Judicial Record - GPA 3.55 Undergrad / 3.92 Grad Forum

[careerchange2010]

d

[miamiman]

Ugh. See what happens with your school first. Then report back.

[kalvano]

Basically here is what happened... I was unfaithful to my wife with a mutual friend of ours... this "friend" falsely accused me of sexual battery(rape). I assume this is because she made me promise her that I would never tell my wife and I did anyways. There was a police investigation and report, however no charges were filed, there was no arrest, and the DA declined to prosecute. I was never arrested or charged with anything. However, the police report was forwarded to my institution and I am now going to have a hearing for an alleged violation of the Conduct Code. They use a preponderance of evidence standard and there is really no proof other than our statements of what happened. From what I understand, I am likely to be found responsible for the university violation. If found responsible, I will likely be dismissed from the institution. (It seems that the university sees me as guilty until proven innocent)

Wait, what?

I'd concentrate on suing the shit out the university first.

[tasteofred]

Basically here is what happened... I was unfaithful to my wife with a mutual friend of ours... this "friend" falsely accused me of sexual battery(rape). I assume this is because she made me promise her that I would never tell my wife and I did anyways. There was a police investigation and report, however no charges were filed, there was no arrest, and the DA declined to prosecute. I was never arrested or charged with anything. However, the police report was forwarded to my institution and I am now going to have a hearing for an alleged violation of the Conduct Code. They use a preponderance of evidence standard and there is really no proof other than our statements of what happened. From what I understand, I am likely to be found responsible for the university violation. If found responsible, I will likely be dismissed from the institution. (It seems that the university sees me as guilty until proven innocent)

Wait, what?

I'd concentrate on suing the shit out the university first.

This.

[MrKappus]

Wait, what?

I'd concentrate on suing the shit out the university first.

Lawsuits require at least one cognizable claim.

[careerchange2010]

d

[Thomas Jefferson]

You should consult a lawyer even for the campus stuff and fight this as aggressively as possible. And when I say aggressively I mean be ready to sue the school, push to have your "friend" charged for filing a false report, etc.

[MrKappus]

DEAR 0L's: STOP TELLING OP TO SUE HIS SCHOOL. LAWSUITS REQUIRE A CAUSE (or causes) OF ACTION. I can tell you with complete certainty that the lawfulness of the conduct code at the school OP attends has been vetted by attorneys (to ensure DP of law, non-discrimination, etc.) and if there is to be a hearing, then OP HAS BEEN FOUND IN VIOLATION OF ONE OR MORE PARTS OF THAT CODE. We don't even know what school OP attends, or what the charges are. Maybe he goes to Bob Jones and adultery is a dismissable offense.

OP should def fight the charges and hire an atty to help with the investigation/defense and ensure he gets DP, esp if his school's public. But "ZOmgs OP should sue his skool!" is not TCR.

[kalvano]

DEAR 0L's: STOP TELLING OP TO SUE HIS SCHOOL. LAWSUITS REQUIRE A CAUSE (or causes) OF ACTION. I can tell you with complete certainty that the lawfulness of the conduct code at the school OP attends has been vetted by attorneys (to ensure DP of law, non-discrimination, etc.) and if there is to be a hearing, then OP HAS BEEN FOUND IN VIOLATION OF ONE OR MORE PARTS OF THAT CODE. We don't even know what school OP attends, or what the charges are. Maybe he goes to Bob Jones and adultery is a dismissable offense.

OP should def fight the charges and hire an atty to help with the investigation/defense and ensure he gets DP, esp if his school's public. But "ZOmgs OP should sue his skool!" is not TCR.

False. You can sue anybody for anything at anytime. Don't you read the front page of the newspaper?

At the very least, he should sue the bitch making a false accusation.

[Bildungsroman]

I can tell you with complete certainty that the lawfulness of the conduct code at the school OP attends has been vetted by attorneys

Fortunately, once it's been vetted by lawyers that means that it is beyond question or reproach. That's why nothing vetted by a lawyer is ever found to be unconstitutional or a violation of law.

