Summary?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4062485&forum_id=2#36694970)

“...and after reviewing the tape, it was not clear whether [REDACTED]’s ecstatic moans repeated the phrase, ‘Oh God, don’t stop!” or “Oh God, don’t, stop!” In light of this ambiguity, we find that the accused—Jeremy H. Cravens, SSN 313-714-2280, home address 3370 N. Gilmore Lane, Butterfield, MN 20298–has failed to meet his burden of establishing affirmative consent throughout the act. We therefore permanently expel the accused and ban him from campus for life...”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4062485&forum_id=2#36696788)

Sounds like the roommate was jelly she didn't get the pipe.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4062485&forum_id=2#36694987)

In March, USC’s Office of Equity and Diversity found Premjee responsible for policy violations after conducting its own investigation into the sexual assault charges. Premjee was later expelled from USC, according to Sarmiento and the brief.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4062485&forum_id=2#36695039)

http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/i-did-not-rape-arshia-states-usc-student-accused-of

Indian American University of Southern California student Armaan Premjee, who has been accused of sexually assaulting an intoxicated young woman, categorically stated he did not rape her.

“Arshia initiated sexual contact with me,” Premjee told India-West in a candid interview, using only the first name of the alleged victim, who has been named in that manner in court documents. “I didn’t drink with her, didn’t offer her alcohol. I had no way of knowing how much she had to drink before we met,” said the Southern California-born man who grew up in Mumbai.

Premjee also noted that Arshia – who also grew up in Mumbai – did not want to press charges, and told police she could not remember that night.

After initially meeting April 1 at Banditos Tequila and Taco club – less than a mile away from the USC campus – the two took an Uber back to the university, and engaged in their brief encounter in a common area of Arshia’s dorm, he recalled. Arshia’s roommate found the pair, and called the resident assistant (see earlier India-West story here).

Premjee was contacted later that day by the Los Angeles Police Department, after Arshia was taken to the hospital for alcohol poisoning. He was arrested on charges of sexual assault and sexual penetration with a foreign object – he used his fingers during the encounter, violating Section 289 of the California Penal Code – and held on $100,000. Premjee, who is a U.S. citizen, made bail and was released the same day; he initially faced 10 years in state prison.

USC’s rules and California law state that a person who is intoxicated is not capable of giving valid, affirmative consent. Affirmative or active consent is defined as a verbal “yes.” In this case, the alleged victim was not capable of giving valid consent, according to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office.

The DA’s office in May recommended that Premjee’s bail be increased to $1 million, noting he was a flight risk. But Premjee told India-West that he could not have fled the country, as a bail bondsman was holding his passport.

Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor ruled July 26 during a preliminary hearing that there was insufficient evidence to show Premjee had raped Arshia. Pastor noted that he had reviewed videotapes from surveillance cameras at Banditos and Arshia’s dorm building.

“As I evaluate the totality of the evidence from the initial encounter between Arshia and the defendant, Mr. Premjee, I believe that there was consent and there remained consent throughout the unfortunate incidents in this case,” ruled Pastor.

“There is no indication of any withdrawal of consent. There is a very strong indication that the alleged victim in this case was the initiator of any conduct between the defendant and the alleged victim,” ruled the judge.

“That doesn't mean necessarily because the alleged victim was the instigator of any conduct, but it is a fact to be evaluated, and the continuing nature of consent is evident to this court,” noted Pastor in his ruling.

The tapes – which were provided to India-West – show the young woman approaching Premjee at the crowded, dimly-lit Banditos and briefly engaging in conversation. At some point, the woman put her arms around Premjee, and the pair began deep kissing.

Arshia sat on the bar before she was asked to step down, according to the video footage, which shows the pair exiting the bar and taking selfies with other friends before getting into an Uber.

In the Uber, Premjee alleged that Arshia continued to instigate sexual contact with him, straddling his lap in the back seat, in view of other passengers and the driver.

Premjee is a member of the Kappa Sigma Fraternity; the pair initially went to his frat house. But the house was on social probation; a frat brother told Premjee that Arshia was a risk to the house.

