Lynch has appealed suspension, but potentially long process may end his Gopher career

I’ll break this down simpler for you. If milk gets spilled on the floor, and 3 of your children say that the fourth child did it. They have no motivation to lie because they know if they are found out, they’ll be scrutinized.
At the end of the day, you know that your child probably spilled the milk. You didn’t see it, but it was probably them, so you make them clean it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That might be true...unless the children are anonymous. In this case it's all anonymous hearsay being tried in the court of public opinion. Not really a just system now is it.
 

It is detestable if Lynch is doing any of this. A secret court where nobody else sees the evidence is equally detestable. Especially when there is no possible way to exonerate yourself once publicly accused. Both are consistent views to have at the same time.

My conclusion, not having any information from their kangaroo court is that nobody is worried about illegal activity. This really only leaves the following possibility - that they believe that he is preying on drunk young ladies who put themselves in compromising situations. Probably a lot of guys that would fit this description on a campus of 50k - Lynch, as a high profile athlete, really could not get away with it. If I am the coach (and as a father of college age kids with one at the U) he should be off the team for this activity as soon as it becomes known. Does not sound like Lynch is healthy and needs help.

At this point the truth really doesn't really matter, what's done is done: college basketball career ended, off team, no degree, future prospects for employment limited, public name disgraced, family name disgraced, team impacted, family impacted. Alot of power to be left in the hands of a State Administrator with all the evidence and accusers remaining private but with the damage being in public. Just make it all transparent. The state administrators should be willing to put their own name on the line, their own career if necessary.
 

It is detestable if Lynch is doing any of this. A secret court where nobody else sees the evidence is equally detestable. Especially when there is no possible way to exonerate yourself once publicly accused. Both are consistent views to have at the same time.

My conclusion, not having any information from their kangaroo court is that nobody is worried about illegal activity. This really only leaves the following possibility - that they believe that he is preying on drunk young ladies who put themselves in compromising situations. Probably a lot of guys that would fit this description on a campus of 50k - Lynch, as a high profile athlete, really could not get away with it. If I am the coach (and as a father of college age kids with one at the U) he should be off the team for this activity as soon as it becomes known. Does not sound like Lynch is healthy and needs help.

At this point the truth really doesn't really matter, what's done is done: college basketball career ended, off team, no degree, future prospects for employment limited, public name disgraced, family name disgraced, team impacted, family impacted. Alot of power to be left in the hands of a State Administrator with all the evidence and accusers remaining private but with the damage being in public. Just make it all transparent. The state administrators should be willing to put their own name on the line, their own career if necessary.
This would be a good start. Sadly, the court of public opinion has been relentless without being fair to all sides.
 

It acts NOTHING like a civil court. In a civil court you have discovery. Where you can demand documents, conduct depositions, challenge evidence, etc., etc., etc..

The only similarity is that they have a lower threshold of proof. Of course, in Civil Court the defendent has FAR more rights granted to them to try and establish that proof is not there.

In fact, if it DID actually act more like a civil court, many of the due process concerns would go away, just like it worked out in the OJ trial. But this is classic hysteria: "But it's SEXUAL ASSAULT! <Gasp> We gotta do SOMETHING!!!"

OJ almost certainly gets away with freaking murder, and no one starts suggesting that we need to create a new new adjudication process. Child molesters get away with crimes in court and no one says, "It's so hard prove, we need another system where it's easier to punish them", but Sexual Assault of White Women? We gotta run around with hair on fire, screaming, waving hands in air and throw all those formerly liberal principles that protect the accused (both criminal and civil) out the window.

I'll leave it to Ryan Pacyga to question the process and help ensure due process was maintained. We agree that due process is important.

The U has a code of conduct that is meant to protect the university, staff, and students. The U has every right to kick someone off the campus and out of the school if the code is violated.

Outside of that... OJ was guilty in a civil trial, and I do not know (nor do I care) the race of the victims, so I'm having a hard time following your rant.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 

It is detestable if Lynch is doing any of this. A secret court where nobody else sees the evidence is equally detestable. Especially when there is no possible way to exonerate yourself once publicly accused. Both are consistent views to have at the same time.

