[Oswaldo Guimaraens]

(04-24-2015 07:18 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Anyone notice the parallels between Emma and Jackie Coakley? Both of them went nuts and turned their university upside down because they liked a boy but he didn't like her back. What solipsism. What narcissism. The millions of dollars of destruction both of these bitches caused because they found out they might not be special snowflakes after all.

Yeah, the parallel is that they are both women. ROK readers know that this type of behavior is typical; perhaps these two examples are slightly extreme, but they are fair examples of the over-entitled millennial university/young professional woman in 2015.

Still, we can take some momentary glee at yet another huge failure of the SJW narrative. Gee, there's a crisis of sexual assault on campus, and the left can't even find one true example.

I don't see why Paul isn't suing the crazy slut for defamation too.

[void]

The news spread to German "Magazine" Spiegel, that he will sue the University. Comments are disabled for the article - I wonder why. He has overwhelming evidence in his hand, I hope the court cruches this whole bullshit and Sulkowicz is exposed publicly.

Off-Topic: I see transgender articles getting pushed on the websites like zeit.de or spiegel.de lately. I found some articles with some ironic CIS-gender comments below mocking the them. How does this shit even spill over to the German press?

[CH-Toronto]

(04-25-2015 05:07 AM)Oswaldo Guimaraens Wrote:  

Still, we can take some momentary glee at yet another huge failure of the SJW narrative. Gee, there's a crisis of sexual assault on campus, and the left can't even find one true example.

She gets it.

Quote:

You know who else Rolling Stone's story kind of did a disservice to? I think, personally -- as long as we're ranking victims -- a very close second to the woman who lied about being raped, as well as all the unnamed college rape victims who might have their claims taken less seriously in the future, are THE INNOCENT FRATERNITY MEMBERS WHO WERE FALSELY ACCUSED OF A VIOLENT GANG RAPE.

If UVA's much vaunted "honor code" means anything, it ought to mean the permanent expulsion of a girl who was willing to ruin the lives of men she had never met by accusing them of gang-rape -- just to get the attention of a guy she liked.

Nicole Eramo, said that college rape accusations required "balancing respect for the wishes of survivors while also providing for the safety of our communities."

Again, isn't someone missing from all that delicate "balancing"? I'm thinking of: the men falsely accused of rape. Colleges might want to consider adopting a concept that's been around since the second century: "innocent until proved guilty."

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-25-2015 06:41 AM)void Wrote:  

The news spread to German "Magazine" Spiegel, that he will sue the University. Comments are disabled for the article - I wonder why. He has overwhelming evidence in his hand, I hope the court cruches this whole bullshit and Sulkowicz is exposed publicly.

Off-Topic: I see transgender articles getting pushed on the websites like zeit.de or spiegel.de lately. I found some articles with some ironic CIS-gender comments below mocking the them. How does this shit even spill over to the German press?

The reason is simple - most countries on Earth have the same owners. I sometimes see laws passed around the same time in the US, EU, Japan, New Zealand or even China. Sometimes things get sidetracked because of local opposition, but the basic guideline is clear.

[jariel]

If you really want to understand the demented mindset of these females, think about this for a second:

When a person makes a logical statement, such as, "It's hard for me to believe there was a rape when none of the parties from the university, the district attorney's office, and the police had reason to believe a crime was a committed," their go-to rebuttal is:

"Just because there isn't evidence of a rape doesn't mean there wasn't a rape"

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.

These nutjobs want this girl to have been raped, forget about whatever agenda is being pushed, it's more sinister than that, they would rather she be a violated woman than simply just a slut scorned.

They're doing mental gymnastics to connect dots that don't even exist, all so they can say, "See, we told you, she was raped!"

That type of mentality goes along with the same mindset in which the media forces us to remember women who we never knew existed because they ended up being murder victims; there's an appearance of sympathy, when it's in fact anything but.

[RedPillUK]

Whoah her facebook profile is public..? She already has like 20 people on her friends list spamming her status updates, theres some dude called ass to mouth posting a best of her sluttiness on every status she posts.

[Mike5055]

^Jariel - Exactly! You're dealing with people who have the opinion of always siding with the accuser (if it's a woman) regardless of any evidence. They are a mockery to the very foundations of our legal process.