The pair got into another Uber and went to Arshia’s dorm. Premjee told India-West he sat in the front seat this time, with Arshia in the back, as he felt uncomfortable about the previous encounter. On the way up to the dorm building, Premjee said he told Arshia he wanted to hold off on having sex.

“I prefer sex when people are sober,” he told India-West, adding that he told Arshia he felt things were moving too quickly and that they should get to know each other first.

“Why are you being such a good boy? Be a bad boy,” Arshia allegedly told him, according to Premjee. “She was on a mission,” he said.

USC is continuing its investigation of the case; Premjee, a junior studying business administration, could be expelled if he is found guilty of misconduct by the school.

“In the past, they have expelled students who have been found innocent in court. It is a very biased process. USC uses a lower standard of proof,” said Premjee, who said he was worried about being expelled.

Facebook

Twitter

Email

Print

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4062485&forum_id=2#36695052)

https://dailytrojan.com/2018/06/12/former-student-sues-city-of-los-angeles-and-lapd/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4062485&forum_id=2#36695067)

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/24714354/Premjee_v_City_of_Los_Angeles_et_al

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4062485&forum_id=2#36695128)

NOT REMEMBERING DOES NOT MEAN YOU COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN CONSENT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4062485&forum_id=2#36695141)

https://shibboleth.usc.edu/idp/profile/SAML2/Redirect/SSO?execution=e2s1

Enough rooting around Facebook could unearth the skank.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4062485&forum_id=2#36695161)

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/40537/

Judge overturns campus rape finding after officials call accused student ‘motherf—er’

Make sure you hang up before demonstrating your bias

It’s hard to overstate the incompetence of some officials running Title IX investigations in America’s colleges.

Just before Christmas, a judge overturned the University of Southern California’s 2016 sexual-assault finding against an accused student, deeming him the victim of a process that was not “fair, thorough, reliabl[y] neutral and impartial.”

One of the errors made by the private institution? The Title IX coordinator and investigator repeatedly called the male student and his adviser “motherfuckers” after they forgot to hang up on a call with them.

Oh, and they called the female student accusing him “a catch.”

USC had a very low threshold to cross in order for Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth White to wash her hands of the situation.

She could only review whether the school “proceeded without or in excess of jurisdiction, whether there was a fair trial, and whether a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurred” – in this case, where “substantial evidence” does not back the school’s findings.

USC failed miserably. It wasn’t the first time.

An admission that’s not an admission

White describes the relationship between “John Doe” and the female student as “volatile and complicated.”

They exchanged “several hundred” Facebook messages in less than a week as they rehashed a disputed sexual encounter two months earlier, when they were “dating-ish.” They continued sleeping together for a month after the disputed encounter on Oct. 14, 2015.

The female (“Roe”) alternately claimed 1) Doe held her down during sex and refused her verbal pleas to stop 2) she might not have actually told him to stop. Doe claims they “tried” having sex but didn’t actually do it that night.

There are a couple major factual disputes between the two.

Roe claimed Doe’s roommate “knocked a few times” and then entered the room as she was leaving in tears, and gave her “a confused face.” Doe claimed no one knocked and Roe was gone the next morning when he woke.

USC explicitly refused to interview the roommate – the only person who allegedly saw the two on the same night.

Instead, the administration deemed that Doe admitted to sexual assault because he made an ambiguous apology to Roe. She had texted him to make various accusations about his behavior that night, once more blurring the line of whether Doe actually violated her consent or just pressured her to have sex (“you also tried to guilt trip me into feeling bad and having sex”).

Judge White also notes that Roe herself didn’t immediately refer to the encounter as “rape” because she didn’t want to “make it a big deal.” Her own Facebook messages suggest she was accusing Doe because he continued “hooking up” with others, while she wanted them to be exclusive. (Recall this was a “dating-ish” relationship.)

‘Motherfuckers’: Judge rules USC denied ‘fair and impartial’ Title IX investigation to accused student by The College Fix on Scribd

‘Does that college motherfucker know who I am?’