My conclusion, not having any information from their kangaroo court is that nobody is worried about illegal activity. This really only leaves the following possibility - that they believe that he is preying on drunk young ladies who put themselves in compromising situations. Probably a lot of guys that would fit this description on a campus of 50k - Lynch, as a high profile athlete, really could not get away with it. If I am the coach (and as a father of college age kids with one at the U) he should be off the team for this activity as soon as it becomes known. Does not sound like Lynch is healthy and needs help.

At this point the truth really doesn't really matter, what's done is done: college basketball career ended, off team, no degree, future prospects for employment limited, public name disgraced, family name disgraced, team impacted, family impacted. Alot of power to be left in the hands of a State Administrator with all the evidence and accusers remaining private but with the damage being in public. Just make it all transparent. The state administrators should be willing to put their own name on the line, their own career if necessary.

This point of (supposed) student privacy may be my biggest disappointment with the system. The administration keeps harping about protecting student privacy, yet only the fine details are private. The accused is being dragged through the public court of opinion with a permanent negative impact regardless of the official final outcome. If I could choose just ONE thing to change in the process, it would be to have much better privacy protections for the accused; equal to those of the accusers. If the in-house investigative part of the process is going to be performed behind closed doors, then NONE of process should be publicized until it's completely finished including any appeals.

As a fan and alum, this (repeated) stuff simply makes me sad. Sad in my diminishing hope for seeing major men’s sports thrive at the UofMN (basketball & football) in this environment...but that's a different thread.
 


This point of (supposed) student privacy may be my biggest disappointment with the system. The administration keeps harping about protecting student privacy, yet only the fine details are private. The accused is being dragged through the public court of opinion with a permanent negative impact regardless of the official final outcome. If I could choose just ONE thing to change in the process, it would be to have much better privacy protections for the accused; equal to those of the accusers. If the in-house investigative part of the process is going to be performed behind closed doors, then NONE of process should be publicized until it's completely finished including any appeals.

As a fan and alum, this (repeated) stuff simply makes me sad. Sad in my diminishing hope for seeing major men’s sports thrive at the UofMN (basketball & football) in this environment...but that's a different thread.

It seems, when it comes to athletes, there are more leaks than at the White House.
 

for Cruze: yes, the EOAA has a stated process and procedures. No one is questioning that. But words on a page are one thing. In real life, the process is carried out by people, and some of us are concerned that the people carrying out this process have some pre-conceived biases: IF, and I say IF you are investigating a complaint, and you go into that investigation with the belief or feeling that female accusers are more likely to be telling the truth, and male alleged perpetrators are more likely to be guilty, then is that a fair and unbiased investigation?

I want a system where no one is putting a thumb on the scale.

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. I'm suggesting that, in their zeal to protect women, the EOAA may be unconsciously weighting their investigations in favor of female accusers and against alleged male perpetrators.

and, in this particular case, the point may be moot, because Lynch is really looking bad and I see no way he ever wears a Gopher uniform again. So, he may not be the best case for anyone who has issues with the EOAA.
 

I'll leave it to Ryan Pacyga to question the process and help ensure due process was maintained. We agree that due process is important.

The U has a code of conduct that is meant to protect the university, staff, and students. The U has every right to kick someone off the campus and out of the school if the code is violated.

Outside of that... OJ was guilty in a civil trial, and I do not know (nor do I care) the race of the victims, so I'm having a hard time following your rant.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk

Rant? Sorry if I frightened you. I'll try to be more delicate. Since you are having a hard time following, I'll spell it out.

You suggested that this is somehow, "like a civil trial". I pointed out it is not remotely like a civil trial. I chose OJ as an analogy because that is a case where the criminal process was not able to secure a guilty verdict, but the civil process was able to generate a positive result for the victim's families while still maintaining the due process protections that the EOAA process denies. Since you're having a hard time following, I'll hit you over the head with it: Reggie Lynch was not prosecuted in the legal system, but the OJ experience tells us that remedies can still be had under a 'preponderance of evidence' standard while still granting substantial due process protection.

