Home › Forums › Political Corner › Jackie Speier Introduces Bill to f~~~ over male students.
This topic contains 17 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by 
LastManStanding 3 years, 1 month ago.
- AuthorPosts
Open season on men.
Woman will be blackmailing the s~~~ out of male students.
No proof needed, no due process. Your degree will be worthless with the stroke of a pen when your transcripts read sexual assault for something you were never even found guilty of. All that is needed is one false accusation.Read the very bottom for a list of supporters.
If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.
In college and on college/campus, every young man should NEVER get involved with any local college/campus female, and if anyone asks or there is any friction…. he’s “gay”.
Those false accusation bitches are now done. They don’t exist.
No dates. No dances. No fraternizing. No speaking to them. No attention.What would you rather be known as?
A “sex offender for life” because some bitch said so? — Or “gay”.Gays have rights. Use them. And beat these bitches at their own game.
If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.What would you rather be known as?
A “sex offender for life” because some bitch said so? — Or “gay”.This has been my biggest hurdle Faust for Science. This is the EXACT reason behind my addictions. These accusations are why I am here.I am so grateful to every man who posts his own experiences so that others may learn. There was no help for me when this occurred to me almost twenty five years ago. There is help now. Thank you Keymaster. Thank you MGTOW.
As a “post attorney” for the Government I’m fascinated by this. Lawyers always begin the analysis with definition of the terms: The law: The Safe Transfer Act (the new law) employed the term “sex offense as:
Paragraph (D) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term ‘sex offense’ has the meaning—
(i) given the term ‘sex offense’ in section 485(f)(1)(F)(i)(II) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(F)(i)(II));
(ii) given the term ‘sexual assault’ in section 485(f)(6)(A)(v) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(6)(A)(v)); and
(iii) of an offense that meets the definition of rape, fondling, incest, or statutory rape under the final regulations published by the Department of Education in the Federal Register on October 20, 2014,for Appendix A of subpart D of part 668, Code of Federal Regulations (79 Fed. Reg. 17 62752).Here is where it gets good gentlemen: How does 20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(F)(i)(II)), and (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(6)(A)(v)); define sex offense/ sex assault?
IT DOESN’T define them HA HA! You only thoguht it DID! It merely lists them as “topics” to be reported under the Jeanne Clery Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f) Disclosure of campus security policy and campus crime statistics—–Don’t believe me? See below:
(F) Statistics concerning the occurrence on campus, in or on noncampus buildings or property, and on public property during the most recent calendar year, and during the 2 preceding calendar years for which data are available–
(i) of the following criminal offenses reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies:
(I) murder;
(II) sex offenses, forcible or nonforcible;
(III) robbery;
(IV) aggravated assault;
(V) burglary;
(VI) motor vehicle theft;
(VII) manslaughter;
(VIII) arson; and
(IX) arrests or persons referred for campus disciplinary action for liquor law violations, drug-related violations, and weapons possession;Do you see any definitions—I don’t I just see a list so WHERE is the definition?
Federal Register comments on the Clery Act on the issue of “consent:
Comments: We received numerous comments regarding our decision not
to defineconsent” for the purposes of the Clery Act. Many of the
commenters disagreed with the Department’s conclusion that a definition
ofconsent” is not needed because, for purposes of Clery Act
reporting, institutions are required to record all reported sex
offenses in the Clery Act statistics and the crime log regardless of
any issue of consent. The commenters strongly urged the Department to
defineconsent” in these final regulations to provide clarity for
institutional officials and to promote consistency across institutions.
The commenters noted that the definition ofconsent” varies by
locality, and that some States do not have a definition. These
commenters believed that establishing a Federal definition in these
regulations would inform State efforts to legislate on this issue. In
States that do not have a definition ofconsent,” some commenters
argued, schools are left to determine their own definitions and have
inappropriately deferred to local law enforcement for determinations
about whetherconsent,” was provided based on a criminal evidentiary
standard.Fed Register on “dating violence”
Several individuals commented on the proposal in the NPRM that, for
Clery Act purposes, the determination of whether or not the victim and
the perpetrator were in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate
nature would be made based on the reporting party’s statement and
taking into consideration the length of the relationship, the type of
relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons
involved in the relationship. Some of the commenters expressed support
for this provision. While supporting this approach, other commenters
stressed the need for the institution to place significant weight on
the reporting party’s statement and to allow for a balanced and
flexible determination of the relationship status. However, these
commenters were also concerned that institutional officials making
judgments about the length of the relationship, the type of
relationship, and the frequency of the relationship may omit dating
relationships where the reporting party describes the relationship astalking,”hanging out,”seeing one another,”hooking up,”
and so on. Along these lines, some of the commenters recommended
expanding the definition ofdating” to encompass social or romantic
relationships that are casual or serious, monogamous or non-monogamous,
and of long or short duration.Sexual Assualt:
Comments: The commenters generally supported our proposal to
include this definition in the regulations. They agreed that specifying
that, for the purposes of the Clery Act statistics,sexual assault”
includes rape, fondling, incest, or statutory rape, as those crimes are
defined in the FBI’s UCR program, would clarify the regulations and
ensure more consistent reporting across institutions.Stalking:
Comments: The commenters generally supported the proposed
definition ofstalking.” In particular, many of the commenters
supported defining the termcourse of conduct” broadly to include
all of the various forms that stalking can take and the range of
devices or tactics that perpetrators use, including electronic means.