[MrKappus]

DEAR 0L's: STOP TELLING OP TO SUE HIS SCHOOL. LAWSUITS REQUIRE A CAUSE (or causes) OF ACTION. I can tell you with complete certainty that the lawfulness of the conduct code at the school OP attends has been vetted by attorneys (to ensure DP of law, non-discrimination, etc.) and if there is to be a hearing, then OP HAS BEEN FOUND IN VIOLATION OF ONE OR MORE PARTS OF THAT CODE. We don't even know what school OP attends, or what the charges are. Maybe he goes to Bob Jones and adultery is a dismissable offense.

OP should def fight the charges and hire an atty to help with the investigation/defense and ensure he gets DP, esp if his school's public. But "ZOmgs OP should sue his skool!" is not TCR.

False. You can sue anybody for anything at anytime. Don't you read the front page of the newspaper?

At the very least, he should sue the bitch making a false accusation.

Hells to the yes.

[kalvano]

And really, if the school kicks him out based on nothing more than her word, even though the police and the DA's office found no reason to pursue a case, I'd say he'd have a pretty good chance at a lawsuit. Obviously, I don't know the statutes (yet), but that just seems too blatant. By that standard, anyone could make a false claim and get anyone kicked out.

So either OP is overreacting or the school is sitting on a lawsuit bomb.

[MrKappus]

I can tell you with complete certainty that the lawfulness of the conduct code at the school OP attends has been vetted by attorneys

Fortunately, once it's been vetted by lawyers that means that it is beyond question or reproach. That's why nothing vetted by a lawyer is ever found to be unconstitutional or a violation of law.

Hey! Let's play a game where I say something, then you take what I say to it's most hyperbolic and absurd conclusion, and then argue that that conclusion's wrong! Easy for you, and fun for EVERYBODY.

[Thomas Jefferson]

DEAR 0L's: STOP TELLING OP TO SUE HIS SCHOOL. LAWSUITS REQUIRE A CAUSE (or causes) OF ACTION. I can tell you with complete certainty that the lawfulness of the conduct code at the school OP attends has been vetted by attorneys (to ensure DP of law, non-discrimination, etc.) and if there is to be a hearing, then OP HAS BEEN FOUND IN VIOLATION OF ONE OR MORE PARTS OF THAT CODE. We don't even know what school OP attends, or what the charges are. Maybe he goes to Bob Jones and adultery is a dismissable offense.

OP should def fight the charges and hire an atty to help with the investigation/defense and ensure he gets DP, esp if his school's public. But "ZOmgs OP should sue his skool!" is not TCR.

No. Yes I'm a 0L, but I worked at a civil liberties non-profit that dealt with this kind of stuff on college campuses. Some of the stuff schools try to pull in their campus judicial systems is utterly ridiculous and gets slapped down hard in court. If it's a public school, there are all sorts of claims to be made from Fed due process arguments and the like to state const. or statutory claims; even at private universities most/all of these claims often are still viable under things like California's Leonard Law of other state laws/constitution. I do not know if this is the case at OP's school, of course, which is why I said to consult a lawyer. To write such a blanket statement with CAPS, especially when you don't know what you're talking about makes you look foolish. Regardless of the merits of OP's potential legal claims, the mere threat of litigation will get the school's attention, as universities tend to want very badly to avoid the bad press of such litigation. "zOMG sue" is absolutely the path OP should be heading down to make sure his school and his "friend" don't railroad him.