I fully understand the University is not under any constitutional requirement to grant these due process protections, but that is a mealy-mouthed argument. Due process is not part of the court system because it was dictated so in the ten commandments. Our legal system guarantees the right to face accusers, jury of peers, etc., because they are good ideas. We also require that records of court proceedings are kept, but it would be absurd to suggest that, say, journalists don't need to bother making records of interviews because, hey, that's 'a court thing'. Keeping records is simply a good idea on its own merits.

So honest question, what's the justification for excluding those good ideas here? Why is it somehow in the interest of justice to allow OJ's lawyers to subject the family members of murder victims to emotionally stressful depositions, but sexual assault victims need to be shielded? Why is it a good idea that OJ's lawyers were able to perform voir dire in selecting a jury, but in an EOAA proceeding you are stuck with the panel they self-selected? Etc., etc., etc.

No, the University is not obligated to provide these things. The point is they should simply because they are good ideas in such serious circumstances. However, our hysteria has led to an environment, where universally held good ideas can be overlooked because sexual assault. The notion that "sure, due process is important unless of course the issue is really bad" should be frightening to everyone.

Regarding the racial aspect, since you seem (willfully?) ignorant of this dynamic, I'll leave you with this link to an article from the Atlantic titled "The Question of Race in Campus Sexual Assault Cases": https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...f-race-in-campus-sexual-assault-cases/539361/
 

You suggested that this is somehow, "like a civil trial". I pointed out it is not remotely like a civil trial. I chose OJ as an analogy because that is a case where the criminal process was not able to secure a guilty verdict, but the civil process was able to generate a positive result for the victim's families while still maintaining the due process protections that the EOAA process denies. Since you're having a hard time following, I'll hit you over the head with it: Reggie Lynch was not prosecuted in the legal system, but the OJ experience tells us that remedies can still be had under a 'preponderance of evidence' standard while still granting substantial due process protection.

I fully understand the University is not under any constitutional requirement to grant these due process protections, but that is a mealy-mouthed argument. Due process is not part of the court system because it was dictated so in the ten commandments. Our legal system guarantees the right to face accusers, jury of peers, etc., because they are good ideas. We also require that records of court proceedings are kept, but it would be absurd to suggest that, say, journalists don't need to bother making records of interviews because, hey, that's 'a court thing'. Keeping records is simply a good idea on its own merits.

So honest question, what's the justification for excluding those good ideas here? Why is it somehow in the interest of justice to allow OJ's lawyers to subject the family members of murder victims to emotionally stressful depositions, but sexual assault victims need to be shielded? Why is it a good idea that OJ's lawyers were able to perform voir dire in selecting a jury, but in an EOAA proceeding you are stuck with the panel they self-selected? Etc., etc., etc.

No, the University is not obligated to provide these things. The point is they should simply because they are good ideas in such serious circumstances. However, our hysteria has led to an environment, where universally held good ideas can be overlooked because sexual assault. The notion that "sure, due process is important unless of course the issue is really bad" should be frightening to everyone.
]

I think this is spot on. Well written.
 



I’ll break this down simpler for you. If milk gets spilled on the floor, and 3 of your children say that the fourth child did it. They have no motivation to lie because they know if they are found out, they’ll be scrutinized.
At the end of the day, you know that your child probably spilled the milk. You didn’t see it, but it was probably them, so you make them clean it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m sorry but that is a laughable analogy.
 


Rant? Sorry if I frightened you. I'll try to be more delicate. Since you are having a hard time following, I'll spell it out.

You suggested that this is somehow, "like a civil trial". I pointed out it is not remotely like a civil trial. I chose OJ as an analogy because that is a case where the criminal process was not able to secure a guilty verdict, but the civil process was able to generate a positive result for the victim's families while still maintaining the due process protections that the EOAA process denies. Since you're having a hard time following, I'll hit you over the head with it: Reggie Lynch was not prosecuted in the legal system, but the OJ experience tells us that remedies can still be had under a 'preponderance of evidence' standard while still granting substantial due process protection.

