Last year, a male Indiana Wesleyan University student was accused of rape by a woman who was trying to get incomplete grades for her fall semester. On December 11, 2019, while making her claim and trying to change her grades, she said she had been tested for STDs and found out she was HIV-positive.
A note from IWU Associate Professor Anneke Stasson included in the Incident Reporting From said, “It makes me really worried to think that the guy who gave her HIV is still on this campus.”
Thus began an ordeal that violated the male accused student’s due process rights and expelled him from campus with allowing him to defend himself. The male student, referred to in court documents as John Doe, sued IWU and was granted expedited discovery for the case. During that discovery phase, John learned of his accuser’s (referred to as Jane Roe) HIV claim. John and his attorneys filed a request for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) to force IWU to contact Jane and verify whether her claim about being HIV-positive was true, because if it is, John is in serious risk.
John’s attorneys said they were unaware of Jane’s assertion until a few days before they filed the April 3 TRO request, even though IWU knew that it was possible that Jane had exposed John to HIV months before discovery.
“Despite requests by John’s counsel, IWU refuses to contact Jane to require her to verify her HIV status. Absent a temporary restraining order directing IWU to do so, John will be forced to break quarantine to seek medical testing, potentially exposing himself to the novel coronavirus. With a serious preexisting health condition, John is especially vulnerable and will face irreparable harm if forced to seek medical attention in the midst of a pandemic. IWU can avoid this by simply contacting Jane and requiring her to verify her HIV status,” wrote John’s attorneys, Susan Stone and Peter J. Agostino.
John’s TRO requests stated that IWU was well aware that John has an underlying medical condition that causes him seizures and puts him at risk for contracting the coronavirus and serious complications from HIV, yet he contends that IWU was more interested in showing they take sexual assault allegations seriously than the truth of those allegations or an accused student’s life.
After John’s attorneys contacted IWU’s attorneys to demand Jane prove her allegations about being HIV-positive in an effort to spare John from leaving quarantine and exposing himself to the coronavirus by going to a doctor to obtain an HIV test. An email from IWU’s attorney, Amanda Shelby, shows little regard for John’s concern and suggests he order an HIV test online, take it at home, and then send it in for analysis.
John’s attorneys contend this is a flippant disregard for his health, calling it “offensive and insensitive, particularly when this dilemma was created by IWU’s callous and deliberate indifference.”
“In this situation, every moment counts, and there is no time to wait for a test to arrive and then wait to receive results. Nor is it a reasonable alternative for John to seek in-person medical attention when doing so would potentially expose him to the coronavirus, an equally dangerous and life-threatening virus. The simple solution is for this Court to compel IWU to contact Jane immediately and require her to verify her HIV-status through medical documentation. Otherwise, IWU’s inaction will continue to place John at risk of imminent, irreparable, life-threatening harm,” John’s attorneys wrote.
The attorneys argue that the balance of harms and the public interest weigh in John’s favor, since there would be next to no harm for IWU to simply ask Jane to prove she tested positive for HIV. John, however, faces great risk in the midst of the coronavirus outbreak and as a medically compromised person to determine whether he is HIV positive and begin treatment.
John’s previous motion for a preliminary injunction resulted in a ruling that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his Title IX violation claims, basic fairness violations, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. John’s attorneys claim this new evidence makes it even more likely his lawsuit against IWU would succeed.
They write that John was “denied the chance to present a case, cross-examine witnesses, and full appeal rights.” Even though IWU dean Andrew Parker, who was the sole investigator and decisionmaker in John’s case, was aware of Jane’s HIV claim, he did not mention it to John when they spoke on December 12. Further, John contends IWU violated its own handbook by allowing “the highest levels of IWU leadership” to directly intervene in John’s case and “order that his request for a Case Appeal be denied.”
It appears IWU just took Jane’s allegations about HIV at face value, assuming from the start that John was HIV-positive – must know it – and knowingly infected Jane. Since John says he was not HIV-positive before his encounter with Jane, it brings up the possibility that a) Jane is lying about testing positive to further her claims in order to get leniency for failing her semester, b) someone else raped her, or c) she got HIV from someone else and is pinning it on John, knowingly or unknowingly. If she lied about being HIV-positive or that John was responsible, then her credibility is at stake – yet IWU didn’t attempt to confirm her claims.
John’s attorneys previously contended that John did not rape Jane, and that the process used to expel him for at least one year was biased and unfair. His attorneys previously wrote that the single investigator took just seven working days to find John responsible despite evidence he was innocent. Jane, the attorneys contended, also broke multiple campus rules and was never punished.
The two engaged in sexual activity that John insists was consensual, while Jane claims it was not. John told investigators that Jane’s body language, participation, and her following John to his bedroom and continuing the sexual activity indicated she did consent. Jane also claimed she told John “no” and to “stop,” but he says she never gave any indication she wanted the activity to cease. Jane also stayed with John in his dorm room talking after the encounter and then went to his roommate’s room to talk and was overheard laughing. At that time, she also texted John while he was in the other room. That night and the next day, Jane continued texting with John normally without any indication something was wrong. The two had hooked up prior to this encounter as well.
The report that found John responsible focused on the agreements between John and Jane – the fact that sexual activity took place – while omitting key information from John’s side of the story. IWU used its rule that consent cannot be assumed from silence, the lack of a “no,” or prior sexual history as its basis to expel John until Jane was no longer a student.
If what John says is true – that Jane willingly participated in the sexual activity – then it is further evidence that such consent rules are meaningless because any accuser can claim they were violated without having to provide evidence of such.

Woman in bed

She Claimed He Raped Her And Gave Her HIV. He Wasn’t HIV-Positive Before Their Encounter And Is Now Afraid For His Life.

Education

Sexual Assault

Title IX

On March 25, Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer for Joe Biden, made a disturbing accusation about her old boss. She claimed in a podcast episode with Katie Halper of Rolling Stone that then-Sen. Biden sexually assaulted her in a secluded area of the Capitol in 1993, pushing her against a wall, trying to kiss her and penetrating her with his fingers.
Like many accusers, Reade cannot prove this happened. The Biden campaign quickly denied it. &#8220;Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims,&#8221; deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said in a statement. &#8220;We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false.&#8221;
But are those obligated reporters rigorously vetting these claims? Are reporters pounding the pavement and incessantly droning on their cellphones over this? There&#8217;s no sign of any of that.
The networks haven&#8217;t said a single word about them &#8230; even as Biden did an hourlong town hall on CNN, interviews on NBC and MSNBC and then more interviews on CNN and MSNBC. So in the week after the allegations emerged, Biden was asked 55 questions but not one about this accusation. But NBC&#8217;s Chuck Todd asked Biden whether President Donald Trump has &#8220;blood on his hands&#8221; for his response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The networks clearly believe there should be a presumption of innocence, and that the mere launch of these charges can unfairly sully an image. The fact that this accusation emerged from a sketchy source like Rolling Stone underlines that. Journalists appear to be very sensitive &#8230; when the target is a Democrat. How can they fail to see the double standard?
This was not the standard for Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2018. The broadcast networks offered more than 300 minutes to several accusers who told wild stories of Kavanaugh&#8217;s sexual assaults during his teenage years that could not be proved in any way. Christine Blasey Ford couldn&#8217;t manage to offer a time or a place of her alleged assault — less information than Reade offered. But she instantly became a profile in courage, cemented as a &#8220;historic figure.&#8221;
During the hearings, the accusers were warmly embraced (metaphorically) by one Joe Biden. &#8220;For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you&#8217;ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she&#8217;s talking about is real,&#8221; he said.
There&#8217;s nothing on the Biden story on NPR — the proud purveyor of Anita Hill&#8217;s unproven accusations against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — and nothing on The New York Times. Two years ago, The Times somehow found space for a story that claimed Kavanaugh threw ice cubes at a man in a bar scuffle while attending Yale.
There&#8217;s no evidence of investigative journalism from The Washington Post, which first published Ford&#8217;s incredibly vague accusations. As Kavanaugh was being aggressively prosecuted and accusations arose about the Post cooperating with a Democratic plot to derail Kavanaugh, executive editor Martin Baron protested saying, &#8220;The conspiracy theories are pure nonsense.&#8221; As the late Wes Pruden used to say, there wasn&#8217;t a conspiracy, just a consensus.
In 2016, The Post was first to jump on the 2005 &#8220;Access Hollywood&#8221; tape in which Donald Trump assaulted no one but bragged about how he could assault women because he was a TV star. The paper waited about five hours before publishing the story. It seemed like the entire political elite — Republican and Democratic — was demanding Trump drop out of the presidential race immediately.
Where are all these people now that Biden is in the dock? Absent. Apathetic. Callously indifferent. Out to lunch, never to return? #MeToo dies in darkness.
Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Joe Biden

