "rationales" for false rape claims--don't read it on an empty stomach.

In most of the cases, as here, the false accusers serve no jail time. Two prominent examples of women who avoided spending time behind bars are the false accusers in the infamous Brian Banks and Hofstra false rape cases.

False rape claims are terrifying and destroy lives. Most of the cases are not motivated by revenge--the far more serious problem is that we have taught our daughters to treat consensual encounters as rape (see, e.g.here). Regardless of the motivation, if we want people to treat rape as a serious matter, we need to treat false rape claims as serious matters. When the law bows to political correctness and allows women to make false rape claims with impunity, it undermines confidence in the way rape claims are handled, and it makes people all the more wary about punishing even men and boys who deserve to be punished for rape. We do women no favors by refusing to treat the false rape problem as the serious social pathology it is.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Woman Who Plotted Her Third Child Father's Murder Receives No Jail Time

I have written about my experiences as a Court-martial defense attorney regarding Servicemembers who are falsely accused of physical and sexual abuse only after they file for divorce by women who are the actual abusers, here and here.  Like the District Attorney in Los Angeles in the Brian Banks case, some military prosecutors could not care less if a woman gets on the stand and lies under oath in order to gain custody of the parties child. I have yet to hear of a military dependent being indicted in Federal Court for making a false statement about her husband to military authorities.

While this is not a typical false allegation case, the facts of this case shows how the justice system is biased towards women.  Amy Corwin, a mother of four, plotted to kill the father of her third child who was attempting to gain custody of the child.  She  was indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit murder, a first-degree felony, and intimidation of a witness, a third-degree felony.

So, what did she plead to? A first-degree felony count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.  And her sentence?  The Court sentenced her to one year of community control and a rehabilitation program and probation.

I know nothing about the case other than what I have read in the article, but I wonder if the DA negotiated a plea deal because of an allegation that Corwin's intended victim abused her.  I noticed from the article that Corwin approached the father of her first two children to recruit him to kill the father of her third child.  I wonder what she told him to encourage him to commit murder.  And, I applaud the courage of this man who informed law enforcement about Corwin's intentions because he did the right thing in light of a woman who was willing leave her third child fatherless.

Think about what would have happened if she would have gone to the cops and falsely accused her third child's father of sexual assault.  Would the cops have charged the father?  Would the cops have asked the tough questions about her allegations in order to ascertain the truthfulness of her statements?  Or, would the cops have started by believing and never stopped believing, no matter how absurd her allegations had become? 

Knowing what I know from experience of representing the falsely accused, I believe this poor guy fared much better with a woman who was trying to kill him in today's system of justice.

The hateful Roanoke College students who tried to keep a student out of college after he was found not guilty of rape

Last March, a 19-year-old Roanoke College freshman male from Zimbabwe, Africa was charged with the rape and aggravated assault of a female student in connection with an incident that occurred in a college residence hall. It was a classic he said-she said case. The accuser (still not named by the news media even though the young man she accused has been named) claimed she brought the young man to her second floor room, then they got on her bed and began "to talk in the dark." What happened after that is disputed. The accused claimed that while they were having consensual sex, the accuser protested, so he stopped, and left.

The young man was suspended by the college, and even though no one except the accuser and the accused know for certain what happened, the district attorney decided to roll the dice with the life a teenager, and the matter proceeded to trial last November.

It took the jury just 25 minutes to deliberate and find the young man not guilty of either charge. According to a news report of the trial, "cross-examination brought forward apparent contradictions between statements the woman gave to police and her courtroom testimony about that night . . . ."