These commenters also supported the proposed definition ofreasonable
person” as a reasonable person under similar circumstances and with
similar identities to the victim.
One commenter suggested modifying the definition of stalking to
include consideration of the extent to which the victim indicates that
the stalking has affected them or interfered with their education.
Other commenters raised concerns about the proposed definition.
Some commenters believed that the proposed definition was overly broad.
One commenter argued that the proposed definition was inconsistent with
the description of stalking in 18 U.S.C. 2261A, as amended by VAWA,
which prohibits actions committed with a criminal intent to kill,
injure, harass, or intimidate. This commenter believed that the final
regulations should require that to be included as stalking in the
institution’s statistics, there had to be a determination that the
perpetrator had the intent to cause substantial emotional distress
rather than requiring that the course of conduct have the effect of
causing substantial emotional distress. Otherwise, the commenter
believed that the proposed definition raised First Amendment concerns
by impermissibly restricting individual speech.AND HERE IS THE KEY:
Comments: Many commenters supported proposed Sec. 668.46(k)
regarding institutional disciplinary proceedings. These commenters
believed that the proposed regulations properly reflected the
importance of transparent, equitable procedures for complainants and
accused students, provided clear and concise guidance on the procedures
an institution must follow to comply with the VAWA requirements, and
would lead to more accurate reporting of campus crime statistics.
Several commenters also expressed appreciation for the Department’s
statements in the NPRM that an institution’s responsibilities under the
Clery Act are separate and distinct from those under title IX, and that
nothing in the proposed regulations alters or changes an institution’s
obligations or duties under title IX as interpreted by OCR.
Other commenters did not support proposed Sec. 668.46(k). These
commenters stated that only the criminal justice system is capable of
handling alleged incidents of dating violence, domestic violence,
sexual assault, and stalking, not institutions of higher education.
These commenters also believed that the proposed regulations eliminate
essential due process protections, and entrust unqualified campus
employees and students to safeguard the interests of the parties
involved in adjudicating allegations. Several commenters also stated
that the proposed regulations would place a considerable compliance
burden on small institutions and asked the Department to consider
mitigating that burden in the final regulations.
One commenter asked the Department to clarify in the final
regulations that disciplinary procedures apply more broadly than just
to student disciplinary procedures and suggested adding language
specifying that the procedures apply to student, employee, and faculty
discipline systems.AND AND AND
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters’ support. In response to
the commenters who objected to institutional disciplinary procedures in
cases involving dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or
stalking under the regulations, section 485(f)(8)(B)(iv) of the Clery
Act clearly requires institutions to have disciplinary procedures in
place for these incidents. We disagree with the comments that the
procedures under Sec. 668.46(k) violate due process rights and entrust
unqualified employees with adjudicatory responsibility.SO in other words Gentlemen a federal agency dismissed the notion of due process with a stroke of the pen. And Sex offense is a nebulous terms covering almost any conduct. I know it was a lot of legalistic crap to read but I used to get paid a lot of money for this kind fo thing.
Yes there is more: All that junk codified down to this:
Dating violence. Violence committed by a person who is or has been
in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the
victim.
(i) The existence of such a relationship shall be determined based
on the reporting party’s statement and with consideration of the length
of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of
interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.
(ii) For the purposes of this definition–
(A) Dating violence includes, but is not limited to, sexual or
physical abuse or the threat of such abuse.
(B) Dating violence does not include acts covered under the
definition of domestic violence.
(iii) For the purposes of complying with the requirements of this
section and Sec. 668.41, any incident meeting this definition is
considered a crime for the purposes of Clery Act reporting.
Domestic violence. (i) A felony or misdemeanor crime of violence
committed–
(A) By a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the
victim;
(B) By a person with whom the victim shares a child in common;
(C) By a person who is cohabitating with, or has cohabitated with,
the victim as a spouse or intimate partner;
(D) By a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under
the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction in which the
crime of violence occurred, or
(E) By any other person against an adult or youth victim who is
protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence
laws of the jurisdiction in which the crime of violence occurred.