GRAHAM: The Kavanaugh Roasters Hide Biden’s Accuser

Brett Kavanaugh

Media Bias

Three Democrat senators are using the coronavirus pandemic to urge Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to delay providing college students their constitutional rights to due process.
Of course, that’s not how the senators worded <a href="https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/033120_LTRDeVosTitleIX%20v.2.pdf">their letter</a> to DeVos, sent Tuesday, but that is the gist of their argument since they are demanding DeVos delay new Title IX regulations that change the way schools across the country adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct. DeVos’ proposed rules would require schools to provide accused students the ability to properly defend themselves from allegations, a basic tenet of the justice system that has been absent in college Title IX tribunals.
Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) were the only three senators to sign the letter, saying that “while schools are grappling with how to maintain basic services for and supports to their students, it is wholly unacceptable for the Department to finalize a rule that fundamentally will change the landscape of how schools are required to respond to incidents of sexual harassment and assault, and we urge you to reconsider this misguided plan.”
“K-12 schools and institutions of higher education face unprecedented uncertainty about the end of this school year and the start of the next school year. The federal government should be doing everything possible to help them navigate these uncertain times. To ask K-12 schools and institutions of higher education to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that, as proposed, would force them to significantly alter how they handle allegations of sexual harassment and assault is reckless and inappropriate,” the senators continued. “We urge you not to release the final Title IX rule at this time and instead to focus on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic that is top of the mind for all students and families.”
The lack of due process rights have led to students (almost exclusively male students) finding themselves with only one option to clear their names and defend themselves: Sue their schools in a court of law. Unfortunately, many of the students accused do not have the financial means to file a lawsuit. Still, more than 600 lawsuits have been filed alleging Title IX violations by accused students since the Obama administration urged schools to find more students responsible.
In 2011, the Obama administration issued guidance that suggested schools needed to find more students responsible in order to show they were taking sexual misconduct seriously, while providing almost no due process rights for accused students. Women have since used Title IX to <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/university-of-colorado-settles-with-student-accused-of-sexual-assault">punish men</a> <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/11/allegheny-college-settles-student-peer-says-falsely-accused-assault-revenge-not-dating-girl-slept/">who rejected them</a>, avoid <a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/judge-rules-ohio-state-title-ix-official-can-be-personally-liable-for-helping-rape-accuser-lie/">getting kicked out of school</a>, or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-lied-about-being-raped-now-men-she-accused-are-ashe-schow">for sympathy</a>. To date, more than 200 court rulings have favored accused students and blasted schools for ignoring evidence that the male student was not guilty of what he was accused.
In response to the senators’ letters, criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield tweeted sarcastically: “To ask schools to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that would force them to [provide male students with minimal due process] is reckless and inappropriate.”
Samantha Harris, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, added: “These transparent efforts, from people who have made clear from the get-go that they will do anything they can to stop these regs from ever being implemented, are absurd. They are exploiting this crisis, plain and simple.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
These transparent efforts, from people who have made clear from the get-go that they will do anything they can to stop these regs from ever being implemented, are absurd. They are exploiting this crisis, plain and simple. <a href="https://t.co/v3T8JZBNHC">https://t.co/v3T8JZBNHC</a>
— Samantha Harris (@samk_harris) <a href="https://twitter.com/samk_harris/status/1245116948964429827?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 31, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1245112636305559552">H/t K.C. Johnson</a>

Warren

Three Democrats Use Coronavirus To Demand Delaying Due Process Rights For College Students

Elizabeth Warren

Kirsten Gillibrand

The University of Michigan is embroiled in <a href="https://www.michigandaily.com/section/community-affairs/university-neglects-numerous-sexual-misconduct-claims-against-famous-voice">a sex scandal</a> involving a prominent tenured opera professor who was accused by multiple men of sexual assault and harassment.
UM President Mark Schlissel <a href="https://www.michigandaily.com/section/administration/schlissel-interview-0">was asked</a> by reporters at student newspaper The Michigan Daily about the scandal. He claimed during the interview that he was “a huge believer in due process and allowing the accused to defend themselves, to see the evidence against themselves and allowing an investigation to be thorough and complete, and then going through each of the specified faculty policies and procedures when it comes to a disciplinary action that threatens the removal of tenure.”
His remarks on this run counter to how his school’s policies work for students accused of sexual misconduct.
In 2018, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Doe v. Baum that universities must allow some form of cross-examination during allegations of sexual misconduct when the case comes down to the credibility of one person or the other. This ruling pertained to nearly all campus sexual misconduct cases, which often involve no witnesses and are a he said/she said situation where one party (almost exclusively the man) says the sexual encounter was consensual and the other (almost exclusively the woman) says it was not.
Even with the ruling, schools under the 6th Circuit and across the country continue to deny due process rights to men accused of sexual misconduct out of fear that they will receive bad press and be sued by a female accuser who will have the full backing of the media and feminist movement behind her if she claims the school didn’t take her claims seriously. Taking claims “seriously” has resulted in schools automatically believing accusers and tilting the process against the accused no matter the evidence.
UM has been no different. After the Baum ruling, President Schlissel <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/ingrid-jacques/2020/03/27/jacques-university-michigan-cant-ignore-students-rights/2916115001/">said</a> the “6th Circuit got it wrong,” and defending the school’s unfair practices.
The case that led to the ruling involved a male and female student who met while drinking, had sex, and then recounted the night differently. The female student accused the male student of sexual assault, and since there were no witnesses to the actual event and no evidence for either side, the school found the male student “not responsible.” The school interviewed 23 witnesses who provided no clarity. Some confirmed the male student’s account that the accuser wasn’t drunk and others said she seemed drunk and that she was upset after the encounter.
Because college campuses allow either side to appeal – effectively allowing double jeopardy – the female student appealed and without any additional evidence provided, the school reversed its earlier decision and found the male student responsible. He sued the school, leading to the Sixth Circuit opinion.
UM did not change its ways after the Baum decision, leading to another ruling in Doe v. University of Michigan, which found the university was up to its anti-fairness ways. Criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield <a href="https://blog.simplejustice.us/2020/03/28/how-do-you-stop-a-problem-like-university-of-michigan/">wrote</a> on his blog Simple Justice that this isn’t surprising, given that court rulings are often ignored and the only way for a student to remedy that fact is to sue. Many accused students are minority and foreign students who don’t have such resources.
“As more suits are brought, more rulings obtained, holding that campus sex tribunals involve unconstitutional deprivations of due process to accused male students, some colleges will comply, but others will simply resist, firm in their belief that they are on the right side of history and, even if courts don’t agree, are doing what they have to, what they should, do to protect women. They are, in essence, challenging the courts by saying ‘make me,’ and the reality is that the &#8216;least dangerous branch&#8217; doesn’t have any really good magic to do so,” Greenfield wrote.

Judge

College President Says He Believes In Due Process. His School’s Handling Of Sexual Assault Allegations Says Otherwise.

Lawsuit

A campaign spokeswoman for former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign called the allegations that he sexually assaulted a woman in the early 90s “false.”
Biden last week was accused by Tara Reade, who said she previously worked as a staffer for Biden when he was a senator in the early 90s. She claimed she was delivering a gym bag to Biden when he pushed her up against a wall and put his hands all over her, including under her clothes. She claimed Biden penetrated her with his fingers and kissed her.
Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s deputy campaign manager and communications director, called the allegations against Biden “false” in a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-campaign-denies-false-allegations-of-sexual-assault">statement</a> to Fox news.
“Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims. We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false,” Bedingfield said.
Fox reported that a “former executive assistant to then-Senator Biden also challenged the account, calling it ‘clearly false.’&#8221;
The response from the Biden campaign is a clear contrast to the statements Biden has made over the past few decades, in which he insists women making sexual misconduct allegations must be believed. In 2018, for example, Biden was asked about whether he believed Anita Hill’s claims in the 90s that her then-boss Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her. Biden said he thought Hill “was telling the truth at the beginning.” He then spoke generally about women’s allegations.
“For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron,” Biden told reporters.
Biden made the comments after Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had been accused of sexual assault shortly after he was nominated to the position. The allegations from Christine Blasey Ford claimed Kavanaugh assaulted her 30 years earlier at a party. Ford’s claims were thin, yet the media, Democrats and the “believe all women” crowd ran with them in an effort to keep Kavanaugh off the court.
Reade’s claims against Biden may be slightly less thin, as she says she made a contemporaneous complaint (it has yet to be produced) and told friends and family what happened at the time (they seem to remember this).
What Biden’s communications director said is true, media outlets do need to “rigorously vet those claims,” however, Biden has never made such an insistence until the allegations were made against him. When dubious allegations were made against political rivals, powerful businessmen and celebrities, or male college students, Biden sings a different tune.
He has led the charge that we must “believe all women” and that women don’t lie about these things, yet here he is – through his campaign – calling Reade a liar. Either Biden is going to have to accept what Reade says as true or admit that we can’t just assume every woman is telling the truth when she makes such allegations.

Biden Says We Must ‘Believe All Women’ – Except The Woman Who Accused Him

MeToo

On Friday, Fox News released a new <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/453593148/Complete-results-Fox-News-Poll-March-21-24-2020">general election poll</a> that comes as great news for former Vice President Joe Biden.
The poll, which was conducted on 1,011 “registered voters” between March 21 – 24, found that if the November election were held today, former Vice President Joe Biden would beat President Trump by a nine-point margin.
The poll asked: “If the 2020 presidential election were held today, how would you vote if the candidates were [Biden and Trump]?”
49% of respondents said they would vote for Biden, while 40% said they would vote for Trump. This has changed little from previous Fox News polls taken in February, January, and December in which Biden scored 49%, 50%, and 48%, respectively, and Trump scored 41% in all three.
What’s most interesting about this poll is that Biden’s chances of beating President Trump increase when three former female Democratic candidates are suggested as the former vice president’s potential running mates.
Biden famously promised to choose a female as his vice president during the most recent debate between himself and rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
When Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is suggested as Biden’s running mate, his support rises to 50%. When Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is named, his support also rises to 50%. However, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on the ticket, support for Biden increases to 52% to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence’s 42%.
This isn’t the only poll showing Biden clobbering Trump in November. According to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html">RealClearPolitics</a> general election average of polls, the former vice president has a 7.1% lead over President Trump (50.9% to 43.8%). In the last ten polls dating back to mid-February, Biden’s lead ranges from just 3% to as much as 11%.
It should be noted that this poll was finished just before the sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden were revealed.
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault">previously reported</a>, on Wednesday, journalist and podcaster Katie Harper released a portion of an audio interview with former Biden staffer Tara Reade in which Reade alleges that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993.
Reade describes being pushed up against a wall in a “side area” after rushing to bring then-Senator Biden a gym bag. “His hands were on me, and underneath my clothes,” the former staffer alleges. “He went down my skirt, but then up inside. He penetrated me with his fingers.”
Reade claims that after it was over, Biden told her that she was “nothing” to him, then attempted to calm her down, saying, “You’re okay. You’re fine.”
Interestingly, as noted by The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, the mainstream press appears to have largely ignored the story since it broke. Aside from Fox News and other conservative or conservative-leaning news organizations, the only major outlets that have written about the sexual assault allegations are HuffPo, The Hill, Yahoo, International Business Times, and Vox.
As of publication, a Google search for the story produces zero results from CNN, MSNBC, Associated Press, Reuters, NBC, CBS, ABC, or any other major news organization aside from those listed above.
While Joe Biden himself hasn’t yet commented on the allegations, the Biden campaign’s Kate Bedingfield offered the following <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-campaign-denies-false-allegations-of-sexual-assault">statement</a> to Fox News: “Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims. We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false.”
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault">Woman Accuses Joe Biden Of Sexual Assault</a>