I fully understand the University is not under any constitutional requirement to grant these due process protections, but that is a mealy-mouthed argument. Due process is not part of the court system because it was dictated so in the ten commandments. Our legal system guarantees the right to face accusers, jury of peers, etc., because they are good ideas. We also require that records of court proceedings are kept, but it would be absurd to suggest that, say, journalists don't need to bother making records of interviews because, hey, that's 'a court thing'. Keeping records is simply a good idea on its own merits.

So honest question, what's the justification for excluding those good ideas here? Why is it somehow in the interest of justice to allow OJ's lawyers to subject the family members of murder victims to emotionally stressful depositions, but sexual assault victims need to be shielded? Why is it a good idea that OJ's lawyers were able to perform voir dire in selecting a jury, but in an EOAA proceeding you are stuck with the panel they self-selected? Etc., etc., etc.

No, the University is not obligated to provide these things. The point is they should simply because they are good ideas in such serious circumstances. However, our hysteria has led to an environment, where universally held good ideas can be overlooked because sexual assault. The notion that "sure, due process is important unless of course the issue is really bad" should be frightening to everyone.

Regarding the racial aspect, since you seem (willfully?) ignorant of this dynamic, I'll leave you with this link to an article from the Atlantic titled "The Question of Race in Campus Sexual Assault Cases": https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...f-race-in-campus-sexual-assault-cases/539361/

Very well written.
 

Rant? Sorry if I frightened you. I'll try to be more delicate. Since you are having a hard time following, I'll spell it out.

You suggested that this is somehow, "like a civil trial". I pointed out it is not remotely like a civil trial. I chose OJ as an analogy because that is a case where the criminal process was not able to secure a guilty verdict, but the civil process was able to generate a positive result for the victim's families while still maintaining the due process protections that the EOAA process denies. Since you're having a hard time following, I'll hit you over the head with it: Reggie Lynch was not prosecuted in the legal system, but the OJ experience tells us that remedies can still be had under a 'preponderance of evidence' standard while still granting substantial due process protection.

I fully understand the University is not under any constitutional requirement to grant these due process protections, but that is a mealy-mouthed argument. Due process is not part of the court system because it was dictated so in the ten commandments. Our legal system guarantees the right to face accusers, jury of peers, etc., because they are good ideas. We also require that records of court proceedings are kept, but it would be absurd to suggest that, say, journalists don't need to bother making records of interviews because, hey, that's 'a court thing'. Keeping records is simply a good idea on its own merits.

So honest question, what's the justification for excluding those good ideas here? Why is it somehow in the interest of justice to allow OJ's lawyers to subject the family members of murder victims to emotionally stressful depositions, but sexual assault victims need to be shielded? Why is it a good idea that OJ's lawyers were able to perform voir dire in selecting a jury, but in an EOAA proceeding you are stuck with the panel they self-selected? Etc., etc., etc.

No, the University is not obligated to provide these things. The point is they should simply because they are good ideas in such serious circumstances. However, our hysteria has led to an environment, where universally held good ideas can be overlooked because sexual assault. The notion that "sure, due process is important unless of course the issue is really bad" should be frightening to everyone.

Regarding the racial aspect, since you seem (willfully?) ignorant of this dynamic, I'll leave you with this link to an article from the Atlantic titled "The Question of Race in Campus Sexual Assault Cases": https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...f-race-in-campus-sexual-assault-cases/539361/

You articulated your point better here. I was unclear on the analogy with the OJ trial.

My comparison to civil court was sloppy, but my basic gist is that the burden of proof is lower than criminal court. I made this analogy because some people think the process and thresholds should be equivalent to a criminal proceeding. In reality, I would say criminal court ought to be more rigorous than civil court, and civil court ought to be more rigorous than a process at the U.

Due process ought to be preserved in all proceedings. It sounds like the EOAA does maintain transcripts and the audio of interviews. It doesn't sound like you have the opportunity to face your accuser directly in this process. And while I believe that is a good step to help ensure due process, I'm not sure it is a prerequisite.