[MrKappus]

No. Yes I'm a 0L, but I worked at a civil liberties non-profit that dealt with this kind of stuff on college campuses. Some of the stuff schools try to pull in their campus judicial systems is utterly ridiculous and gets slapped down hard in court. If it's a public school, there are all sorts of claims to be made from Fed due process arguments and the like to state const. or statutory claims; even at private universities most/all of these claims often are still viable under things like California's Leonard Law of other state laws/constitution. I do not know if this is the case at OP's school, of course, which is why I said to consult a lawyer. To write such a blanket statement with CAPS, especially when you don't know what you're talking about makes you look foolish. Regardless of the merits of OP's potential legal claims, the mere threat of litigation will get the school's attention, as universities tend to want very badly to avoid the bad press of such litigation. "zOMG sue" is absolutely the path OP should be heading down to make sure his school and his "friend" don't railroad him.

Sorry man...you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say "OP sue the school!" while also saying "I know nothing about OP's situation and OP should consult an attorney." The disposition of this case will depend on the charges against OP (which we still don't know), but advising a person to sue when you (1) don't know that person's situation, and (2) don't know the law, is retarded.

Attorneys vet conduct codes to ensure those codes provide all necessary constitutional protections, both state and fed, and are in line with the most recent case law. This is especially true of public universities. Students agree to abide by private codes of conduct when they matriculate, and they agree to submit to independent judicial systems. They have notice of the charges against them, an opportunity to present their case, and a chance to challenge witnesses. If you are honestly arguing that you think OP has a ground-breaking constitutional law case on his hands, you didn't learn much at your PI paralegal job.

[thecilent]

DEAR 0L's: STOP TELLING OP TO SUE HIS SCHOOL. LAWSUITS REQUIRE A CAUSE (or causes) OF ACTION. I can tell you with complete certainty that the lawfulness of the conduct code at the school OP attends has been vetted by attorneys (to ensure DP of law, non-discrimination, etc.) and if there is to be a hearing, then OP HAS BEEN FOUND IN VIOLATION OF ONE OR MORE PARTS OF THAT CODE. We don't even know what school OP attends, or what the charges are. Maybe he goes to Bob Jones and adultery is a dismissable offense.

OP should def fight the charges and hire an atty to help with the investigation/defense and ensure he gets DP, esp if his school's public. But "ZOmgs OP should sue his skool!" is not TCR.

???

This is not true. Depending on some things, OP could more than likely bring suits against both the school and the woman if he is wrongfully dismissed

[MrKappus]

???

This is not true. OP could bring suits against both the school and the woman if he is wrongfully dismissed

If OP's accuser's story meets the evidentiary threshold the school's judicial system requires for dismissal, then OP's dismissal is not wrongful.

[como]

I smell BYU..

[thecilent]

???

This is not true. OP could bring suits against both the school and the woman if he is wrongfully dismissed

If OP's accuser's story meets the evidentiary threshold the school's judicial system requires for dismissal, then OP's dismissal is not wrongful.

Agreed.

[Thomas Jefferson]

No. Yes I'm a 0L, but I worked at a civil liberties non-profit that dealt with this kind of stuff on college campuses. Some of the stuff schools try to pull in their campus judicial systems is utterly ridiculous and gets slapped down hard in court. If it's a public school, there are all sorts of claims to be made from Fed due process arguments and the like to state const. or statutory claims; even at private universities most/all of these claims often are still viable under things like California's Leonard Law of other state laws/constitution. I do not know if this is the case at OP's school, of course, which is why I said to consult a lawyer. To write such a blanket statement with CAPS, especially when you don't know what you're talking about makes you look foolish. Regardless of the merits of OP's potential legal claims, the mere threat of litigation will get the school's attention, as universities tend to want very badly to avoid the bad press of such litigation. "zOMG sue" is absolutely the path OP should be heading down to make sure his school and his "friend" don't railroad him.

Sorry man...you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say "OP sue the school!" while also saying "I know nothing about OP's situation and OP should consult an attorney." The disposition of this case will depend on the charges against OP (which we still don't know), but advising a person to sue when you (1) don't know that person's situation, and (2) don't know the law, is retarded.