Fox News Poll: Biden Clobbers Trump By 9 Percent

2020 Election

Donald Trump

Poll

The woman who has come forward to accuse former Vice President Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her in the early 90s was denied legal assistance from a prominent #MeToo law fund.
The Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit organization set up within the National Women’s Law Center, which is itself a non-profit, initially seemed interested in taking Tara Reade’s case against Biden. But after discussions within the organization, Reade was declined help because Biden was a candidate for federal office, which could jeopardize the organization’s non-profit status, The Intercept <a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/">reported</a>.
The outlet reported that Reade in January first spoke to NWLC Program Director Ellie Driscoll, who wrote a note that she planned to send to attorneys who may be interested in taking Reade’s case:
<blockquote>She began publicly sharing the harassment she experienced in April 2019 but was attacked … online including by Richard Painter (Univ. of MN law professor who worked in the Obama administration) and journalist Edward-Isaac Dovere for being a Russian operative. There is more to the story of the harassment that she did not feel safe sharing at that time. She is looking for support in sharing her story and guidance on any possible legal action she may be able to take against online harassers.</blockquote>
The Intercept noted that Painter actually served in the Bush administration and ran for Senate in 2018 as a Democrat.
In February, Reade was told Time’s Up couldn’t help her with legal bills or public relations support because of its non-profit status.
“As a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization, the National Women’s Law Center is restricted in how it can spend its funds, including restrictions that pertain to candidates running for election,” NWLC spokeswoman Maria Patrick told The Intercept. “Our decision on whether or not to provide certain types of support to an individual should not be interpreted as our validation or doubt of the truthfulness of the person’s statements. Regardless, our support of workers who come forward regarding workplace sexual harassment remains unwavering.”
The Intercept spoke to Loyola Law School in Los Angeles tax-law professor Ellen Aprill, who said NWLC likely wouldn’t have lost its non-profit status by accepting Reade’s case.
“As a legal matter, if the group is clear regarding the criteria used as to whom it is taking to court, show that these are long-established neutral criteria, and they are being applied to individuals completely independent of their running for office, it would not be a violation of tax law. Groups are allowed to continue to do what they have always done,” she told the outlet.
Asked by The Daily Wire whether the NWLC agreed to provide funds against any of the women who made allegations against President Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign, NWLC spokeswoman Gillian Branstetter said “No, we did not.”
For the record, Time’s Up was not established until 2018, but the NWLC was founded in 1972.
It should also be noted that Time’s Up is a client of SKDKnickerbocker, a public relations firm “whose managing director, Anita Dunn, is the top adviser to Biden’s presidential campaign,” The Intercept reported.
Reade’s allegations do raise many questions about the veracity of her claims. Most prominently, why did she wait so long to tell her story? Biden was running for president in 2008 and became Barack Obama’s running mate, yet she said nothing then or while he was vice president for eight years.
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault">reported</a>, Reade initially supported Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and then Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Reade began speaking to Time’s Up as the presidential primary was heating up.
Reade first made her allegations public last year, but was blasted some prominent people for her claims, as mentioned above.
Biden is one of the most high-profile supporters of the “believe all women” campaign, though he has not said anything publicly about Reade’s allegations. It falls in line with the campaign’s usual tactics, which stop “believing” women who accuse Democrat politicians of sexual assault and harassment.

MeToo Legal Fund Refused To Help Biden Accuser, Claiming It Couldn’t Risk Nonprofit Status Since He’s Running For President

On Wednesday morning, journalist and podcaster Katie Harper released an audio clip of an interview with Tara Reade, a former staff assistant to Joe Biden, in which Reade claims that Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993.
The story begins with Reade being instructed to rush a gym bag to Biden. Upon reaching then-Senator Biden with the bag, Reade claims that he greeted her by name, and proceeded to sexually assault her in a “side area.”
“We were alone, and it was the strangest thing. There was no, like, exchange really, he just had me up against the wall,” Reade claims.
“His hands were on me, and underneath my clothes,” Reade later says. “He went down my skirt, but then up inside. He penetrated me with his fingers.”
Reade alleges that Biden was kissing her and asking her if she “wanted to go somewhere else,” and that after the alleged assault was complete, he said, “C’mon man, I heard you liked me.”
Reade told Harper that Biden’s alleged phrase stuck with her because it made her think about what she “might have said.”
<blockquote>For me, it was like everything shattered in that moment because I knew that we were alone. It was over, right? He wasn’t trying to do anything more – but I looked up to him, he was like my father’s age, he was like this champion of women’s rights in my eyes and I couldn’t believe it was happening. It seemed surreal. I just felt sick because when he pulled back, he looked annoyed, and he said something else to me that I don’t want to say, and then he said – I must have looked shocked &#8230; I don’t know how I looked, but I must have looked something because he grabbed me by the shoulders, and said, “You’re okay. You’re fine. You’re okay. You’re fine,” and then he walked away, and went on with his day.</blockquote>
Reade says she was later in a stairwell, “shaking” and “trying to grasp what had just happened and what I should do or what I should say.”
When Harper asked Reade if she wanted to speak about what she alleges Biden said, she replied that she was reluctant because it is “the thing that stays in my head.”
Regardless, she then told Harper what Biden allegedly said:
<blockquote>He just like pointed at me and he said, “You’re nothing to me!” And then he just looked at me and said, “You’re nothing. Nothing.” &#8230; I must’ve reacted because that’s when he took me by the shoulders and he said, “You’re okay. You’re fine. You’re okay.”</blockquote>
Harper notes at the beginning of the clip that there are no witnesses to the alleged assault, but that “Tara’s brother and Tara’s close friend” both “recalled her telling them about the incident at the time.”
Listen to the audio clip from Katie Harper’s interview with Tara Reade here:
<iframe src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/782795578&amp;color=%23ff5500&amp;auto_play=false&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false&amp;show_teaser=true&amp;visual=true" width="100%" height="300" frameborder="no" scrolling="no"></iframe>
Last April, several women came forward with stories of Biden acting inappropriately, perhaps the most infamous being that of <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/an-awkward-kiss-changed-how-i-saw-joe-biden.html">Lucy Flores</a>, who claimed that the former vice president kissed the back of her head and smelled her hair during a 2014 event.
At the time, Biden released the following statement in defense of himself:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Statement from <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> this morning. <a href="https://t.co/EbCchX2npU">pic.twitter.com/EbCchX2npU</a>
— Bill Russo (@BillR) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillR/status/1112339598699626501?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
In a piece by Ryan Grim published by <a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/">The Intercept</a> on Tuesday, the journalist writes about Reade bringing forward a story about Biden’s alleged inappropriate behavior toward her last year.
Reade first spoke with “a local reporter, describing several instances in which Biden had behaved similarly toward her, inappropriately touching her during her early-’90s tenure in his Senate office.” The part of her story she decided to tell at the time was allegedly similar to Flores’, but the article resulted in negative feedback “along with accusations that she was doing the bidding of Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
Reade had previously written a piece for Medium, which has since been removed, in which she praised Vladimir Putin.
The article by the local reporter, published by <a href="https://www.theunion.com/news/nevada-county-woman-says-joe-biden-inappropriately-touched-her-while-working-in-his-u-s-senate-office/">The Union</a> in April 2019, reads in part:
<blockquote>Alexandra Tara Reade said that in 1993 she was in her mid-20s when Biden, then a senator from Delaware, touched her several times making her feel uncomfortable. Reade said her responsibilities in the senator’s office were reduced after she refused to serve drinks at an event – what she called a desire of Biden’s because he liked her legs. Reade said she felt pushed out and left Biden’s employ in August 1993 after some nine months.</blockquote>
As the Democratic primary began in earnest, Reade, “who first supported Sen. Elizabeth Warren and then Sen. Bernie Sanders,” writes Grim, decided to seek help from TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund, an organization that “supports the brave individuals who have come forward, at great risk to themselves, to seek the justice they deserve and to protect others from similar behavior,” according to its <a href="https://nwlc.org/times-up-legal-defense-fund/about-times-up-legal-defense-fund/">official website</a>.
“This Fund helps workers connect with lawyers and bring cases of workplace sexual harassment and related retaliation – regardless of industry, rank or role,” the website continues.
According to Reade, after an initial exchange that seemed fruitful, TIME’S UP later said that they couldn’t help her because the accused was running for president, and “assisting a case against him could jeopardize the organization’s nonprofit status,” writes Grim.
As of publication, Biden has yet to publicly acknowledge Reade’s latest allegation.