[Bacchus]

Even though she's been exposed as a lying whore, her supporters will not change. They cannot accept as fact anything that goes against their narrative. To them, mattress bitch is always the victim, and Paul always a rapist. His suit just makes her a further victim because not only has she failed to get her rapist expelled, he's tarnished her name by revealing her dirty laundry.

These are the people who accept as dogma the following propositions that have been thoroughly disproven: 1) the wage gap 2) the 1-in-4 statistic 3) women face credible death threats online. This isn't the full list, but you'd have a better chance of getting a jihadi to renounce Islam than getting these feminists to budge on these positions. They are as dug-in as a WWI trench.

This case is going to settle, but even if Paul won at trial, Emma's supporters (the rape-industrial complex) would not change their views on what happened to her or the problem of campus rape. This would be the second high-profile campus rape story to crumble in a matter of months, and yet campus rape remains this horrible plague, despite no evidence. Expect the next story to go viral to suffer from the same flaws. How many is it going to take before people stop caring or stop believing?

[lurker]

(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.

[Seamus]

(04-25-2015 12:32 PM)lurker Wrote:  

......

Great post. A lot of stuff I wanted to write out but was too lazy to. +1

That said, I'm slightly more optimistic for his chances than you are.

[Suits]

(04-25-2015 12:32 PM)lurker Wrote:  

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.


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.


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.

Excellent post and you're probably right, but Nungesser isn't just suing for a Title IX violation.

He's also suing for a violation of NY Executive Law Section 296(4), Violation of NY Civil Rights Law, Breach of Contract, Violation of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, negligence and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

While the objectives you've suggested are clearly part of the plan, I think that the lawyer behind this is also trying to give the suit as much chance as possible to make it past a motion to dismiss.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Nungesser is not well-off. He could never afford trial lawyers of that caliber for such a major case.

Those lawyers are likely getting 40-60% of the settlement sum in order to finance the procedure on their tab. That means that they are fairly certain of winning based on the evidence. The Duke Lacrosse scandal cost Duke 100 mio. + - so yeah adherence to marxist doctrines - even Washington mandated ones - currently won't help them much.

[bacan]

Lurker, fantastic post. I learned something new.

Zelcorpion, who are his lawyers? I haven't seen their names. They are very good and expensive?

[Dusty]

Some of the top rated comments from the Washington Post article about the lawsuit.

Starting to see the Red Pill in more and more places.

Quote:

junkity

In another WaPo article it states that "Ms. Sulkowicz did not press criminal charges, a lengthy process that she said would be too draining".
Carrying a 50lb mattress around campus for the rest of her academic year isn't draining though; not when it makes her a celebrity. She sounds like a bit of a nut-job.

Quote:

GSA101

This article doesn't provide enough of the background on this case. The alleged sexual assault victim's story makes about as much sense as the UVA "victim"'s story. In both cases, they are going around making a spectacle of themselves, but are carefully avoiding talking to the police.

Unlike lying in public and to University officials, false statements to the police can lead to criminal charges.

Columbia's support of the mattress campaign, by granting course credit and other support, is pure institutional harassment of the male student. Since the University found the sexual abuse charges to be unsubstantiated, it's subsequent aiding and abetting of this false narrative is unconscionable.

Hopefully this lawsuit will teach this politically correct, brain-dead institution a much needed lesson.

Quote:

Corey Kagel

Emma Sulkowicz was contacting Paul for WEEKS after he supposedly raped her. She was practically stalking him according to the New York Daily News article and sources. This is what happens when you have a one night stand and anger college girls nowadays. They'll claim you raped them. I hope he wins the lawsuit.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(04-24-2015 07:18 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Anyone notice the parallels between Emma and Jackie Coakley? Both of them went nuts and turned their university upside down because they liked a boy but he didn't like her back. What solipsism. What narcissism. The millions of dollars of destruction both of these bitches caused because they found out they might not be special snowflakes after all.

This bitch is far worse than even Jackie Coakley. At least Jackie never accused a particular guy, so the damage she caused was less concentrated.'

This Sulkowicz creature lied again and again over a long period of time, and went so far as to file a police complaint and conceive of this mattress escapade, all in a deliberate and ongoing attempt to destroy an innocent man's life. She is a true moral monster, and I can't think of any punishment that would be too severe for her.