Attorneys vet conduct codes to ensure those codes provide all necessary constitutional protections, both state and fed, and are in line with the most recent case law. This is especially true of public universities. Students agree to abide by private codes of conduct when they matriculate, and they agree to submit to independent judicial systems. They have notice of the charges against them, an opportunity to present their case, and a chance to challenge witnesses. If you are honestly arguing that you think OP has a ground-breaking constitutional law case on his hands, you didn't learn much at your PI paralegal job.

Just because he may or may not win such a case, doesn't mean he shouldn't be preparing for a suit. As a said, universities are PR whores and just the threat will go a long way for the OP.

Also, you place way, way. way. too much faith in vetting schools do of their policies. Schools violate their students' rights frequently. The vetting that goes on is more post hoc rationalizing than honest compliance. And if you want to start talking about "agreements" your argument really breaks down: if you look at schools' student handbooks, codes of conduct, etc. they all promise strong protections of due process rights etc., which often strengthens, not weakens, a case, as when a university isn't even fulfilling its own promises. This is beyond the statutory, state const., and federal const. rights which may apply.

This isn't anything groundbreaking. Schools often violate their students rights and are often shot down hard in court.

[Thomas Jefferson]

???

This is not true. OP could bring suits against both the school and the woman if he is wrongfully dismissed

If OP's accuser's story meets the evidentiary threshold the school's judicial system requires for dismissal, then OP's dismissal is not wrongful.

Not if the policy setting that evidentiary threshold is itself a violation of OP's rights.

[thecilent]

???

This is not true. OP could bring suits against both the school and the woman if he is wrongfully dismissed

If OP's accuser's story meets the evidentiary threshold the school's judicial system requires for dismissal, then OP's dismissal is not wrongful.

Not if the policy setting that evidentiary threshold is itself a violation of OP's rights.

This will almost never be the case though

[Thomas Jefferson]

???

This is not true. OP could bring suits against both the school and the woman if he is wrongfully dismissed

If OP's accuser's story meets the evidentiary threshold the school's judicial system requires for dismissal, then OP's dismissal is not wrongful.

Not if the policy setting that evidentiary threshold is itself a violation of OP's rights.

This will almost never be the case though

It often is hard to prove/win such cases, yes. However, that just means OP should be preparing all the more vigorously to defend himself as aggressively as possible. Which includes being ready to litigate.

[thecilent]

It often is hard to prove/win such cases, yes. However, that just means OP should be preparing all the more vigorously to defend himself as aggressively as possible. Which includes being ready to litigate.

Agreed.

[MrKappus]

Just because he may or may not win such a case, doesn't mean he shouldn't be preparing for a suit. As a said, universities are PR whores and just the threat will go a long way for the OP.

Also, you place way, way. way. too much faith in vetting schools do of their policies. Schools violate their students' rights frequently. The vetting that goes on is more post hoc rationalizing than honest compliance. And if you want to start talking about "agreements" your argument really breaks down: if you look at schools' student handbooks, codes of conduct, etc. they all promise strong protections of due process rights etc., which often strengthens, not weakens, a case, as when a university isn't even fulfilling its own promises. This is beyond the statutory, state const., and federal const. rights which may apply.

This isn't anything groundbreaking. Schools often violate their students rights and are often shot down hard in court.

So despite the fact that schools hate negative PR, they willfully keep their conduct codes in non-compliance with the case law, despite "often [getting] shot down hard in court," which inevitably leads to more cases and more negative PR. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If a school code gets shot down in court, the court will order the school to change it. The school will do so, not only b/c to do otherwise would be contempt, but also because it hates bad PR so much. Other schools (who also, presumably, are "PR whores") will see this new case law and change their codes accordingly too. Schools don't just get to keep their practices and procedures in place after getting "shot down," TJ. THey have to change them. As a result, most school's internal judicial systems are in full compliance with fed/state con law requirements and the most current case law. Unless OP has a groundbreaking case, his school has the requisite evidence to hold a hearing for violation of a conduct code that had been vetted by attorneys, and OP will lose.