Woman Accuses Joe Biden Of Sexual Assault

Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth circuit outlined the numerous ways in which the University of Denver (DU) railroaded an accused student. Campus activists, however, claim the school doesn’t do enough for accusing students.
As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/court-outlines-how-school-railroaded-accused-male-student-but-upholds-his-expulsion">reported</a>, a student referred to as John Doe was accused by a student referred to as Jane Roe of sexual assault in 2014 six months after the two shared a sexual encounter their freshmen year. John was expelled following a lop-sided campus kangaroo court and sued. A panel of three judges outlined exactly how DU deprived John of his constitutional rights, calling the process “a railroading,” yet amazingly upheld the school’s decision to expel him:
<ul>
<li>refused to follow leads that were potentially exculpatory;</li>
<li>disbelieved Plaintiff from the outset due to the “innate motive” respondents have to lie about wrongdoing, while failing to consider obvious motives Jane might have to lie about the extent to which she initiated or invited the sexual encounter with Plaintiff, such as her new boyfriend’s insistence that she report the incident as well as his presence at her initial reporting and subsequent interviews; 
• selectively determined which post-encounter evidence they would consider relevant (e.g., considering Jane’s allegation that Plaintiff offered her Aderall after the encounter in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility but not considering Jane’s inconsistent statements on whether the two saw each other after the encounter in assessing her credibility); 
• allowed Jane’s boyfriend to act both as Jane’s support person who was present at her interviews and as a fact witness who provided information in the proceeding to corroborate Jane’s story and to impeach the testimony of witnesses who contradicted her story, in violation of DU’s policies; 
• selectively viewed Jane as “heavily intoxicated,” implicitly rejecting Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s statements that Jane exhibited no indication of intoxication in order to support a finding that Plaintiff coerced Jane into sex but then accepting Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s statement in order to find that Jane’s intoxication had little effect on her ability to accurately recollect the encounter that night; 
• faulted Plaintiff for making corrections to his summary statement and used it to attack his credibility, despite expressly inviting Plaintiff to make such corrections and apparently violating DU’s informal policy allowing interviewees to correct summary statements in order to accurately reflect their testimony; 
• emphasized inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s story while disregarding numerous inconsistencies in the versions of the story told by Jane and her friend; 
• suggested Plaintiff’s failure to recollect details was indicative of deception and guilt while suggesting Jane’s failure to recollect details was the result of intoxication; 
• viewed Plaintiff’s roommate’s statements corroborating Plaintiff’s story as tainted by Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s prior conferral regarding the events of that night, while not applying this same logic to the statements of Jane’s friend who corroborated Jane’s story, even though Jane called her friend specifically to relate to him “her portrayal of the night” and to tell him “that it was rape”; 
• attacked Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s credibility on the grounds they seemed overly eager to offer consistent denials of any on-campus alcohol use, without applying the same logic to the vague and inconsistent stories provided by Jane and her friend regarding their own on-campus alcohol use, even though DU offers amnesty to complainants who admit to on-campus drug and alcohol use, but not to respondents.</li>
</ul>
Despite this flagrant abuse of an accused student (who are almost exclusively male), advocates at DU claimed the school wasn’t doing enough to help women who made accusations, whom they always refer to as “victims” or “survivors” based solely on an allegation.
Naturally, DU leadership agreed to make their policies even more slanted against accused students, who are usually accused after a drunken hookup in which each party, according to school policies, should be considered a victim. It never works this way, however, since college women are now taught to see themselves as victims and men as perpetrators. Women are encouraged to accuse men, while men are not encouraged to see themselves as victims, unless they’re gay. This results in many male students being sexually assaulted (according to broad modern definitions that include any form of touching to be sexual assault unless asked specifically for permission beforehand by someone who hasn’t had a sip of alcohol) but not seeing themselves as victims and reporting women.
DU introduced <a href="http://d31hzlhk6di2h5.cloudfront.net/20200305/34/df/3a/4a/c657091108ddce2730008f71/response.actionitems.03.04.2020_1_.pdf">a plan</a> that will guarantee every accusation results in suspension or expulsion for a male accused student. The school is instituting “trauma-informed investigation” methods, a new concept that assumes every accusation to be true no matter what. Supporters insist it is backed up by scientific evidence, but decades long research on trauma and memory do not support the techniques. For example, “trauma-informed” techniques insist that a woman is telling the truth about being raped even if she lies to police, because lies are simply a result of trauma. The techniques also encourage allegedly neutral “fact finders” to ignore exculpatory evidence and not interview the accuser multiple times so that accused students can’t point to inconsistencies in their stories.
DU will also start teaching four years of gender-based violence education for undergraduate students. DU makes clear that all sexual assault policies are biased against men by specifically mentioning masculinity as something to be fixed.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is expected to release new federal guidelines for how schools should investigate allegations of sexual assault, mandating that schools include accused students’ due process rights in the proceedings. Around 200 students – that we know of – have sued their college or university, and more than 100 rulings from judges have pointed out how schools have denied likely innocent students the ability to defend themselves from false accusations.

Guilt concept

University Called Out By Judge For ‘Railroading’ Accused Student. Activists Claim School Isn’t Pro-Accuser Enough.

Denver

false accusations

A male student at Syracuse University is trying to clear his name after the school’s investigation into sexual assault allegations failed to allow him to properly defend himself.
The student, whom The Daily Wire will call John Doe, was previously accused of raping a female student, who will be called Jane Roe. Both were Syracuse students. The two attended a party in 2017 co-hosted by John’s fraternity and Jane’s sorority. Surveillance footage from that night showed the two students enter John’s room at about 12:30 in the morning. The two, according to court documents, awoke in the same bed the next morning – fully clothed – and had no memory of what occurred the night before, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-claimed-he-raped-her-a-medical-examination-showed-no-sex-he-was-expelled-and-is-suing-her-for-defamation">reported</a>.
After John was expelled, he filed a lawsuit against the school alleging his due process and Title IX rights were violated. He also sued his accuser for defamation because she called him a rapist online and to his friends even though there was no evidence the two even had sex. Jane tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, but a judge denied her motion.
Syracuse, likewise, is trying to get John’s lawsuit against the school dismissed. The Daily Wire was provided a copy of John’s legal response to Syracuse’s motion to dismiss, which outlines the ways the university violated John’s rights.
For starters, the man assigned to investigate the allegations, Bernerd Jacobson, was a victim’s advocate, not an impartial observer, and, according to John and his attorneys, acted as an advocate. John’s attorney argues that by the time Jacobson spoke to Jane for the first time, she had changed her story multiple times. She initially said she thought she was drugged – though a test showed no drugs other than caffeine and marijuana in her system. She also repeatedly said she didn’t remember what happened that night in the months before meeting with Jacobson. Yet months after the alleged incident, and only after going to therapy for her alleged trauma, did Jane start to “remember” things, including sexual intercourse with John. Such memories are not accurate and bring to mind the “recovered memories” of the 1980s Satanic daycare panic.
Jacobson, according to John’s lawsuit “blatantly disregarded objective facts and failed to collect highly relevant evidence – which Defendant Jacobson knew existed – that exonerated Doe and pointed to the implausibly of Roe’s sexual assault claims.”
For instance, Jacobson didn’t speak to a veteran sex crimes prosecutor who said there was no evidence sex even occurred between the two students, the detective whom Jane repeatedly told she didn’t remember what happened that night, the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) who found no evidence of sex, or the representative who helped Jane fill out a Family Court Petition against John.
Jacobson didn’t even obtain a copy of the SANE report or Jane’s clothes from the night in question. Instead, Jacobson alleged that a finding in the SANE report regarding two tears in Jane’s labia was enough evidence of sexual assault, even though that isn’t evidence of anything. Even with the tears, the examination found no “abrasions to vaginal walls and she had smooth hymen edges,” according to Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf’s summary of the case contained in her <a href="https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GoldmanvReddington.pdf">ruling</a>. Also, a DNA analysis of Jane’s vagina found no male DNA.
John maintained throughout the proceedings that he didn’t remember the night in question. Jane initially said she didn’t remember either, but later changed her story months later. Jacobson, however, found ways to dismiss issues with Jane’s story. Even though a toxicology report found Jane was not drugged, Jacobson noted that “it was not implausible” that Jane was drugged, according to John’s lawsuit. Jacobson even dismissed police detective works, saying “well you know how detectives are, they’re great, but they write down what they think they heard.” Further, Jacobson dismissed Jane’s claim in her Family Court Petition that John raped her with a foreign object by claiming it was Jane’s claim, but an exaggeration written in by the representative who helped her. He made this determination without speaking with this representative.
With all the deficiencies, Jacobson concluded that Jane was credible, but that John’s version of events was also “plausible.” Somehow that translated into finding John responsible for sexual assault even though there was no evidence of sex.
John was not provided the evidence against him and was not allowed to cross-examine Jane or any witnesses. He also didn’t have access to the exculpatory evidence, since Jacobson didn’t obtain it. A Syracuse Conduct Board found John responsible despite finding both students were credible and didn’t remember what happened.
Syracuse, in its motion to dismiss, claimed that because Jacobson briefly mentioned the inconsistencies in Jane’s story, it meant he wasn’t biased. The Conduct Board, however, wrote off those inconsistencies, which John’s lawyers maintain further proves the school’s bias. The Conduct Board also had no access to the SANE report, just the conclusion about the tears to Jane’s labia. The Board tried to claim that because it used a lower standard of proof (a preponderance of evidence, or 50% plus a feather), it could ignore the Assistant District Attorney’s assessment that “[t]here is no credible proof of any sexual conduct in this case, consensual or non-consensual.” As John’s lawsuit notes, this is a “red herring.”
“ADA Barry concluded there was no proof of any sexual contact whatsoever – thus any debate surrounding the standard of proof required in a criminal action is irrelevant to the allegations presented to the Conduct Board.,” the lawsuit states.
John claims in this lawsuit that Syracuse ignored the forensic evidence and findings of veteran law enforcement officials in order to find John responsible. In an email to The Daily Wire, John’s attorney, Seth Zuckerman, blasted not only Syracuse, but also the accuser for their actions:
<blockquote>Syracuse is no longer a safe place for male students. While claiming to protect its female students, the university’s extreme policies discriminate against males accused of sexual assault, regardless of the lack of evidence, as they are treated as guilty from the outset. Syracuse has gone overboard, trampled on the rights of male students, and created a dangerous environment for these young men. Our client was expelled as a result of a false allegation and the school’s bogus and biased investigation which denied our client due process while completely ignoring the police and district attorney’s office determination that there was no sexual assault. The school’s investigator intentionally failed to gather critical evidence. Following his unjustified expulsion, our client has been left to pick up the pieces of his life. The so-called victim has celebrated on social media our client’s expulsion and branded him a rapist and intentionally went out of her way to contact his employer to get him fired. He will never get his undergraduate life back, nor the social media anonymity, he had before these false allegations were made.</blockquote>

Couple in ed

A Male Student Expelled Even Though There Was No Evidence Of Sex Is Fighting To Clear His Name

