Former N.F.L. Player Keith Mumphery, After Settling Lawsuit, Plots a Comeback

Waiting for Cruze......[emoji849]

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

CWCWCW said:

Waiting for Cruze......[emoji849]

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Well he doesn't check his email address so I'll just declare him WRONG and we can be done with him for now.

This section should send a chill through anyone who could be falsely accused:

It is difficult to overstate how stacked the decks are against the accused even when colleges adhere to proper Title IX procedure. Most colleges once required “clear and convincing” evidence that a student had committed a forbidden act. A few, such as Stanford University, applied the tougher criminal court standard of guilt as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

All of that changed in 2011 when the Education Department sent a “Dear colleague” letter to the thousands of schools that receive federal funds. Concerned that too many universities tended to shrug off terrible behavior as “kids will be kids,” this letter recommended that universities adopt a far looser standard of guilt known as “more likely than not.” Universities were urged to speed investigations and to stop giving defendants the right to cross-examine their accusers or to have lawyers present.

A trapdoor opened beneath the feet of the accused. I would argue that these changes completely upended concepts of fairness; the right to cross-examine an accuser, for instance, has been a bedrock constitutional protection.

Urbandale said:

This section should send a chill through anyone who could be falsely accused:

It is difficult to overstate how stacked the decks are against the accused even when colleges adhere to proper Title IX procedure. Most colleges once required “clear and convincing” evidence that a student had committed a forbidden act. A few, such as Stanford University, applied the tougher criminal court standard of guilt as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

All of that changed in 2011 when the Education Department sent a “Dear colleague” letter to the thousands of schools that receive federal funds. Concerned that too many universities tended to shrug off terrible behavior as “kids will be kids,” this letter recommended that universities adopt a far looser standard of guilt known as “more likely than not.” Universities were urged to speed investigations and to stop giving defendants the right to cross-examine their accusers or to have lawyers present.

A trapdoor opened beneath the feet of the accused. I would argue that these changes completely upended concepts of fairness; the right to cross-examine an accuser, for instance, has been a bedrock constitutional protection.

Click to expand...

A "more likely than not" standard absolutely shifts the burden to the accused. It was a grave injustice to all of the parties involved. If someone accuses someone of something, all of our natural reactions are to believe that person. Overcoming that belief is really difficult with a BARD standard, it's impossible with a "more likely than not" standard.

Urbandale said:

This section should send a chill through anyone who could be falsely accused:

It is difficult to overstate how stacked the decks are against the accused even when colleges adhere to proper Title IX procedure. Most colleges once required “clear and convincing” evidence that a student had committed a forbidden act. A few, such as Stanford University, applied the tougher criminal court standard of guilt as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

All of that changed in 2011 when the Education Department sent a “Dear colleague” letter to the thousands of schools that receive federal funds. Concerned that too many universities tended to shrug off terrible behavior as “kids will be kids,” this letter recommended that universities adopt a far looser standard of guilt known as “more likely than not.” Universities were urged to speed investigations and to stop giving defendants the right to cross-examine their accusers or to have lawyers present.

A trapdoor opened beneath the feet of the accused. I would argue that these changes completely upended concepts of fairness; the right to cross-examine an accuser, for instance, has been a bedrock constitutional protection.

Click to expand...

I thought the more telling quote was:

Twenty-eight members of the Harvard Law faculty signed an open letter in The Boston Globe that read: “Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation.”

Click to expand...

Title IX gets tossed around a lot but it's pretty clear that Title IX doesn't require kangaroo courts or even lower levels of burden of proof. The real situation is that there are people who want things to operate this way at these schools and Title IX is not going to change it.

CWCWCW said:

Waiting for Cruze......[emoji849]

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Or maybe G4L disputing this guy’s life was affected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hoping this guy gets a shot. Maybe he would be better than Treadwell who has not really produced at all.

Just last week a colleague and friend’s wife told my wife he had been falsely accused of sexual harassment a few weeks ago. This is one of the most straight arrow Boy Scout types you’ll ever meet, two kids. It turns out this millennial employee had been ruffling feathers in her middle management position, misstating others, spreading rumors, and generally underperforming. It’s the common belief this devious individual was/is laying the groundwork for a retaliation lawsuit in the event she was let go. To the company managements credit she was, just last Thursday despite the recent accusation.

I think with the advent of MeToo and activism in general leading to some people willing to believe anything in terms of accusations there is going to be an enabling of these types of incidents. Take care, guys. Video and audio evidence may save the day. In terms of my friend, enough people knew his character at the company (and knew of the woman’s faults) to save the day. That may not always be the case.