Investigator Patrick Noonan interviewed 17 “witnesses,” none of whom witnessed the parties that night, and failed to give “any rationale” for not interviewing Doe’s roommate, who was explicitly suggested by Roe.

In his final investigative report, Noonan left out more than 150 pages of communications with Roe provided by Doe. The supposed investigator also made a rookie mistake: believing that two text messages in the communications had been manipulated because they were in “nonsequential order.”

You can see Judge White’s irritation flare up here: She notes that the texts were arranged that way because of the “computer applications” Doe used to retrieve the messages. Noonan cited these nonsequential texts as a strike against Doe’s credibility.

This is a man paid by USC to investigate felony-level allegations that depend heavily on digital evidence.

When Noonan and Title IX Coordinator Gretchen Dahlinger Means provided the findings to Doe and his adviser in a conference call, “neither party terminated the phone call,” White says.

Means and Noonan kept talking to each other on the hot line:

Means asked, “Who do these motherfuckers think they are?” and, “Does that college motherfucker know who I am?” … Both Noonan and Means referred to [Doe] as “motherfuckers.” … Noonan and Means also described Roe as “a catch” and expressed, “[She is] so cute and intelligent. What was she doing with that (referencing [Doe])?”

Means is paid by USC to ensure compliance with “non-discrimination” mandates.

Lame excuses for not interviewing only alleged witness

USC is actually responsible for California case law on the obligations of private educational institutions in student disciplinary proceedings – it screwed over an accused student in an ambiguous orgy – so Judge White didn’t have to look far for guidance.

She cited an “unacceptable probability of actual bias” against Doe, not only because of the “motherfuckers” comment by the officials in charge of the investigation, but because Means was also advising the “purportedly neutral” review panel that issued the decision against Doe:

In this case, the review panel did not issue any rationale for “its” determination and, instead, summarily adopted the findings of [Noonan]. … In sum, the panel is merely a proxy for the Title IX office, which actually rendered the underlying decision.

White rebuked the university for having the chutzpah to claim that its system is “comprised of independent decision-makers”:

[T]he Title IX Office is involved in each stage of the decision-making process. … Thus, it is disingenuous to argue that USC’s review process prevents bias from tainting the outcome when Coordinator Means – a person who has expressed vitriol against [Doe] and favoritism toward Roe – is permitted to advise each purported decision maker …

The judge also showed contempt for USC’s explanation for not interviewing Doe’s roommate, the only person who could corroborate a “material disputed fact” on the night in question.

The university said it was “not appropriate” to interview him, then claimed he was “out of the country … and unresponsive” based on Roe’s “uncorroborated claim.” USC never provided records of even its attempts to reach the roommate.

(Interestingly, White suggests USC may have disingenuously cited federal student privacy law to avoid explaining why it didn’t interview the roommate. The law’s author has said it’s massively abused.)

In perhaps her most stinging rebuke of the university, White said Doe’s purported “admissions of wrongdoing” (his ambiguous apology message to Roe) was not remotely a confession. What had Doe actually told Roe? That he was sorry for making her “upset,” “distressing” her, making a “mistake” and maybe for having “crossed a line” physically.

In fact, Doe categorically denied Roe’s claims when she finally accused him in plain words, not her ambiguous guilt-trip language: “I have never said that I sexually assaulted you and I maintain that to this day.”

The judge also rebuked Noonan for claiming Doe had “opportunities” to question his accuser, when the investigator wouldn’t even let Doe “take notes” during his interview – the only opportunity to submit questions for Roe.

Unfortunately for Doe, he’s probably stuck going through the star chamber again. White told the university to “conduct a new fair and impartial investigation.” Given USC’s trip through the California courts in the preceding years, that seems unlikely to pass.

CORRECTION: The original article gave the incorrect date for USC’s finding against John Doe. He was expelled in 2016 based on allegations from 2015. The article has been amended accordingly.

MORE: USC denied ‘fair hearing’ to accused student in orgy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4062485&forum_id=2#36695223)

http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4094976&mc=30&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4062485&forum_id=2#36939068)