Syracuse University

In a shocking ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit outlined numerous ways in which the University of Denver (DU) railroaded an accused student despite serious deficiencies in the accuser’s story, but didn’t overturn his expulsion because it claimed the due process violations weren’t related to the accused student’s gender.
The accused student, known in court documents as John Doe, was a freshman at DU in the fall of 2014. In October of that year, he had a sexual encounter with a female freshman in his dorm room. Six months later, the woman – at the insistence of her then-boyfriend – accused John of sexual assault. John was expelled, and filed a lawsuit like many wrongly accused students who were denied due process but are able to afford an attorney to try and get their life back.
For John, however, a panel of three judges upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss with prejudice his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Title IX claims, but dismissed without prejudice Joh’s state-law claims and claim for declaratory relief. In a footnote to the ruling, the judges included a long list of ways DU violated John’s due process rights, writing that school investigators:
<ul>
<li>refused to follow leads that were potentially exculpatory;</li>
<li>disbelieved Plaintiff from the outset due to the “innate motive” respondents have to lie about wrongdoing, while failing to consider obvious motives Jane might have to lie about the extent to which she initiated or invited the sexual encounter with Plaintiff, such as her new boyfriend’s insistence that she report the incident as well as his presence at her initial reporting and subsequent interviews; 
• selectively determined which post-encounter evidence they would consider relevant (e.g., considering Jane’s allegation that Plaintiff offered her Aderall after the encounter in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility but not considering Jane’s inconsistent statements on whether the two saw each other after the encounter in assessing her credibility); 
• allowed Jane’s boyfriend to act both as Jane’s support person who was present at her interviews and as a fact witness who provided information in the proceeding to corroborate Jane’s story and to impeach the testimony of witnesses who contradicted her story, in violation of DU’s policies; 
• selectively viewed Jane as “heavily intoxicated,” implicitly rejecting Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s statements that Jane exhibited no indication of intoxication in order to support a finding that Plaintiff coerced Jane into sex but then accepting Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s statement in order to find that Jane’s intoxication had little effect on her ability to accurately recollect the encounter that night; 
• faulted Plaintiff for making corrections to his summary statement and used it to attack his credibility, despite expressly inviting Plaintiff to make such corrections and apparently violating DU’s informal policy allowing interviewees to correct summary statements in order to accurately reflect their testimony; 
• emphasized inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s story while disregarding numerous inconsistencies in the versions of the story told by Jane and her friend; 
• suggested Plaintiff’s failure to recollect details was indicative of deception and guilt while suggesting Jane’s failure to recollect details was the result of intoxication; 
• viewed Plaintiff’s roommate’s statements corroborating Plaintiff’s story as tainted by Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s prior conferral regarding the events of that night, while not applying this same logic to the statements of Jane’s friend who corroborated Jane’s story, even though Jane called her friend specifically to relate to him “her portrayal of the night” and to tell him “that it was rape”; 
• attacked Plaintiff’s and his roommate’s credibility on the grounds they seemed overly eager to offer consistent denials of any on-campus alcohol use, without applying the same logic to the vague and inconsistent stories provided by Jane and her friend regarding their own on-campus alcohol use, even though DU offers amnesty to complainants who admit to on-campus drug and alcohol use, but not to respondents.</li>
</ul>
The judges themselves called what happened to John “a railroading.”
“But an accumulation of irregularities all disfavoring the respondent becomes deeply troubling because benign, stochastic explanations for the errors become implausible. Instead, it looks more like a railroading,” they wrote.
Even after all this, the judges decided John hadn’t proven his claims to their satisfaction. Specifically, they wrote that even though 35 of 36 accusers at DU between 2011 and 2016 were female and all accused students were male, there was not enough evidence to suggest the school had an anti-male bias. Instead, they said it was simply an anti-accused bias.
This is a common claim that only works in court. On campus, women use Title IX to claim gender discrimination because they say they are the majority of sexual assault victims. Then it would seem it would be gender bias to railroad accused students since they are the majority of the accused. But we don’t live in a fair world.

Kangaroos

Court Outlines How School Railroaded Accused Male Student, But Upholds His Expulsion

A high school student and a teacher were arrested Wednesday after allegations that the student sexually assaulted a middle school student and the teacher ignored and encouraged the assault.  Police say they have video footage of the assault.
After the two men were arrested, police were informed that an additional student claimed she was sexually assaulted by Alamance High School student 18-year-old Brandon Tyler Lane and that the teacher, 42-year-old Samuel Bradley Freeze, did nothing to stop him. Police quickly investigated the new allegation and determined the middle school student who made the claim was never assaulted.
Police found witnesses that said the girl’s mother, Melissa Marie King, 35, made up the story and forced her daughter to make the allegation in an attempt to extort money out of the school system, The Times-News <a href="https://www.thetimesnews.com/news/20200312/burlington-woman-faces-false-report-charge">reported</a>.
“It is believed this was an attempt to have leverage over Alamance-Burlington School System, where the mother planned to file a lawsuit against the school system in the future,” the Sheriff’s Office said.
For her false allegation, King faces just a single misdemeanor count of filing a false report with police and was held in lieu of $500 bail, the Times-News reported. She apparently tried to “piggyback” off of the sexual assault case against the two men.
The Times-News reported that investigators found video of Lane sexually assaulting the other middle-school students and evidence that Freeze knew what had happened but did nothing. Freeze was driving the bus where the incidents allegedly happened. His arrest warrant claims he “allowed and encouraged [Lane] &#8230; while asking and making sexual comments to [Lane] about the sexual act happening to the victim.”
There has been some confusion about Freeze’s employment with the school, as the Times-News <a href="https://www.thetimesnews.com/news/20200311/southern-alamance-coach-student-face-assault-sex-charges">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Freeze had been employed at the school for more than 20 years, serving as an in-school suspension teacher, coach of multiple sports, including wrestling, baseball, boys’ and girls’ basketball, football and track and field, substitute bus driver and, most recently, served in a support role for the athletics department.
In August, The Times-News published an article about Freeze being named athletics director at the high school, but school system human resources officials said Wednesday, March 11, that Freeze was not the athletics director. His former position was listed as “Support for Athletics Department,” according to Jenny Faulkner, the public information officer for the Alamance-Burlington School System.
Faulkner said Freeze’s employment was terminated Tuesday, March 10. The school system has not released any further statement about the assaults.</blockquote>
Parents have used their children in this manner before. In July 2018, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-allegedly-faked-her-daughters-kidnapping-ashe-schow">reported</a> on the arrest of Tammy Steffen, who told police that a man had tried to kidnap her 12-year-old daughter and that she had been sent anonymous threatening messages. It turned out the woman framed her former business partner because she believed the man manipulated votes or otherwise kept her from winning an online fitness contest. In another <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-told-police-her-son-was-kidnapped-so-they-would-look-for-her-stolen-car?fbclid=IwAR2Vr8UUO3WolR5Y_p4CIvXqQFxIjBUIbCV-BvdkG8bnxrEPCAT_MjL-bgQ">case</a>, from December 2019, a woman claimed her son was kidnapped to police would look for her stolen car.

Caucasian teenage girl looking out window

Woman Forces Daughter To Make False Rape Claim In Attempt To Get Money From School District

Mere hours after disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years behind bars for sexual assault in the first degree and rape in the third degree, actress Kate Beckinsale recalled an incident with the progressive darling that left her &#8220;shaking.&#8221;
In an Instagram post published Wednesday, Beckinsale captioned a photo of herself attending the 2001 premier for the Weinstein company-produced film &#8220;Serendipity.&#8221; The actress is wearing a chic white suit jacket and tie, which apparently triggered Weinstein to berate her for not showing more skin or &#8220;shaking&#8221; her &#8220;a**&#8221; and &#8220;t***.&#8221;
&#8220;These photos were taken at the premiere of Serendipity on October 5, 2001,&#8221; explained the 46-year-old. &#8220;We all refused to go because holding a premiere mere weeks after 9/11 with the city still smoking felt like the most insensitive, tone deaf, disrespectful idea possible,&#8221; she noted. &#8220;But Harvey insisted. We flew into New York and somehow got through it.&#8221;
The next morning, recalled Beckinsale, the producer asked the actress to come to his home so their young children could have a &#8220;playdate.&#8221;
Beckinsale obliged, but when she arrived at his home with her two-year-old daughter in tow, Weinstein called for the nanny to take the kids away. When Beckinsale went to follow them, he allegedly told her, “No, you wait here.&#8221;
&#8220;The minute the door closed he started screaming &#8216;you stupid f***ing C***, you C*** you ruined my premiere,'&#8221; she recalled. &#8220;I had no idea what he was talking about and started to shake.&#8221;
&#8220;He said, &#8216;If I am throwing a red carpet you get in a tight dress, you shake your a** you shake your t*** you do not go down it looking like a f***ing lesbian you stupid f***ing c***,'&#8221; the actress continued. &#8220;The shock made me burst into tears.&#8221;
Beckinsale noted that the premiere was right after 9/11, so she did not feel the event was &#8220;appropriate, much less coming out dressed like it’s a bachelor party.&#8221;
&#8220;I don’t care -it’s my f***ing premiere and if I want p**** on the red carpet that’s what I get,&#8221; Weinstein allegedly screamed at her in response. &#8220;Screaming. Livid,&#8221; she added.
&#8220;I managed to get myself and my child out of there and yes that was one of many experiences I had that there was no recourse for, and falls under no felony,&#8221; the actress said.
&#8220;But I WAS punished for it,&#8221; she claimed, &#8220;and for other instances where I said no to him for years, insidiously and seeming irreversibly.&#8221;
Beckinsale noted that it was a &#8220;huge relief&#8221; to hear that Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison, adding that she hopes the sentence will &#8220;be a deterrent to that sort of behavior in this and any other industry.&#8221;
The &#8220;Underworld&#8221; star concluded her post: &#8220;[T]he crimes that are not crimes, the inhumane bullying and sick covert abuse for which there is STILL no recourse no matter who you tell (and I did tell), these too need to go,&#8221; she wrote. &#8220;I hope and pray that we as an industry can start to actually outlaw all abuses of power and expose them and eliminate them, for all genders, forever.&#8221;
<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/B9ngeZOASEN/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="12" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:500px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);">
<div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B9ngeZOASEN/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"> 
<div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;"> View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
</a> 
 <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B9ngeZOASEN/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">These photos were taken at the premiere of Serendipity on October 5,2001. We all refused to go because holding a premiere mere weeks after 9/11 with the city still smoking felt like the most insensitive, tone deaf,disrespectful idea possible .But Harvey insisted. We flew into New York and somehow got through it. The next morning Harvey called me and asked if I would like to bring my less than two year old daughter to his house for a playdate with his similar aged daughter I said ok. I turned up and he immediately called for his nanny to take the babies to another room to play. I went to go with them and he said “No, you wait here .” The minute the door closed he started screaming “you stupid fucking CUNT, you CUNT you ruined my premiere .” I had no idea what he was talking about and started to shake.He said,”If I am throwing a red carpet you get in a tight dress, you shake your ass you shake your tits you do not go down it looking like a fucking lesbian you stupid fucking cunt .” The shock made me burst into tears.I tried to say “Harvey,the city is on fire, people are still looking for their relatives none of us even felt the premiere was appropriate much less coming out dressed like it’s a bachelor party .” He said,”I don’t care -it’s my fucking premiere and if I want pussy on the red carpet that’s what I get”.Screaming. Livid. I managed to get myself and my child out of there and yes that was one of many experiences I had that there was no recourse for,and falls under no felony.But I WAS punished for it, and for other instances where I said no to him for years,insidiously and seeming irreversibly. Hearing that he has gone to prison for 23 years is a huge relief to me on behalf of all the women he sexually assaulted or raped, and I hope will be a deterrent to that sort of behavior in this and any other industry. Having said that,the crimes that are not crimes,the inhumane bullying and sick covert abuse for which there is STILL no recourse no matter who you tell(and I did tell),these too need to go.I hope and pray that we as an industry can start to actually outlaw all abuses of power and expose them and eliminate them, for all genders,forever.And Rose,brava ❤</a>
<p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">A post shared by <a href="https://www.instagram.com/katebeckinsale/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px;" target="_blank"> Kate Beckinsale</a> (@katebeckinsale) on <time style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;" datetime="2020-03-12T02:45:26+00:00">Mar 11, 2020 at 7:45pm PDT</time>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