Then, the accused attempted to re-enroll at Roanoke College. Cue the lynch mob. On December 4, 2015, Roanoke students circulated an online petition to keep the accused student out. The petition stated:

Keep Roanoke Safe
In March of 2015, a Roanoke College student was raped by a another student. After charges were brought up, he was suspended from the school. Now that the criminal trial is over he is trying to re-enroll as a student. Multiple individuals have stepped forward and said that his behavior towards the victim is NOT incongruent to his personality and past actions. Others have stated that similar actions have been imposed on them at the hands of this student. If he is allowed back, no female student will be able to feel safe. A mahority [sic] of the student body will be put at risk. We ask you to sign the petition, stand by your fellow students, and stand by a campus culture of respect and safety. If you are worried about signing and remaining anonymous, we urge you sign with your student ID number which will not give your name to anyone other than the Dean of Students. We plan on submitting this petition to the Dean formally on December 8th and appreciate all of the support we can get before it is submitted as well as continued support after the submission!
Even after the jury's tellingly speedy determination that the young man was not guilty, Roanoke students took hostility to due process to a new level by circulating a petition that flatly declared the young man had "raped" the accuser. Without bothering to cite a scrap of evidence, the petition alluded to all manner of hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations to paint the young man as a vile rapist. Employing the repugnant fear-mongering tactics that are a hallmark of the college sexual grievance lobby, the petition declared that "no female student will be able to feel safe."

Some 291 students signed the petition. The still-unnamed accuser shared the link on her own Facebook wall and wrote, “Thank you so much to the person who made this petition. please help prevent this from happening to another student.”  The accused man's defense lawyer, Deborah Caldwell-Bono, said: “It was just appalling that she wants to go forward and get him kicked out of school. . . . Where does it stop?”

Later in December, Roanoke College held a disciplinary hearing, and the young man was found not responsible for sexual misconduct.

Now the young man is suing the still-unnamed accuser, claiming she intentionally published false statements about him on her social media accounts and on an online petition website after the March incident and after the jury trial.

And so it goes. If a student from a third world country studying at an American college were acquitted of any criminal charge other than rape, the people who created and signed the vile petition would not have done so--instead, they would be at the forefront to condemn any effort to expel him based on hearsay and unsubstantiated accusations. But somehow, when the charge is sexual assault, all their liberal impulses devolve into radical feminist fear-mongering.

Where do the students of Roanoke College learn to hate like this? These attitudes are so prevalent, they are practically air-borne, but for starters, you need look no further than America's most prominent feminist, the presumptive Democrat Party nominee Hillary Clinton. Clinton told rape accusers they have "the right" to be believed until the evidence shows the accused is innocent (guilty until proven innocent). And that, my friends, is simultaneously terrifying, laughable, idiotic, and, above all else, good-old fashioned feminist man-hating--let's start calling it what it is without fearing that our moral superiors in the sexual grievance lobby will be offended by it.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

COTWA endorses Sen. Marco Rubio for President


This blog has long preached the need for balance in the handling of sexual assault claims--see the mission statement "This blog" on the left of this blog. That balance cannot be achieved by pretending women are never sexually assaulted or by refusing to acknowledge that some college administrators fail to treat accusers with sensitivity and fairness. But, as our readers know, over the past few years, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Hostility to the due process rights of college men accused of sexual assault comes directly from the White House, and it is the White House that must signal an end to this hostility in order to bring the pendulum back where it belongs.

Senator Marco Rubio has pledged that, if elected president, he will end the Department of Education's assault on the due process rights of men accused of college sexual misconduct and, in fact, that he will enhance those same due process rights.

This blog has expressed concerns about Sen. Rubio's actions in co-sponsoring the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA)--bill S. 590, a bill designed to support accusers of sexual assault. The bill contains some troubling language that we feared would harm the wrongly accused.

Rubio's press release clarifies that he successfully fought to exclude much more harmful language from the bill. Beyond that, the press release puts him on record as pledging to be a champion of the presumptively innocent who are accused of college sex offenses.

Rubio makes clear his desire to help sexual assault victims--and we echo that desire. But he also makes clear that he considers men wrongly accused to be "victims," too--the press release notes he's "heard from victims--both of assaults, and accusations gone wrong." It is rare for someone in Rubio's position to acknowledge that wrongful accusations on campus are a real problem. He writes that "those accused of sexual assault should have their due process rights respected" and "wherever possible, the cases should be handled by the criminal justice system." In words we applaud, he writes: "We don’t need to buy into the Left’s overheated rhetoric and misleading statistics about campus sexual assault to believe something should be done."

Rubio proceeds to explain his role in sponsoring CASA--and it shows he is championing issues we've long written about here:
Marco has fought successfully to exclude the key items on the left’s wish-list. The bill does not adopt “affirmative consent” (known as “Yes-means-yes”) as a national standard for campus sexual assault. Nor does it legislate a “preponderance of the evidence” standard for campus disciplinary proceedings.