[Foolsgo1d]

I'm glad he and the lawyer are focusing on the University and not necessarily the girl. She has nothing, he will get hate for it and the University will get away with it.

By taking them to court he has the opportunity to hurt an institution which is enabling this behaviour from the start and then catapults the perpetrator into a kangaroo court with no legal rep nor due process.

Where is the evidence? They are destroying young men on the basis of an insidious movement where rape is exploding on campus. Surely these enlightened individuals who aspire to seek knowledge should notice this vendetta?

Every institution who does this must face the consequences and that includes Rolling Stone magazine.

[cibo]

I just checked the girls facebook page. And saw this.
   

Neon dyed hair really is the crazy marker.

[Dusty]

^^^

She's aged precipitously as her mental health has deteriorated.

Both her parents are psychiatrist. No wonder she's nuts. Did anyone ever watch Six Feet Under? Emma kind of reminds me of the crazy broad on that show, Brenda, whose parents were also both psychiatrists.

[Grodin]

good post lurker, I definitely agree that is at least part of the motivation here. In addition, I wonder does submitting this information as part of a lawsuit prevent Columbia from disciplining him for violating confidentiality clauses? This may have been his only safe way of presenting evidence supporting his innocence.

I'm not a law expert, but I wonder if he has a case if he can prove that the confidentiality requirements were unequally applied on the basis of gender. It would be difficult to prove, as you said was it on the basis of gender or on the basis of who filed the complaint? Columbia's policies do not seem to limit confidentiality to only one side of the process however.

The complaint seems to show convincingly that Columbia didn't enforce and/or adhere to it's own policies, but I'm not aware what laws that violates (or if it does violate a law)

[Laurifer]

A guy commented on one of her posts, this gives me hope for humanity:

Quote:

Below are reasons why your claims remain dubious.

1. Paul: ”small shindig in our room tonight ~ bring cool freshman"
Emma: ”Okay so let them know I'll be der w da females spon [sic]"

In this conversation one day after the alleged rape, you happily agree to load up your car with girlfriends, driving them right into the lair of the supposed beast. Yet, you claim the university is not doing enough to protect students.

2. Paul: “Oh hai. happy born day! you better be celebrating muchos, no? also: donde estas tu mi viva? see i'm so desperate without you, I even try to speak spanish. anywho: merry happy days?”
Emma: “I love you Paul. Where are you!?!?!??!?!”

It’s hard to believe that your alleged rapist would wish you a happy birthday, and then you respond with “I love you”

3. You claim it would be too draining to pursue charges, and yet you carry a 50-pound mattress to all of your classes.

3a. While you didn’t pursue charges, you certainly did press charges, which you immediately withdrew, conveniently granting you the ability to go public with Paul’s name while avoiding perjury.

4. By your own admission, you had sex with Paul when he was drunk and you were sober. Those are grounds for rape. Period.

5. Paul was not allowed to bring records of you saying “I love you” to his trial, and yet he still was deemed innocent.

6. There is no hard evidence to support your side of the story besides hearsay.

7. When your conversations with Paul finally come to light, all of a sudden a new victim appears to distract us from these revelations. A little too convenient, don’t you think?

8. Your credibility is weakened by the fact that you are his ex-lover and that you colluded with Paul’s ex-girlfriend and a buddy from ADP to file claims *months* after your rape. These are the actions of a vindictive, scorned lover rather than an justice-seeker.

These are the facts of the case which you have so graciously made available to the public through your carelessness.

But all of that aside, what reason would you have to lie about something as terrible as rape? Who could possibly be so pathetic?

Perhaps it was the magazine covers, the numerous awards from feminist organizations, or tag-alongs with Senators to State of the Union speeches (even if Sen. Gillibrand was simply using you for political expediency). Maybe you simply liked the attention. Whatever the reason, it is clear you have profited enormously from your tale.

And the best part? Even in the presence of overwhelming facts that contradict your story, no one can accuse you of foul play. As a rape victim, you have an infallible position: anyone who casts doubt on your story is either a
victim-blamer and rape apologist; there’s too much repetitional risk involved for the other side to take a stand. Better yet, even if some of your details don’t add it up, you can blame it on the PTSD. After all, there’s no perfect victim.

But you know what? I’m not buying it. You can call me a rape apologist, or whatever you’d like, but at the end of the day, res ipsa loquitur.