Kate Beckinsale

‘You Stupid F***ing C***’: Kate Beckinsale Recalls Weinstein Incident That Left Her ‘Shaking’

Harvey Weinstein

A reminder to college students &#8212; especially male students &#8212; that one drunken night can ruin your entire life.
This particular example comes from the College of Human Medicine at Michigan State University (MSU). A male student, known only as Dev, attended a yearly event on April 23, 2016, known as the Med Ball. Before the main event, Dev met up with a few people he had met a few weeks earlier during a service trip to Cuba. They are being referred to as Harry, who hosted a pre-party to the Med Ball; Jillian, who had recently broken up with her boyfriend and had begun a friends-with-benefits relationship with Harry; and Valerie, who attended the Med Ball with Lucas, her husband she was about to divorce. The story has been <a href="https://reason.com/2020/03/09/michigan-state-university-title-ix-debt-sex-medical/">reported</a> at length by Reason’s Robby Soave.
“Dev&#8217;s lawsuit is ongoing. The elements of his case resemble many others: a night of drunken sex that one party claims was consensual and another party remembers differently; a significant passage of time; an insinuation that eventually becomes a formal accusation; a fraught effort to mount a defense; a life-derailing finding of guilt. But with one court decision already against him, he&#8217;s in a tough spot. He&#8217;s financially ruined as well, and he can&#8217;t afford the caliber of lawyer he needs,” Soave wrote.
Dev, whose parents are Sri Lankan, moved to Michigan when he was young. A bright student, Dev would go on to graduate from Harvard in 2014 with multiple degrees. He then returned to Michigan for medical school. The Med Ball in question occurred during his first year of medical school.
At the pre-party, Dev spoke with Jillian and Valerie. While everyone was drinking, everyone agreed no one was too drunk before the pre-party ended. Valerie fought with her husband throughout the night. At the Med Ball, Dev taught Jillian how to waltz and to the cha-cha. In a lawsuit he would later file against MSU, he said that he and Jillian began grinding on the dance floor and that Jillian told him “I guess you’re my date.”
While Dev was dancing with Jillian, Valerie and her husband had one last major fight. Her husband, referred to as Lucas, demanded a divorce and left the event. Jillian ran after Valerie when she went to the bathroom to try and cheer her up.
At some point Valerie disappeared so Jillian went to find her. Jillian soon found her &#8212; outside the restaurant where the Med Ball was taking place and kissing Harry, with whom Jillian had a sexual relationship. Jillian fled up a flight of stairs and texted Valerie, “Just done. Don&#8217;t expect me to be ur friend anymore.&#8221;
Dev found Jillian “upset, fairly drunk, and crying,” a judicial opinion would later state. Jillian told Dev about her and Harry. Dev comforted her and eventually the two began kissing and groping each other. The two found a stairwell. Dev says Jillian removed her own dress and got down on her hands and knees &#8212; even asking for his jacket for cushion. Dev was too drunk to engage in penetrative sex, so they gave up.
&#8220;Everything was reciprocated,&#8221; Dev would later tell MSU investigators. &#8220;There was no hesitation. If anything, there was eagerness.&#8221;
Jillian would later claim that she was too drunk to consent and she had “shut down” during the sexual encounter as “a reaction to the hurt she felt from seeing [Valerie and Harry] kissing.&#8221; She told investigators she never explicitly agreed to the encounter but also never said “no.”
The group then went to a nightclub. Dev left the area momentarily. Harry apologized to Jillian for kissing Valerie. Jillian told him about her sexual encounter with Dev. Outside, Valerie couldn’t get in at first because Harry had her ID. When she entered the club, she found Harry and Jillian together.
Valerie would later tell investigators she didn’t remember dancing with Dev at the nightclub. Dev says they danced while Harry and Jillian talked. Valerie, according to Dev’s lawsuit, insisted Dev and Jillian would be good together and Dev at that point thought it was a possibility. Valerie then started kissing Dev, his lawsuit states.
They left the club and returned to Harry’s house. Jillian went to bed but Dev, Harry, and Valerie kept talking. Dev said he left the room and returned to find Harry and Valerie having sex.
Dev said he then went to sleep in Harry’s bed and found Jillian already in it. Both were fully clothed. Dev said he tried to kiss Jillian but she wanted to sleep. Jillian even acknowledged that nothing else happened after that.
Harry would later say he found Dev cuddling Jillian, so he kicked him out of the room and spoke to Jillian. Harry was upset with her.
Dev went to the living room and laid down on a large couch next to Valerie. Dev says Valerie was awake and made room for him on the couch, allowing him to touch her. Valerie later said she was asleep and awoke to Dev touching her sexually. She claims she said “no” and he left the couch.
Dev drove home in the morning, while Harry and Jillian went to brunch with another couple. That couple would tell investigators that when they saw the group of four at the Med Ball they all seemed unhappy. Harry and Jillian were unhappy at brunch as well, since Harry was mad at Jillian for her encounter with Dev.
For two years, Dev continued to study at MSU and had little interaction with Harry, Jillian, or Valerie. Dev wanted to try and spark up a relationship with Jillian, but she wanted to be with Harry.
Harry and Jillian didn’t last, and Jillian two years later requested that she not be placed in clinical rotation with Harry or Dev, claiming it would “significantly negatively affect my learning and well-being.&#8221; Valerie around that time also requested not to be placed with Dev. Because two people made a similar request about the same person, MSU met with the women and eventually opened a sexual misconduct into Dev. Jillian had gone to therapy in the two years since that fateful Med Ball, and now considered her brief encounter with Dev as sexual assault. She claimed it caused her to struggle in school. Valerie made a similar claim.
Dev was informed of Valerie’s allegation on April 17, 2018. He was not told about Jillian’s allegation until July 31. Jillian had initially said she didn’t want to cooperate with MSU’s investigation, but when she was interviewed about Valerie’s claim, she decided to move forward with her own claim.
“Valerie had a month to prepare for her interview with the investigators. Dev was given three days. His interview was scheduled for April 20—the same day as his internal medicine shelf exam, one of the toughest tests for doctors in training,” Soave reported. “Dev failed it—in large part, he claims, because of the pending investigation. ‘It affected my academic performance, to say the least,’ says Dev.”
Dev spoke with investigators, having no idea just how serious the situation was. He didn’t know at the time that the meeting would be his only chance to defend himself. Dev was suspended from MSU and expelled from the College of Medicine. He appealed and lost.
Dev sued the school, but a judge claimed that because the ulterior motives of the women were allegedly considered by MSU’s investigator, the accuracy of the proceedings could not be questioned. The judge didn’t seem to care that Dev couldn’t effectively cross-examine his accuser or the discrepancy between investigator reports regarding Jillian’s alcohol level and ability to consent.
Dev’s attorney abandoned his case, saying an appeal wasn’t realistic.
When Dev was expelled, he was $283, 000 in debt from Harvard and medical school. Had he become a doctor, he would have been able to pay off the debt, but he now believes he will never be able to graduate or become a doctor.
&#8220;I&#8217;m done,&#8221; Dev tells Reason. &#8220;I dedicated 8 to 12 years of studying for this. That was my life.&#8221;

Crowd of people

She Accused Him Of Sexual Assault Two Years After Their Drunken Hookup. Now He’s Destitute.