(ii) For the purposes of complying with the requirements of this
section and Sec. 668.41, any incident meeting this definition is
considered a crime for the purposes of Clery Act reporting.Stalking. (i) Engaging in a course of conduct directed at a
specific person that would cause a reasonable person to–
(A) Fear for the person’s safety or the safety of others; or
(B) Suffer substantial emotional distress.
(ii) For the purposes of this definition–
(A) Course of conduct means two or more acts, including, but not
limited to, acts in which the stalker directly, indirectly, or through
third parties, by any action, method, device, or means, follows,
monitors, observes, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about a
person, or interferes with a person’s property.
(B) Reasonable person means a reasonable person under similar
circumstances and with similar identities to the victim.
(C) Substantial emotional distress means significant mental
suffering or anguish that may, but does not
necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or
counseling.
(iii) For the purposes of complying with the requirements of this
section and section 668.41, any incident meeting this definition is
considered a crime for the purposes of Clery Act reporting.Do you see how vague/open ended this s~~~ is?
OK all of that was probably way too much for everyone so here is the short short SHORT version
Sex Offense will mean ANYTHING the school officials want it to mean at any given moment and for any particular fact situation, AND
If you object based upon your due process rights being entrusted to unqualified state employees with adjudicatory responsibility. TOUGH LUCK by caveat of the Dept. of Education.Can I bill the KM for this—its about three billable hours…$400 an hour let me see…Well KM is a good guy so I’ll settle for a pizza coupon.
Do you see how vague/open ended this s~~~ is?
Of course. We wee it every time a woman cries “sexual harassment” but exactly same behavior from George Clooney would be welcome and encouraged.
These c~~~s no longer exist. No matter how hard they want to get “f~~~ed in the butt”. A man would be better off sticking needles in his eyes than associating with these worthless lying trash whores.
If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.Can I bill the KM for this—its about three billable hours…$400 an hour let me see…Well KM is a good guy so I’ll settle for a pizza coupon.
Smiling over here. But quite seriously, you never need an attorney to defend you from a false accusation if you just let every girl on campus think you have a boyfriend.
I guess I just saved some guy $400 an hour, his freedom and reputation….
while simultaneously firing the prosecution.( Paper covers rock. 🙂 )
Suddenly I’m craving pizza.
If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.What is worse–not only is it vague and open-ended the point of the new law FrostByte began this with is the penalize people EXTRA-Judicially by putting it on transcripts and not just reporting it to the FBI for statistical purposes.
What we have here is a genuine–bona fide Star Chamber! Hard to believe but there it is complete with a political agenda, standards that are applied subjectively, and a penalty without appeal or due process—wouldn’t a guillotine be quicker?
Pete – any chance this would get struck down as unconstitutional by the courts?
"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,
bona fide Star Chamber
Excuse my ignorance what’s a Star Chamber?
If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.
Pete – any chance this would get struck down as unconstitutional by the courts?
No because the court would likely dismiss for lack of jurisdiction unless you could find an argument under the equal protection clause. Federal Courts have invalidated based upon vague language—but not vague application. Sorry.
Star Chamber justice:The Star Chamber was an English court of law which sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century (c. 1641),The Star Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. ‘Star Chamber’ can also be used in its original meaning, for instance when a politician uses parliamentary privilege to attack a powerful organisation or person.[a]
Star Chamber justice:The Star Chamber was an English court of law which sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century (c. 1641),The Star Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. ‘Star Chamber’ can also be used in its original meaning, for instance when a politician uses parliamentary privilege to attack a powerful organisation or person.[a]
Thank you. your legal knowledge is greatly appreciated.
If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.
You know there is a bright side to this—maybe the solution is all male schools and all female schools—segregation by gender works! (At least for us! )
Excuse my ignorance what’s a Star Chamber?
What Pete said, but also there was a pretty cool movie back in the 80’s with Michael Douglas where a bunch of wealthy and powerful people got together and would pass judgement on (for example) murderers that got off on a technicality, and then send a hitman to take them out.
The whole thing turns into a clusterf~~~ as it becomes a tool to take out enemies, etc. Neat movie.
"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,
*shrug* There’s decreasing rule of law in the United States. It’s one reason that so many companies have left. Low taxes make up for lower-justice societies. We have high taxes and low justice. It’s not particularly worth trying to do anything in.
So, what it boils down to is that this little snowflake feels that universities and colleges themselves should have the right – indeed, the obligation – to hold their own trials and come up with their own conclusions, with no apparent review process that I can see included. Sure, that sounds fair. Note, of course, that the issues at hand are already dealt with by criminal courts, who hand out weightier punishments than a transcript notation.
It’s fun watching a society implode.
"You can either love women, or understand women. You can't do both. Because once you understand women, you realize that there is really nothing to love."
Segregated colleges is a good idea. I bet females would hate that.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