I'll leave those arguments to legal experts, which I am not, to reach a resolution on that question. We shouldn't have a process equivalent to a criminal case, nor should an accuser simply have to point a finger to get someone kicked off campus. It looks like the EOAA tries to strike a balance, but I understand the concern that it doesn't do enough. On the flip side, if you force sexual misconduct victims to face the accuser, I speculate you would see a noticeable drop in accusations - not because they didn't happen, but because the victim doesn't want the stress of seeing the perpetrator. In my mind, the goal is to get as many perpetrators out of the U.

I haven't heard of disparities in sexual misconduct allegations made against people of different races at universities. I'd agree that is another concern, and a strong argument for having stricter standards. It's a balancing act of important priorities, which is why it is such a contentious conversation.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 



That might be true...unless the children are anonymous. In this case it's all anonymous hearsay being tried in the court of public opinion. Not really a just system now is it.

You still don’t get the analogy? The children aren’t anonymous to the parent and the girl isn’t anonymous to the EOAA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

....... I'll leave you with this link to an article from the Atlantic titled "The Question of Race in Campus Sexual Assault Cases": https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...f-race-in-campus-sexual-assault-cases/539361/

Thank you for the article link. It made several good points. I thought this quote describes the problem well:

"Another Ivy League law professor who has been involved in sexual-assault policy said to me of the issue of race, “Nobody wants to talk about it.” He said students are pushing their boundaries and that many hook up with a partner of a different ethnicity for the first time. But then, “if there is any kind of perceived injury—emotional or physical—when you cross racial lines, there’s likely to be more animus. It needs to be talked about and hasn’t been.” The professor requested anonymity, citing the difficulties of publicly discussing the subject."

The article also mentions several lawsuits against schools (from the accused men) involving the racial component. I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see lawsuits here as well given the current trend.
 

Once Pacyga brought up the Japanese internment camps, it shows that he has neither the facts nor evidence on his side.

If you have the facts, pound the facts.
If you have the evidence, pound the evidence.
If you have neither, pound the table.

That is what Pacyga did.
 

Once Pacyga brought up the Japanese internment camps, it shows that he has neither the facts nor evidence on his side.

If you have the facts, pound the facts.
If you have the evidence, pound the evidence.
If you have neither, pound the table.

That is what Pacyga did.

Solid assessment.
 

Solid assessment.

I agree with the Lynch attorney said. There should be a timeline set where accusations can be made. Do you remember what you were doing on Jan. 6, 2016? I don't. Why would Lynch be expected to remember? If the charges would have been filed two or three days, then Lynch would have a chance to refute the charges. But as we know, the ladies waited for 16 to 18 months to mention the charges. Plus, since the ladies are adults, why haven't their names been relaesed? Sounds like a guilty charge, no questions allowed.
 

Rant? Sorry if I frightened you. I'll try to be more delicate. Since you are having a hard time following, I'll spell it out.

You suggested that this is somehow, "like a civil trial". I pointed out it is not remotely like a civil trial. I chose OJ as an analogy because that is a case where the criminal process was not able to secure a guilty verdict, but the civil process was able to generate a positive result for the victim's families while still maintaining the due process protections that the EOAA process denies. Since you're having a hard time following, I'll hit you over the head with it: Reggie Lynch was not prosecuted in the legal system, but the OJ experience tells us that remedies can still be had under a 'preponderance of evidence' standard while still granting substantial due process protection.

I fully understand the University is not under any constitutional requirement to grant these due process protections, but that is a mealy-mouthed argument. Due process is not part of the court system because it was dictated so in the ten commandments. Our legal system guarantees the right to face accusers, jury of peers, etc., because they are good ideas. We also require that records of court proceedings are kept, but it would be absurd to suggest that, say, journalists don't need to bother making records of interviews because, hey, that's 'a court thing'. Keeping records is simply a good idea on its own merits.

So honest question, what's the justification for excluding those good ideas here? Why is it somehow in the interest of justice to allow OJ's lawyers to subject the family members of murder victims to emotionally stressful depositions, but sexual assault victims need to be shielded? Why is it a good idea that OJ's lawyers were able to perform voir dire in selecting a jury, but in an EOAA proceeding you are stuck with the panel they self-selected? Etc., etc., etc.