Those ideas are an assault on notions of fair play and due process, and Marco would not stand for them. Opponents claiming that this bill includes or promotes them do are relying on guilt by association or simply no evidence at all.
Then, in words that earn him our endorsement for the presidency, Sen. Rubio writes:
. . . Certainly, we should make additional efforts to protect due process on campus. Most importantly, as President, Marco would swiftly move to stop the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’s assault against due process rights.
Marco Rubio says he wants to "improve the handling of sexual assault on campus while protecting the rights of the accused." He acknowledges that CASA is an imperfect compromise--and it is. COTWA does not like CASA, to put it bluntly, but to the extent Rubio has played a role in keeping it from being far more draconian, he earns kudos. His support of that bill obviously was significant for the Democrats who spearheaded it, and it is our guess that he and his staff were able to trade his participation to remove the aforementioned anti-male concepts from the text.

Most important, we give him credit for going on record to be the only presidential candidate to say what we've been hoping to hear:". . . as President, Marco would swiftly move to stop the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’s assault against due process rights." This is not an issue at the forefront of the public discourse. Rubio could have taken the safe course and pandered to women voters without saying the things he said about the wrongly accused--our experience is that his comments about the wrongly accused are enough to earn him the condemnation of the sexual grievance industry.

The fact that Rubio has chosen to speak up for the wrongly accused is significant, and it does him honor. If elected, Marco Rubio can legitimately say that ending the witch hunt on college men is part of his mandate. COTWA endorses Senator Marco Rubio for president.

Brian Banks Lawsuit Seeks $219,000.00 Against State of California

In a story here, wrongfully convicted high school football star Brian Banks is seeking $219,000.00 from the State of California for his imprisonment based on a wrongful conviction.  California passed a statute that permitted exonerated convicts to be paid a maximum of $100 for each day they were wrongfully convicted and confined.  You can read the horrific facts of his ordeal reported here.

What I find interesting is that the DA's office sought a conviction of Banks without any physical evidence except Wanetta Gibson's word.  You would think obtaining a rape conviction would be a tough case to prove, but the DA's office pursued charges against Brian Banks, whose defense attorney talked him into a plea deal out of fear that a jury would assume Banks was guilty because he was a big black teenager.

With regards to Wanetta Gibson's false statement in which she was paid $1.5 million?

Los Angeles prosecutors have said it is unlikely Gibson will be charged with making false accusations, saying it would be a tough case to prove.

Let that sink in.  The DA had no problem charging Brian Banks where there was no physical evidence in a he said/she said case where some of the things she was saying did not make sense.  For instance, no DNA was found in her rape kit because she said Banks "wiped the semen off with a towel."  Any DNA expert would say that makes no sense.  Sounds like a pretty difficult case, right?  But, when it comes to prosecuting a woman who admitted on tape that no rape or kidnapping occurred, the DA believes that is a "tough case to prove."  Therefore, they cannot bring charges against her.

So, there are two lessons the Los Angeles County DA's office is teaching based on their actions in regards to Banks and Gibson.  First, to the falsely accused:  Do not plead guilty to something you did not do.  There are decisions that the client makes, and there are decisions that the attorney makes.  Your choice of plea is a decision you make as a client.  No attorney can force their client into pleading guilty, even if the client is guilty.  If your defense attorney tries to talk you into pleading guilty where you are innocent, then maybe it is time to find or request a new defense attorney from the public defenders office.

Second, to false accusers:  You can lie about kidnapping and sexual assault that results in a man being confined for five years and two months, get paid $1.5 million dollars for injuries you did not suffer, admit on tape that there was no rape or kidnapping, and never face a criminal prosecution for lying to the police. 

If there is a statute of limitations issue with regards to a criminal offense of lying to the police, then I can understand why that would be a tough case to prove.  But, that would be the only reason.  Otherwise, the Los Angeles County's DA has shown that it will aggressively prosecute sexual offenses without definitive evidence of guilt, but let criminal liars off the hook where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. They should be ashamed.