Quote: (04-25-2015 08:00 AM)jariel Wrote:
Once again, logic leads one to raise the question, if there isn't any evidence that a rape took place, then what exactly has you believing that it in fact did?
The short answer, nothing.
Testimony is evidence. If a girl says she was raped, that is evidence of a rape. The issue, which is where your argument is going, is that testimonial evidence without corroboration is weak and easily falsified. Deciding whether that evidence is credible is the job of the factfinder, usually a jury in American jurisprudence.
To ensure convictions rest solely on reliable, unambiguous evidence, we set the burden of proof in criminal trials at beyond a reasonable doubt. The purpose of the burden of proof is to prevent conviction on flimsy or unsupported evidence, like testimony from the complaining witness that contradicts observable phenomena.
The burden of proof is not the only evidentiary safeguard. Trials also feature rules of evidence that broker what can and cannot be put to a jury, and ensure the right of a party to confront any evidence presented.
The issue with campus tribunals is not that they find men responsible for rape on no evidence. It's that they dismantle both the burden of proof and evidentiary rules, so that men are held responsible for rape on unreliable evidence.
Now to the topic at hand.
Nungesser's complaint is probably doomed at the motion to dismiss or summary judgment stage. A brief overview:
When you file a civil complaint, the first step the defendant takes is often to file a motion to dismiss, also called a demurrer in many state courts. A motion to dismiss tests the causes of action in the complaint itself. That means it takes all the allegations in the complaint as true, and tests whether those allegations list a legal wrong. Actual truth is irrelevant at the motion to dismiss stage.
Example: Roosh sues you for battery. He alleges you met him in New York and punched him square in the nutsack. You were in Crimea offering shelter to war-afflicted 11s with non-pointy elbows on the date he alleges. He wins at a motion to dismiss, because the law recognizes battery as a wrong.
Counterexample: Lindy West sues you for wrongful deprivation of nom noms. She alleges you took the last box of candy cane Oreos from the only supermarket in town three seconds before she could get her mitts on it. Her allegations are totally true. You win at a motion to dismiss, because the law does not recognize a tort for depriving land whales.
Complaints that survive motions to dismiss go to summary judgment. At summary judgment, cases with no disputes of material fact are resolved on the law. If both parties agree on the actual truth of events, summary judgment happens. If they disagree, the case survives to go to trial.
Example: You sue El Mechanico for breach of contract. The contract says "I will fix your transmission by Saturday or your money back." He spends the week banging Spring Break lizards instead and keeps your money. The facts that the transmission is not fixed by Saturday and you do not have your money back are undisputed. You win on summary judgment.
Example 2: You sue Krauser for breach of contract. The contract says "If you take my pickup course, you will bang a Spanish 8+ this weekend." You bang a girl you consider a high 7, but she slips and tells you she's from Lisbon. Krauser claims she's a solid 9 and has a Spanish passport. You lose at summary judgment, because there are disputes of fact over the girl.
Trial is for cases that have disputes over facts, or the actual truth of what happened. The jury decides the facts. The judge applies the law to those facts.
To survive these stages, Nungesser has to show that he accuses Columbia of a legally recognized wrong, and that the law is on his side or disputes of fact exist that require determination by jury. This will be difficult on many of his claims. Columbia itself did not harass him, followed the Title IX procedures, and arguably did not treat him differently because he was male - it treated him differently because he was accused of rape. The Columbia proceedings and facts he relies on are part of record and not easily disputable.
Now for the twist: this isn't the point.
Nungesser isn't really suing Columbia. He's filing a court of public opinion/PR offensive against Sulkowicz that shows how deranged her allegations were without having to litigate a defamation claim. Why is this important? First, for a defamation claim, he'll have to prove her statements were false, meaning he has to relitigate the rape allegations all over again - and has to do so as "the rapist who sued his victim." Bad press, bad publicity, and extremely costly. It's also no-win: Sulkowicz doesn't have any assets, so even if Nungesser prevails he won't have anything to show for his time. Moreover, his damages in the Columbia suit are harm to his reputation. Suing Sulkowicz harms his reputation more, whether or not he's right.
This is why he filed an incredibly detailed, 50+ page complaint. Real complaints are bare-bones: you want to allege the ultimate facts required to state each legal cause of action and little else, because it gives your case away. For a Title IX complaint, those ultimate facts would be along the lines of: Nungesser is male, Columbia treated him worse because he was male, Nungesser was damaged. Complaints that set out all the facts in a long narrative manner like this are aimed at the press, not the courts.
It's not a bad move.