No, the University is not obligated to provide these things. The point is they should simply because they are good ideas in such serious circumstances. However, our hysteria has led to an environment, where universally held good ideas can be overlooked because sexual assault. The notion that "sure, due process is important unless of course the issue is really bad" should be frightening to everyone.

Regarding the racial aspect, since you seem (willfully?) ignorant of this dynamic, I'll leave you with this link to an article from the Atlantic titled "The Question of Race in Campus Sexual Assault Cases": https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...f-race-in-campus-sexual-assault-cases/539361/
Thank you for this articulate and well presented post. The article is excellent.
 

I agree with the Lynch attorney said. There should be a timeline set where accusations can be made. Do you remember what you were doing on Jan. 6, 2016? I don't. Why would Lynch be expected to remember? If the charges would have been filed two or three days, then Lynch would have a chance to refute the charges. But as we know, the ladies waited for 16 to 18 months to mention the charges. Plus, since the ladies are adults, why haven't their names been relaesed? Sounds like a guilty charge, no questions allowed.

You are too smart for these clowns.
 

Once Pacyga brought up the Japanese internment camps, it shows that he has neither the facts nor evidence on his side.

If you have the facts, pound the facts.
If you have the evidence, pound the evidence.
If you have neither, pound the table.

That is what Pacyga did.

Not siding with anyone here but he stated that Lynch was accused of something in the first half of 2016 that he says he did not do. What possible evidence were you expecting? Video evidence of every interaction ever had with a person of the opposite sex for the last 10 years?

Pacyga seems like a good attorney who was doing his job 25 hours in.
 

And organizations have rules that are not laws.NBC fired Lauer, no proven crime.

I believe he was fired for proven sexual harassment. There are printouts of email conversations between Lauer and at least one of the underlings that I’m aware of, and that’s enough to get anyone fired. The guy is a creep, along with Weinstein and some of the other guys that parlayed their power positions into their sex lives.

Lauer etc always has nothing to do with the fairness of the EOAA broadly, particularly when the issue often turns on made up terms like affirmative consent, or drunken behavior. I’m not defending Lynch here since it looks bad and we don’t have the privilege of the police reports etc to form basic thoughts as we did in the football case, but even Lynch deserves a fair, unbiased, and thorough hearing. Very likely he’s gone as the bar is very, very low and it sounds like that may be for the best.
 

I’ll break this down simpler for you. If milk gets spilled on the floor, and 3 of your children say that the fourth child did it. They have no motivation to lie because they know if they are found out, they’ll be scrutinized.
At the end of the day, you know that your child probably spilled the milk. You didn’t see it, but it was probably them, so you make them clean it up.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I wouldn't put the white liquid on the floor in Lynch's case on my Cornflakes.
 

Once Pacyga brought up the Japanese internment camps, it shows that he has neither the facts nor evidence on his side.

If you have the facts, pound the facts.
If you have the evidence, pound the evidence.
If you have neither, pound the table.

That is what Pacyga did.

What facts and evidence is he supposed to pound?

Pacyga’s entire point was that there are no facts and there is no evidence. He stated that the reports did not include any eyewitness testimony and no forensic or other evidence.

According to him, and he has actually seen the reports, the EOAA made their decision based solely on the accuser’s statements and Lynch’s statements. That is a flawed process.

Pacyga admitted that the analogy wasn’t perfect but I agree with his point that it is wrong for the government to deprive people of anything without an adequate opportunity to defend themselves.
 

In my experience around him, Ryan is a very good attorney. I think he suffered a bit from Coyle-itis during the press conference yesterday and probably should have waited a few days to review all of the material before holding a public forum. He did bring up something that could be interesting however. He alluded to possible collusion between the accusers early in his press conference (side note, when did Chad Graff from the PP become an editorialist? His reporting on the press conference is really hostile). One thing that the accusers have in common is Abby Honold, who from all appearances is the spokesperson for both of the accusers. I don't believe the Title IX process has any subpoena power, but I wonder if Ryan would seek communications between Abby and the accusers? That would probably be the only way to show possible collusion (especially if the initial accuser, where Reggie was cleared is involved) or at least raise the issue to a more provable level. However I seriously doubt that Ms. Honold would turn over any communications (as is her right without a subpoena and very much the smart thing to do) for this investigation.
 

