Kicker Boermeester suing USC over expulsion

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
23,467
Reaction score
13,194
Points
113

I’m going to self-disqualify in this argument by mentioning the regime but the new campus See It Report It culture reminds of Hitler Youth being brainwashed to turn in their less than perfectly compliant parents.

I’m not saying it’s right or something I would do but I know some couples that love to fight and push and shove. It’s bizarre but some people love drama and if it works for them...? Not always the male either.
 





And yet a daughter of some rich parents who underhandedly got into this same university goes grudgingly to class [almost] every day. What a weird school this USC must be.
 

From the article "What happened to Matt Boermeester at USC should terrify anyone who believes in the right to due process and innocent-until-proven-guilty," Miltenberg said. "Based on nothing more than a third-party report by a non-witness -- essentially a rumor that was easily and repeatedly disputed -- a star athlete lost his education and his future career in the NFL.


A 3rd party report, no due process. That's crazy.
 

From the article "What happened to Matt Boermeester at USC should terrify anyone who believes in the right to due process and innocent-until-proven-guilty," Miltenberg said. "Based on nothing more than a third-party report by a non-witness -- essentially a rumor that was easily and repeatedly disputed -- a star athlete lost his education and his future career in the NFL.


A 3rd party report, no due process. That's crazy.

Some issues are too important to let the truth deflect from them.
 




USC initiated an investigation into the incident involving Boermeester and his girlfriend, former USC tennis player Zoe Katz, after a USC student told his roommate he saw a physical altercation between the couple out his window late one night. The roommate told his father, USC men's tennis coach Peter Smith, about the incident and Smith reported what he was told to the school, as required by law.
 

USC initiated an investigation into the incident involving Boermeester and his girlfriend, former USC tennis player Zoe Katz, after a USC student told his roommate he saw a physical altercation between the couple out his window late one night. The roommate told his father, USC men's tennis coach Peter Smith, about the incident and Smith reported what he was told to the school, as required by law.

The issue wasn't they started the investigation. The issue is that once the girlfriend said nothing happened and we were goofing around, the investigation should have stopped.
 

The issue wasn't they started the investigation. The issue is that once the girlfriend said nothing happened and we were goofing around, the investigation should have stopped.

Hey a scalp is a scalp. Don't much matter if it was true or not, when you are going crusading.
 

They followed the process.
This isn’t a court of law.
Other drum beating Cruze would say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 




This case seem to show how the process can be so wrong. Where is the due process of any kind without a police conviction? You can be convicted without a crime by third party information. This isn't the Soviet Era. It is happening here.
 

The counter to this is a blanket dismissal by activists and their minions that the girlfriend has Stockholm Syndrone and battered wife syndrome. Yes, that’s possible but one would think to consider the total body of evidence at a university.

It seems the LA Superior Court Judge did consider the total body of evidence in making the final ruling in this case. The girlfriend initially confirmed the assault happened but then she tried to withdraw her statement months later.

The judge didn't buy the change in her story:

“We are pleased that the court recognized that there was substantial evidence supporting the university’s findings and actions,” the university said in a statement.

A tentative ruling issued by [Judge] Hogue in January was to deny Boermeester’s bid to enroll in classes this semester. It was made one year and one day to the date of Boermeester’s winning field goal for USC in its dramatic victory over Penn State in the 2017 Rose Bowl game.

[Judge] Hogue in her tentative ruling cited initial statements Katz [Boermeester's girlfriend] made to Title IX officials during a months-long investigation.

In USC’s response to Boermeester’s petition, filed last August, it asserted that Katz [the girlfriend] described abuse as part of an ” ‘on and off’ again relationship” with Boermeester, in addition to confirming an alleged altercation outside her off-campus residence in late January 2017 that set off the investigation. Boermeester was suspended from school soon after it was reported to the Title IX Office.

After his expulsion, Katz [the girlfriend] said in a statement released to several media outlets that she had not been “abused, assaulted or otherwise mistreated by Matt.”

[Judge] Hogue said she gave “greater weight to the first statement.”

“The university had no obligation to disregard the initial statement and accept what she said months later,” [Judge] Hogue added when issuing her tentative ruling.

Read complete article at: https://www.dailynews.com/2018/03/2...matt-boermeesters-bid-to-re-enroll-at-school/
 
Last edited:

Funny how quickly "believe all women" changed to "believe women only when they are saying what we want to hear". The way people are supporting her is by telling her she is wrong and that they know what happened to her better than she does?
 

From the story

Hathaway, the attorney for Boermeester, said security camera footage disputes the university’s account of the incident from January 2017. It has not been released.

The woman and the roommate made initial statements and she later retracted it. You can’t think of a single reason other than battered woman syndrome? My statement still stands and is confirmed.
 