Michigan State University

Disgraced Hollywood mega-producer Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison Wednesday morning, on one count of sexual assault in the first degree and one count of rape in the third degree — nearly the maximum sentenced possible for Weinstein&#8217;s crimes.
&#8220;Weinstein,&#8221; <a href="https://apnews.com/c9c96c04af044201538c2947c3c56161">the Associated Press reported</a>, &#8220;who has been accused of violating scores of women, was convicted last month of raping a woman in a New York City hotel room in 2013 and forcibly performing oral sex on another woman at his apartment in 2006. He faced a maximum of 29 years in prison.&#8221;
The possible 29 years included up to 25 years on one charge and 4 years on the other.
&#8220;For his conviction on the first-degree count of criminal sexual act, Weinstein was given 20 years in prison plus five years of supervised release,&#8221; <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/harvey-weinstein-sentenced-23-years-prison-1283818?utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter">the Hollywood Reporter said Wednesday</a>. &#8220;On the other convicted charge, third-degree rape, he was given three years in prison. The judge decided to make the sentences consecutive, rather than concurrent.&#8221;
Weinstein will also have to register as a sex offender.
On Tuesday, Weinstein&#8217;s attorneys sent a letter to Judge James Burke, who delivered Weinstein&#8217;s sentence. In it, they begged for leniency for the former power player, arguing that Weinstein had suffered enough because of his unprecedented fall from grace — a fall from grace that he, himself, orchestrated.
“He has lost his means to earn a living,&#8221; Weinstein&#8217;s lawyers told Burke. &#8220;Simply put, his fall from grace has been historic, perhaps unmatched in the age of social media.&#8221; He “cannot walk outside without being heckled,” they added.
They also suggested that any sentence over two to three years could be a &#8220;de facto live sentence&#8221; for the former Miramax head, because of Weinstein&#8217;s health problems. The former mega producer reportedly suffers from back issues — he leaned heavily and dramatically on a walker during his trial — and heart issues, which forced New York corrections officials to reroute Weinstein&#8217;s police escort to Rikers Island to Bellevue hospital instead, where Weinstein underwent a procedure to insert a stent in one of his arteries. He is now recovering at Rikers where, his attorneys said earlier this week, he fell and suffered a slight concussion.
Before his sentencing Wednesday, Weinstein tried to plead with the court. &#8220;I have great remorse for all of you,&#8221; he said for the first time since being charged. &#8220;I have great remorse for all women.&#8221;
Burke appears to have felt little sympathy for Weinstein.
Weinstein may not find himself a resident of Rikers Island, however. His case will now go before New York&#8217;s corrections department, which will shuffle Weinstein to a facility that best accommodates both his health issues and his status as a high-value prisoner. Weinstien also has a date with the Los Angeles, California, court system in May; he&#8217;s facing several more charges of sexual assault.
Neither Weinstein nor his attorneys commented on the sentence, but one of Weinstein&#8217;s accuers told CBS news that while a &#8220;prison sentence can never heal me&#8230;it&#8217;s a start.&#8221; 
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jen-aniston-should-be-killed-harvey-weinstein-emails-uncovered-aniston-responds">‘Jen Aniston Should Be Killed’: Harvey Weinstein Emails Uncovered; Aniston Responds</a>

TOPSHOT-US-ENTERTAINMENT-ASSAULT-TRIAL-WEINSTEIN

Harvey Weinstein Sentenced To 23 Years In Prison For Sexual Assault

Hollywood

In Corey Feldman&#8217;s new documentary, the former child star revives allegations that actor Charlie Sheen raped his longtime friend Corey Haim while filming the movie &#8220;Lucas&#8221; in 1986, the subject of an ongoing defamation suit between Sheen and the National Enquirer tabloid magazine.
According to <a href="https://ew.com/movies/corey-feldman-accuses-charlie-sheen-abuse-corey-haim-my-truth-documentary/">Entertainment Weekly</a>, the documentary, &#8220;(My) Truth: The Rape of Two Coreys,&#8221; screened in Los Angeles on Monday, names several men who allegedly raped Cory Feldman and Corey Haim in their youth, chief among the alleged abusers, Feldman claims, was actor Charlie Sheen.
&#8220;This wasn’t like a one time thing he said in passing. It wasn&#8217;t like, &#8216;Oh, by the way, this happened.&#8217; He went into great detail,&#8221; Feldman says in the documentary about the alleged rape. &#8220;He told me, &#8216;Charlie bent me over in between two trailers and put Crisco oil on my butt and raped me in broad daylight. Anybody could have walked by, anybody could have seen it.'&#8221;
Haim would have been 13 and Sheen would have been 19 at the time of the incident.
Sheen has repeatedly and <a href="https://ew.com/movies/2017/11/09/charlie-sheen-denies-claims-sexual-assault-corey-haim/">categorically denied</a> the accusation and sued the National Enquirer in 2017 for defamation.
&#8220;In my nearly 35 years as a celebrated entertainer, I have been nothing shy of a forthright, noble, and valiant courier of the truth,” Sheen told <a class="external-link" title="(opens new window)" href="https://www.tmz.com/2017/12/08/charlie-sheen-lawsuit-national-enquirer-defamation-corey-haim/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="external-disclaimer">TMZ in 2017</a>. “Consistently admitting and owning a laundry list of shortcomings, wrongdoings, and indiscretions this traveler hath traveled — however, every man has a breaking point.  These radically groundless and unfounded allegations end now. I now take a passionate stand against those who wish to even entertain the sick and twisted lies against me. GAME OVER.&#8221;
Corey Haim&#8217;s mother, Judy, <a class="external-link" title="(opens new window)" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwIuff3270M" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="external-disclaimer">s</a><a class="external-link" title="(opens new window)" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwIuff3270M" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="external-disclaimer">ided with</a><a class="external-link" title="(opens new window)" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwIuff3270M" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="external-disclaimer"> Sheen</a> at the time and did not believe he raped her son.
Feldman&#8217;s documentary features several other people corroborating Haim&#8217;s account in on-camera interviews, alleging that Haim told them directly that Sheen sexually abused him. None of the witnesses, however, provide any first-hand evidence.
&#8220;[Corey Haim] shared with me that on the set of Lucas that he was raped as a little boy,&#8221; Feldman&#8217;s ex-wife Susannah Sprague says in the documentary. &#8220;He told me that it was his costar and he told me that it was Charlie Sheen that did it.&#8221;
Feldman also accuses several other men of rape in the documentary, including nightclub owner Alphy Hoffman, former talent manager Marty Weiss, and actor Jon Grissom.  Feldman also names Dominick Brascia, a former actor, who died in 2018. All men named categorically deny the allegations, accusing Feldman of capitalizing off the #MeToo movement.
Feldman successfully screened the movie for an audience in Los Angeles, but he planned to distribute the documentary as a pay-per-view event. At showtime, though, fans who paid $20 for the film were greeted with little more than an error message or a black box. The movie never streamed. Feldman claims that hackers crashed the site.
&#8220;Please be patient,&#8221; a message on the pay-per-view site read. &#8220;The hackers are trying to prevent the stream from airing. The program will begin momentarily. We appreciate your patience and support!&#8221;
Corey Feldman began speaking out about Hollywood pedophilia in his book, Coreyography, released in 2013.  At the time, Feldman identified his abusers only as “Ron,” “Tony,” “Burnham” and “Crimson” — all pseudonyms. Though Feldman had a close relationship with Michael Jackson, he has always maintained that the singer never abused him.

Premiere Of &#8220;My Truth: The Rape Of Two Coreys&#8221;

Corey Feldman Documentary Accuses Charlie Sheen Of Raping Corey Haim

Corey Feldman

Disgraced Hollywood mega-producer Harvey Weinstein is due in court in New York City on Wednesday for sentencing following his landmark conviction on one count of first degree sexual assault and one count of third degree rape, but Tuesday, his attorneys begged the court for leniency, claiming Weinstein has suffered enough because of his &#8220;historic fall from grace.&#8221;
The plea, made in a letter to Weinstein&#8217;s judge, Judge James Burke, begs Burke to give Weinstein the shortest possible sentence &#8212; a mere five years in prison &#8212; for his crimes, claiming that Weinstein is suffering unprecedented punishment already, as he “cannot walk outside without being heckled,” and his reputation is in tatters, <a href="https://apnews.com/c9c96c04af044201538c2947c3c56161">according to The Associated Press</a>.
&#8220;He has lost his means to earn a living,&#8221; Weinstein&#8217;s legal team says. &#8220;Simply put, his fall from grace has been historic, perhaps unmatched in the age of social media.&#8221;
They go on to claim that Weinstein, who is 67 years old, may not survive even a five year prison term.
&#8220;The grave reality is that Mr. Weinstein may not even outlive that term,&#8221; they say, suggesting that for Weinstein, a mere half decade is “a de facto life sentence.”
Weinstein could get up to 25 years in prison if the judge decides to hand the former movie mogul the maximum possible sentence for each of his crimes. His legal team, though, has long relied on portraying Weinstein as a victim and not a sexual predator; Weinstein paraded into and out of the courtroom leaning on a walker and, as he was en route to Rikers Island following his conviction, he was taken to Bellevue hospital, complaining of chest pains.
Weinstein reportedly underwent a procedure to place a stent in one of his arteries, and spent a week in the medical facility before being sent back to Rikers, where he&#8217;s since shared &#8220;dormitory&#8221;-style accommodations with other high value prisoners.
Weinstein&#8217;s prosecutors <a href="https://apnews.com/c9c96c04af044201538c2947c3c56161">told the Associated Press</a> that Burke can &#8220;consider all aspects of a defendant’s life and characteristics&#8221; when doling out a prison sentence, but that they hope Burke notes Weinstein&#8217;s &#8220;lifetime of abuse toward others, sexual and otherwise,&#8221; and &#8220;his total lack of remorse for the harm he has done,&#8221; while making his decision.
A jury found Weinstein guilty on two of the five charges brought by New York City prosecutors &#8212; the other three involved a documented history of predatory behavior, something rather difficult for prosecutors to establish, holding the trial so far removed in time from the alleged offenses.
But even though that limits the time Weinstein could spend in jail for his crimes, he will have to travel to Los Angeles in May, where he&#8217;ll face another round of charges, this time stemming from alleged sexual assaults that took place in California. He may also face charges in London; prosecutors there are reviewing several women&#8217;s claims against the former mega-producer.
Weinstein is still the most high-profile scalp taken by the #MeToo movement, which saw women (and some men) across the entertainment industry come forward with claims of being stalked, harassed, sexually assaulted, and even raped by Hollywood bigwigs.