In my experience around him, Ryan is a very good attorney. I think he suffered a bit from Coyle-itis during the press conference yesterday and probably should have waited a few days to review all of the material before holding a public forum. He did bring up something that could be interesting however. He alluded to possible collusion between the accusers early in his press conference (side note, when did Chad Graff from the PP become an editorialist? His reporting on the press conference is really hostile). One thing that the accusers have in common is Abby Honold, who from all appearances is the spokesperson for both of the accusers. I don't believe the Title IX process has any subpoena power, but I wonder if Ryan would seek communications between Abby and the accusers? That would probably be the only way to show possible collusion (especially if the initial accuser, where Reggie was cleared is involved) or at least raise the issue to a more provable level. However I seriously doubt that Ms. Honold would turn over any communications (as is her right without a subpoena and very much the smart thing to do) for this investigation.

Yea, he seems like he's pretty good. And I won't fault him for doing what he has to do to defend his client. Sometimes lawyers have to say things that make people uncomfortable, especially in cases like this.

But in terms of making an accusation like collusion, or at least implying it (can't remember exactly what he said, but he definitely alluded to it), that is a really slippery slope. If he seriously thinks that is what happened he could sue the accusers in civil court in which case he would be allowed to obtain communication between them via discovery. But that is going down a whole different rabbit hole, and I don't think he would do it.
 

What facts and evidence is he supposed to pound?

Pacyga’s entire point was that there are no facts and there is no evidence. He stated that the reports did not include any eyewitness testimony and no forensic or other evidence.

According to him, and he has actually seen the reports, the EOAA made their decision based solely on the accuser’s statements and Lynch’s statements. That is a flawed process.

Pacyga admitted that the analogy wasn’t perfect but I agree with his point that it is wrong for the government to deprive people of anything without an adequate opportunity to defend themselves.

You are exactly right and that is why Lynch is going to be given a hearing before the Campus Committee on Student Behavior (CCSB). Pacyga will be representing Lynch in that hearing and he will be able to challenge all of the evidence in the EOAA Reprt. Although the EOAA investigated and cleared Lynch once before this time they determined it is more likely than not that the alleged victim is telling the truth and Reggie is lying. None of us have read the report so we don't know the reasoning the EOAA used to make their determination. However, it should go without saying, as Reggie's attorney Pacyga's characterization of the EOAA Report cannot be relied upon as an unbiased assessment of the EOAA"s evidence and rationale for their recommendation.

The U is just following their long established student disciplinary procedures which have been determined to be as fair and balanced as any student code of conduct procedures in the country. After all, they did work for the U football players who won their appeals last year. Colleges and universities have used code of conduct procedures to govern student behavior since the founding of the country. That is not likely to change any time soon. Until it does that is all they have to help them maintain order and safety on their campuses

The Student Behavior Committee is the central judiciary body for the Twin Cities Campus in all cases involving violations of the University's Student Conduct Code by individual students and as the primary judiciary body for the Twin Cities Campus in all cases involving violations of University rules and policies by student organizations under the jurisdiction of the Student Activities Office.

The Student Behavior Committee shall be composed of:

at least 12 faculty/academic professional members,
at least 10 students, and
ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Twin Cities Delegation.

Members shall be appointed by the Committee on Committees. The chair of the committee shall be a tenured faculty member.