Last edited:

Funny how quickly "believe all women" changed to "believe women only when they are saying what we want to hear". The way people are supporting her is by telling her she is wrong and that they know what happened to her better than she does?

I think it is an inherent problem with have a University department with folks who are advocates for a cause (not a bad one), but also pseudo law makers, pseudo law enforcement, pseudo judge, pseudo jury. All of that really leads to bad places.
 

So, for all you "the system is wrong folks", let me ask a question. The story states that the University is willing to release all the information if they receive permission from Boermeester and Katz. If what they say is true and he's simply being punished for being male, then why not ask the University to release it? My guess is they know it would be damning. I'd bet a lot of money the video doesn't show them playfully throwing fries at each other.

This is one of the major problems with these type of investigations. Because the school is limited in what they can say and what they can release, the person accused can come out and say anything and the University can't really refute it.

I don't know what happened that night. I wasn't there, and neither was anyone on this board. We also don't know what actual evidence there is, other than the word of someone who potentially has an incentive to mislead making a statement saying he's a victim.

I get this one seems odd when it's some random dude looking out his window telling his roommate who tells his dad, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence to back it up. Or that the end result was wrong.
 

So, for all you "the system is wrong folks", let me ask a question. The story states that the University is willing to release all the information if they receive permission from Boermeester and Katz. If what they say is true and he's simply being punished for being male, then why not ask the University to release it? My guess is they know it would be damning. I'd bet a lot of money the video doesn't show them playfully throwing fries at each other.

This is one of the major problems with these type of investigations. Because the school is limited in what they can say and what they can release, the person accused can come out and say anything and the University can't really refute it.

I don't know what happened that night. I wasn't there, and neither was anyone on this board. We also don't know what actual evidence there is, other than the word of someone who potentially has an incentive to mislead making a statement saying he's a victim.

I get this one seems odd when it's some random dude looking out his window telling his roommate who tells his dad, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence to back it up. Or that the end result was wrong.

There are lots of reasons why they might not want it released. An investigation into anyone's relationship could include information, though not related to the incident, is embarrassing, unflattering, or just very personal.

It seems strange that you admit that you weren't there, we weren't there and the neither were the investigators and the solution to this answer is not to believe the two parties to the incident, who actually were there?
 

So, for all you "the system is wrong folks", let me ask a question. The story states that the University is willing to release all the information if they receive permission from Boermeester and Katz. If what they say is true and he's simply being punished for being male, then why not ask the University to release it? My guess is they know it would be damning. I'd bet a lot of money the video doesn't show them playfully throwing fries at each other.

This is one of the major problems with these type of investigations. Because the school is limited in what they can say and what they can release, the person accused can come out and say anything and the University can't really refute it.

I don't know what happened that night. I wasn't there, and neither was anyone on this board. We also don't know what actual evidence there is, other than the word of someone who potentially has an incentive to mislead making a statement saying he's a victim.

I get this one seems odd when it's some random dude looking out his window telling his roommate who tells his dad, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence to back it up. Or that the end result was wrong.

I can imagine not wanting unfounded allegations released, particularly if you think they are false and the folks writing the report / information aren't making good choices. Does anyone want "USC investigators concluded that X" if they really are willing to draw conclusions based on third party's? Maybe they know of something he really did that was bad, or a whole slew of third party rumors that are still.... third party. Even if you think they're wrong we live in a world where just the accusation can impact you, the end results of allowing the school to talk (they've got a big megaphone) may be worse.

Also this applies to the person the school thinks is the victim too.... so if the victim doesn't want it, what are you even talking about, the university being happy to call out a victim?

I think there is a real risk in making decisions on behalf of an adult victim, without their permission. People looking for solutions to problems with unwilling adult victims throw a lot of power to orgnizations who have no involvement / understanding, it's just so easy to step into the absurd that way.

If we really think she's a victim, nothing will ever be solved unless she's willing to do something anyway. Right or wrong, that's how it works.
 

So, for all you "the system is wrong folks", let me ask a question. The story states that the University is willing to release all the information if they receive permission from Boermeester and Katz. If what they say is true and he's simply being punished for being male, then why not ask the University to release it? My guess is they know it would be damning. I'd bet a lot of money the video doesn't show them playfully throwing fries at each other.

This is one of the major problems with these type of investigations. Because the school is limited in what they can say and what they can release, the person accused can come out and say anything and the University can't really refute it.

I don't know what happened that night. I wasn't there, and neither was anyone on this board. We also don't know what actual evidence there is, other than the word of someone who potentially has an incentive to mislead making a statement saying he's a victim.

I get this one seems odd when it's some random dude looking out his window telling his roommate who tells his dad, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence to back it up. Or that the end result was wrong.