Harvey Weinstein Sex-Crimes Trial Begins In New York

Harvey Weinstein’s Lawyers Beg For Lenient Prison Sentence, Say Disgraced Movie Mogul Has Suffered Enough

A man who had been falsely accused of sexually assaulting a 4-year-old at church was awarded $500,000 in damages from the town that ran with the accusation despite readily available evidence concluding the assault didn’t happen.
Joel Iacopelli was accused in 2015 of sexually assaulting a 4-year-old while he cared for the child at Community Bible Church in Port Royal, South Carolina. Iacopelli sued the town after the ordeal, and <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.scd.226134/gov.uscourts.scd.226134.40.0.pdf">his lawsuit</a> states that after the allegation was made on July 10 2015, he was arrested at his home and imprisoned, charged with criminal sexual conduct in the first-degree with a minor under 11 years of age. He says that on July 11, he was denied the right to be brought before the “contract” Port Royal municipal judge and summarily denied a bond/bail hearing. Iacopelli’s lawsuit says he was “refused to even be seen by the municipal judge,” denying him a hearing. He also says no specific facts were presented, yet he was still denied this hearing.
On July 13, Iacopelli’s attorneys had to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus to petition a bond hearing. Finally, he was granted a hearing, yet it was then delayed because the mother who made the accusation was on vacation. A continuance was granted, meaning Iacopelli would remain in prison. It wasn’t until July 23 that he finally had his bond set at $75,000. Since a defendant must put up 10% of the bond, Iacopelli paid $7,500 and was finally released from prison, but as a condition of his bond he was required to wear – and pay for – a GPS monitor and he was instructed to have no contact with children other than his own.
These conditions remained in place until the charges were eventually dismissed for lack of probable cause on August 20, 2015. Iacopelli’s name was associated with this disgusting crime in local media reports and online. He lost his job with United Health Care because of the allegations. He was the sole provider for his family.
Prior to his arrest, Iacopelli cooperated with Port Royal Police Department (PRPD) officers and voluntarily submitted to a poly graph test and taped interview. He also consented to a DNA swab – twice. Police officers arbitrarily scheduled his polygraph for a day Iacopelli could not attend, and then said they would contact him with a mutually convenient day, but never followed up on the request, the lawsuit states. Here’s the kicker:
<blockquote>[T]he Port Royal officers were in possession of extensive video evidence from Community Bible Church which conclusively refuted the factual allegations made by the alleged victim’s mother. The officers viewed a portion of the videos and discovered or should have discovered that the complaining witness was lying. Further, the officers failed to interview the other worker in the room and any of the other children or the parents. All of these failures occurred prior to the officers seeking an arrest warrant for Criminal Sexual Conduct 1st Degree With a Minor Under 11 Years Old.</blockquote>
Later, Iacopelli’s DNA was conclusively excluded from being present on the child.
Iacopelli’s lawsuit accuses law enforcement of arresting the accused man after allegedly telling the accuser that there was no probable cause to make the arrest. He further claims he was told he was being arrested on July 10 for not taking a polygraph test, even though officers didn’t contact him after saying they would. PRPD executed eight search warrants on Iacopelli’s residence, cell phone, and computers, which his attorneys argue were “invalid on their face” since there was no probably cause. The lawsuit claims one of the search warrants wasn’t even signed by a judge or judicial officer.
PRPD then refused to return Iacopelli’s possessions that had been seized during the searches until December 16, 2015.
The case took on an eerie similarity to the Satanic Daycare Panic of the late 80s and early 90s. As in those cases, the allegations began not from a child, but from a parent. In Iacopelli’s case, as in the daycare cases of decades ago, the alleged child victim was interviewed by someone asking blatantly leading questions and supplying the answers to the child – answers “which contained facts that would have been impossible to have occurred as posed by the examiner,” the lawsuit states.
In addition to everything else Iacopelli went through, his lawsuit alleges that the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) investigated him and his family. The lawsuit claims a DSS foster-care placement representative “accosted [Iacopelli’s] wife while” he was incarcerated. His children were then interviewed by DSS. The agency also allegedly threatened Iacopelli’s wife that if she didn’t agree to a “safety plan,” she would lose her children. The DSS never followed through with their investigation, the lawsuit says.
Iacopelli sued Port Royal and the people that investigated his case. As The Island Packet <a href="https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article240914331.html">reported</a>, he settled with the town after a four-year legal battle for $500,000. The money, of course, won’t give him his reputation back.

child

He Was Accused Of Sexually Assaulting A 4-Year-Old. Video And DNA Proved He Didn’t Do It.

Children

People accused of sexual assault – who are mostly men – will now be at a disadvantage when it comes to defending themselves from allegations.
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently <a href="https://t.co/XaBIL5qtIV?amp=1">ruled</a> that that if a woman making a sexual assault allegation cries on the stand and is unable to respond to questions regarding her accusation, a video of an earlier interview with her can be played instead. While one can certainly understand why a victim would be unable to go over the details of her rape, but this situation will also be used to the advantage of women who exaggerate or make up their claims.
Andrew Fleischman, who works to free wrongly convicted people, posted key parts of the ruling on Twitter, <a href="https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1234585179622125569">adding</a> that while he appreciates “the court&#8217;s concern here, due to the witness&#8217;s mental incapacity, I am not sure that this procedure comports with the Confrontation Clause.”
“How can you meaningfully cross-examine someone who has refused to answer questions?” he added.
Here’s the relevant portion from the ruling:
<blockquote>Our review of the record reveals that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. At trial, the victim responded readily to the State’s general questions, but once the inquiry reached the events of the rape, the victim had an episode requiring a break in the proceedings. When the examination continued, the victim was largely unresponsive, requiring the prosecutor to ask only leading questions. In light of these circumstances, the forensic interview was necessary to fill in the gaps in the victim’s testimony, and was thus more probative than her testimony alone.</blockquote>
Notably, as Fleischman pointed out, the court cases referred to by the Georgia Court of Appeals predate the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, which held that if a court wanted to introduce prior statements from a witness that was no longer available to testify, then cross-examination is a must.
As criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield <a href="https://twitter.com/ScottGreenfield/status/1234591702075219971">noted</a> on Twitter, the Georgia ruling “effectively eviscerated the right of confrontation of an adult accuser in rape trials” because you “can’t cross a video.”
The ruling essentially means an accuser can get out of cross examination by crying on the stand or refusing to answer questions. Because of the #MeToo movement and “believe all women” supporters, we are seeing more and more allegations of consensual sex and interactions being turned into accusations of sexual assault. Sometimes the women don’t intend to see themselves as a victim, but activists help them get there. Now, accusers can get out of being questioned about inconsistencies in their claims or text messages showing they willingly consented to sex simply by “breaking down” on the witness stand.
It is obviously unfair to anyone accused and may have consequences beyond rape allegations. Anyone could claim to be too traumatized to testify and avoid cross examination.
We’re at a point in society now where the rights of the accused are in trouble because of political beliefs. It’s leading to more false and exaggerated allegations, especially on college campuses, where due process rights don’t even factor into most school’s adjudication processes. Those unfair procedures are creeping into our actual legal system slowly, but surely.
The saving grace in this case is that the Georgia Supreme Court will likely weigh in, likely overturning this decision.

Lawyer

Those Accused Of Sexual Assault Will No Longer Be Able To Fully Confront Their Accusers In Georgia

Georgia

A teenager told police on February 19 that she was sexually assaulted by a man impersonating a police officer in Opelika, Alabama. Around 4:30 p.m. on the day in question, police arrived at Old Opelika Rd to look for the person impersonating an officer.
The teenager said she was driving alone at the time when a white pickup truck pulled up behind her. She said the truck had a flashing orange light, so the teenager assumed the man was an official. The teen said the driver approached her vehicle and sexually groped her before letting her drive away, WTVM <a href="https://www.wtvm.com/2020/02/20/teenage-driver-groped-by-man-impersonating-an-opelika-police-officer/">reported</a>.
The teen said the man was in his mid-to-late forties and wearing a black uniform with an Opelika Police badge on it, though it did not have patches on the sleeves.
When police recreated the events of the night based on the teen’s report using surveillance video from several cameras in the area, they discovered the assault as described could not have taken place. They confronted the teen with the evidence and she admitted she made up the whole thing, WTVM <a href="https://www.wtvm.com/2020/02/29/police-opelika-teen-driver-who-claimed-sexual-assault-by-police-impersonator-recants-story/?outputType=amp">reported</a>.
The outlet said police are keeping the investigation open but the focus is now on the teen’s false reporting. Opelika police told the outlet criminal charges are still being determined, if the woman is charged at all. The teen’s name has not been released because she is a minor. WTVM reported that “no further details will be given about the investigation or the outcome” because of her age.
The idea of a police state – like China – with hundreds of cameras on every street watching our every move is a terrifying prospect for America, yet there have been many cases where such cameras have been the only reason a falsely accused man was able to clear his name.
In February 2015, Lindsey Sweetin, a University of Arkansas student, told police she had been groped by a stranger in a parking garage. Police investigated her claims, which were disputed by witnesses and <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/student-charged-over-false-sexual-assault-accusation">surveillance video</a> of the area. Sweetin eventually admitted she had lied. Less than a year earlier, Julia Garcia claimed she had been raped in a different UA parking garage. Video surveillance again proved she was lying.
In 2017, a Lynn University student settled with his school after it suspended him for allegedly sexually assaulting a female student who claimed she was too drunk to consent. Again, <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/03/lynn-university-settles-student-police-say-falsely-accused-sexual-assault/">surveillance footage</a> showed this was not the case, as the woman was seen walking and talking normally with her friends both before and after her sexual encounter with the male student. Less than 30 minutes after she had sex with the male student, she was seen balancing on one foot while holding two cups of liquid and using her other foot to push the elevator door button.
In November 2018, a woman claimed a police officer raped her after she was arrested for shop lifting, but <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-claimed-police-officer-raped-her-surveillance-ashe-schow">in-car video</a> proved the male officer did no such thing.
In June 2019, a woman claimed an unknown man raped her in a parking lot after he jumped into her car and forced her to drive there. It later turned out the woman knew the man and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-claimed-she-was-sexually-assaulted-and-ashe-schow">surveillance footage</a> as well as other evidence proved it was not rape.
At Yale University in 2017, a male student was accused of sexually assaulting a drunk female student. The male student was found not guilty in 2018 at a trial after jurors saw <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2018/03/16/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-yale-sex-assault-trial/">surveillance footage</a> of the couple walking arm-in-arm back to their dorm. Prosecutors had claimed the male student was dragging the female student, yet cameras showed something different.
Just last week, Miranda S. Overton plead guilty to lying about a Navy sailor raping her two years earlier. As in the other cases, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-accused-a-sailor-of-sexual-assault-she-just-admitted-she-lied-so-her-significant-other-wouldnt-think-she-cheated">surveillance footage</a>, along with text messages, showed the rape didn’t happen – the sex was actually consensual.

Menu