Duties and Responsibilities

a. To serve as the central judiciary body for the Twin Cities Campus in all cases involving violations of the University's Student Conduct Code by individual students.

b. To serve as the primary judiciary body for the Twin Cities Campus in all cases involving violations of University rules and policies by student organizations under the jurisdiction of the Student Activities Office.

c. To hold hearings in accordance with procedures specified in the University's Student Conduct Code and procedures adopted by the committee and approved by the Student Affairs Committee.

d. To recommend to the Senate Consultative Committee such actions or policies as it deems appropriate.

http://usenate.umn.edu/committees/student-behavior-committee-ccsb
 

You are exactly right and that is why Lynch is going to be given a hearing before the Campus Committee on Student Behavior (CCSB). Pacyga will be representing Lynch in that hearing and he will be able to challenge all of the evidence in the EOAA Reprt. Although the EOAA investigated and cleared Lynch once before this time they determined it is more likely than not that the alleged victim is telling the truth and Reggie is lying. None of us have read the report so we don't know the reasoning the EOAA used to make their determination. However, it should go without saying, as Reggie's attorney Pacyga's characterization of the EOAA Report cannot be relied upon as an unbiased assessment of the EOAA"s evidence and rationale for their recommendation.

The U is just following their long established student disciplinary procedures which have been determined to be as fair and balanced as any student code of conduct procedures in the country. After all, they did work for the U football players who won their appeals last year. Colleges and universities have used code of conduct procedures to govern student behavior since the founding of the country. That is not likely to change any time soon. Until it does that is all they have to help them maintain order and safety on their campuses

The Student Behavior Committee is the central judiciary body for the Twin Cities Campus in all cases involving violations of the University's Student Conduct Code by individual students and as the primary judiciary body for the Twin Cities Campus in all cases involving violations of University rules and policies by student organizations under the jurisdiction of the Student Activities Office.

The Student Behavior Committee shall be composed of:

at least 12 faculty/academic professional members,
at least 10 students, and
ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Twin Cities Delegation.

Members shall be appointed by the Committee on Committees. The chair of the committee shall be a tenured faculty member.

Duties and Responsibilities

a. To serve as the central judiciary body for the Twin Cities Campus in all cases involving violations of the University's Student Conduct Code by individual students.

b. To serve as the primary judiciary body for the Twin Cities Campus in all cases involving violations of University rules and policies by student organizations under the jurisdiction of the Student Activities Office.

c. To hold hearings in accordance with procedures specified in the University's Student Conduct Code and procedures adopted by the committee and approved by the Student Affairs Committee.

d. To recommend to the Senate Consultative Committee such actions or policies as it deems appropriate.

http://usenate.umn.edu/committees/student-behavior-committee-ccsb

He's appealing to the Student Sexual Misconduct Subcommittee (SSMS)
 

Accusations are nothing.

It isn't ok to publicly ruin someone's life because of non-criminal accusations and findings determined by a flawed kangaroo court.

It is rather scary that so many of you are ok with saying, "well, this person's life is ruined because some people say he did something, and that's ok because school bureaucrats are allowed to slime you in a way that government prosecutors cannot."

Some of you need to get your heads examined.

They won't care until it happens to one of them or a friend of theirs. The "it" here may or may not even be a sexual allegation in the future, it could be any violation in speech or act that the mob deems punishable by society. Such violations might fall under "hate crimes" or an accusation of some form of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. We are in an age where the same people who have proposed that there be no moral code for society have now decided that they will impose their own code of moral laws and administer punishment that would not and could not be given in a court of law. Reggie might be guilty for all I know, but this is not how our society is supposed to work. We are on a slippery slope away from justice and towards kangaroo court systems.
 

I agree with the Lynch attorney said. There should be a timeline set where accusations can be made. Do you remember what you were doing on Jan. 6, 2016? I don't. Why would Lynch be expected to remember? If the charges would have been filed two or three days, then Lynch would have a chance to refute the charges. But as we know, the ladies waited for 16 to 18 months to mention the charges. Plus, since the ladies are adults, why haven't their names been relaesed? Sounds like a guilty charge, no questions allowed.

One big problem with the delay is that Pacyga implied there was contemporaneous evidence that would have helped Lynch’s defense (perhaps texts or vm some other communication that isn’t necessarily preserved once deleted), and that evidence is now gone due to the passage of time.

Also, it’s not just what you remember about yourself; other witnesses also have fading memory. Do your buddies know where you were on Jan. 6, 2016? Do they remember what you said about that one chick?
 




Top Bottom