Do we know that they haven’t (asked for it)?

One of the major issues with these tribunals is the lack of subpoena power, very limited discovery, and the intentional withholding of relevant information by the school to help bolster their case.

The video may yet see the light of day once the real legal system digs its claws in.
 

There are lots of reasons why they might not want it released. An investigation into anyone's relationship could include information, though not related to the incident, is embarrassing, unflattering, or just very personal.

It seems strange that you admit that you weren't there, we weren't there and the neither were the investigators and the solution to this answer is not to believe the two parties to the incident, who actually were there?

I didn't say I didn't believe them. I said he "potentially has an incentive to mislead". Potentially means he might or might not. My point is several people lock, stock and barrel believed his statement with zero evidence. Maybe he was innocent. I hope he was! It means an incidence of domestic violence didn't happen, which is good. All I'm saying is how about at least consider the fact he might not be telling the truth before you start crusading.

I can imagine not wanting unfounded allegations released, particularly if you think they are false and the folks writing the report / information aren't making good choices. Does anyone want "USC investigators concluded that X" if they really are willing to draw conclusions based on third party's? Maybe they know of something he really did that was bad, or a whole slew of third party rumors that are still.... third party. Even if you think they're wrong we live in a world where just the accusation can impact you, the end results of allowing the school to talk (they've got a big megaphone) may be worse.

Also this applies to the person the school thinks is the victim too.... so if the victim doesn't want it, what are you even talking about, the university being happy to call out a victim?

I think there is a real risk in making decisions on behalf of an adult victim, without their permission. People looking for solutions to problems with unwilling adult victims throw a lot of power to orgnizations who have no involvement / understanding, it's just so easy to step into the absurd that way.

If we really think she's a victim, nothing will ever be solved unless she's willing to do something anyway. Right or wrong, that's how it works.

But the video would speak for itself, no? I mean, if 50 people say he choked her and the video shows them playfully throwing fries at each other...

As to pursuing without her will, that's pretty much the standard in domestic violence cases. Too many people get caught in situations where they are scared to make a claim because of the potential fallout if it doesn't stick. Warren Moon got prosecuted when he was with the Vikings even though his wife didn't want it to proceed. Not saying it's right or wrong, just it is what it is.

To your last point, unfortunately you are correct, assuming it doesn't end with him in jail or her 6 feet under.

Do we know that they haven’t (asked for it)?

One of the major issues with these tribunals is the lack of subpoena power, very limited discovery, and the intentional withholding of relevant information by the school to help bolster their case.

The video may yet see the light of day once the real legal system digs its claws in.

We don't know if he asked for it, I suppose, though if the University said they would and they haven't when asked, I would think that would come out.

Don't disagree with your issues, especially the withholding of info. Seemed like there was a lot of info in the Gophers' case that would have been relevant, but was not allowed. I do wonder if the video will ever surface (or if anyone will care by the time it does). The video(s) from the train never came out as far as I know.
 

It seems the LA Superior Court Judge did consider the total body of evidence in making the final ruling in this case. The girlfriend initially confirmed the assault happened but then she tried to withdraw her statement months later.

The judge didn't buy the change in her story:

“We are pleased that the court recognized that there was substantial evidence supporting the university’s findings and actions,” the university said in a statement.

A tentative ruling issued by [Judge] Hogue in January was to deny Boermeester’s bid to enroll in classes this semester. It was made one year and one day to the date of Boermeester’s winning field goal for USC in its dramatic victory over Penn State in the 2017 Rose Bowl game.

[Judge] Hogue in her tentative ruling cited initial statements Katz [Boermeester's girlfriend] made to Title IX officials during a months-long investigation.

In USC’s response to Boermeester’s petition, filed last August, it asserted that Katz [the girlfriend] described abuse as part of an ” ‘on and off’ again relationship” with Boermeester, in addition to confirming an alleged altercation outside her off-campus residence in late January 2017 that set off the investigation. Boermeester was suspended from school soon after it was reported to the Title IX Office.

After his expulsion, Katz [the girlfriend] said in a statement released to several media outlets that she had not been “abused, assaulted or otherwise mistreated by Matt.”

[Judge] Hogue said she gave “greater weight to the first statement.”

“The university had no obligation to disregard the initial statement and accept what she said months later,” [Judge] Hogue added when issuing her tentative ruling.

Read complete article at: https://www.dailynews.com/2018/03/2...matt-boermeesters-bid-to-re-enroll-at-school/

Remember when your other moniker was banned for disparaging the Gophers football team. You were posting under multiple monikers and propagating lies and misinformation to push your agenda.

We should ban this moniker of yours as well.
 




Top Bottom