[Game_Started]

(04-25-2015 02:57 PM)cibo Wrote:  

I just checked the girls facebook page. And saw this.


Neon dyed hair really is the crazy marker.

My goodness, she's barely a 6 and looks like Rebbeca Lobo

[MMX2010]

(04-25-2015 08:00 AM)jariel Wrote:  

These nutjobs want this girl to have been raped, forget about whatever agenda is being pushed, it's more sinister than that, they would rather she be a violated woman than simply just a slut scorned.

They're doing mental gymnastics to connect dots that don't even exist, all so they can say, "See, we told you, she was raped!"

In this post AnonymousBosch explains what you wrote about.

Quote:

For a woman to pull off a successful Rule #4, she has to trigger female solipsism: the women hearing of her crime have to emotionally-identify with her excuse, so can then easily-imagine herself in their position, then, fearing potential punishment for something they could imagine themselves doing, downplay her transgression entirely to cover their own arses in the future, because they're cowards.

This process is how women continually degrade the morals of any functional society.

In Mattress Girl's case, the women who claim to sympathize with Mattress Girl would rather that she have been raped so that she wouldn't be a slut scorned, so that they themselves wouldn't have to consider that they, too, could just-as-easily be a slut scorned.

[AnonymousBosch]

To sum up my reaction to this and the Rolling Stone scandal: It seems fellow students at a University, the University Faculty, the University Counsellors, the Media, and even Government Representatives can no longer tell when a woman is, to put it bluntly, mentally-unstable and psychotic enough to be a threat to every single person and power structure around them, should her anger turn to their way.

Meanwhile, the Forum spotted an Out-Of-Control, Delusional Sloot on Day One of this story, due to our knowledge and experience of dating women and recognising all the tells.

Since the Societal Structures at play above are so wrapped up in selling a false narrative, they're basically enablers of female insanity by listening, believing and never, ever questioning the narrative out of personal cowardice, and, as such, University is simply a place to send your daughter to get intellectually-raped, to mentally-break her down and cultivate her neuroses into a hothouse flower wafting a scent of amoral, leaving her completely-unable to function in the wider world.

Her friends and minions don't notice or care that she's a liar, because they're also insane, celebrating her ridiculous statements on Twitter.

The faculty and counsellors had some suspicion, she's a liar, but were too cowardly to say it outright.

The media and government representatives don't care if she's a liar or not, because the narrative offers them power, and, as such, they should be mocked mercilessly with the absolutely borderline-retarded statements this girl is making on Twitter about asking for evidence being some kind of scientific tyranny.

What use are these women to society? There's only so many Women's Crisis Centres.

[El Chinito loco]

(04-25-2015 11:03 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

What use are these women to society? There's only so many Women's Crisis Centres.

They have no use outside of their own faux activism. They will take their degrees and run to whatever publication or independent media (internet blog) that will pay them money to spout their bullshit. Then it becomes a vicious cycle as the next generation of women read and become influenced by the op-ed pieces/clickbait from the craziest of the bunch. The next batch of nutters then go on to mainstream journalism careers..so on and so forth.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

@Alpharivelino tweeted that a couple hours ago - Nungesser's mother is a feminist:



That's her website: http://www.weibblick.com/
Usually those kind of sites receive some government financial aid.

You cannot make this up - this is delicious. A mother raises an ardent feminist, he behaves like a good boy refusing anal when offered the first time. He just rejects a LTR with a slut who gets spit-roasted and sends him texts about it.

Then he experiences what feminism is truly about!



Hist mother even writes for the German State Woman Organisation (Frauenrat).

More on his mother: single mother, cat-lover, "passionate" feminist....

Quote:

Privately, she loves books and documentaries, Danish salty liquorice, trips to Israel and work in her garden. Your son is now grown up; after a prolonged stay in Brazil she commutes with her boyfriend and her cat between Berlin and a village in the Ruppin country.

Now to be fair, she may be a nice person, but her inability to understand what feminism is truly about made her son into the person that gets accused of fake rape. Most often it is the nice guys who get treatment like that. Very rarely the Alpha guy is the victim - in most instances he would have to be at least semi-famous. Nah - it was a nice feminist boy.

@bacan - I posted the lawyer details 2-3 pages ago. I estimate that the legal costs will be 6-digits minimum even before going to trial. No way his single feminist mother can afford that.