Male student at USC takes on title ix

To help Kursat Christoff Pekgoz click here.

This young man is engaging in activism. He is going about it in the right way. Let's support him.

Forcing only men to sign up for Selective Service has been ruled as gender discrimination against men

The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) is pleased with the court’s decision in NCFM v. Selective Service. Forcing only males to register is an aspect of socially institutionalized male disposability and helps reinforce the stereotypes that support discrimination against men in other areas such as child custody, divorce, criminal sentencing, paternity fraud, education, public benefits, domestic violence services, due process rights, genital autonomy, and more.

“Women are now allowed in combat, so this decision is long overdue,” said Marc Angelucci, attorney for NCFM. “After decades of sex discrimination against men in the Selective Service, the courts have finally found it unconstitutional to force only men to register. Even without a draft, men still face prison, fines, and denial of federal loans for not registering or for not updating the government of their whereabouts. Since women will be required to register with the Selective Service, they should face the same repercussions as men for any noncompliance.”

Source

Then there is this:

Only Drafting Men in War Is Gender ‘Discrimination,’ Federal Judge Rules
By Pluralist | Feb 25, 2019

“They’re hollering they don’t have equal ‘rights.'”

A federal judge in Texas ruled Friday than an all-male military draft is unconstitutional given that women can now serve in combat roles just as men do.

Judge Gray H. Miller of Federal District Court in the Southern District of Texas noted that the Supreme Court’s 1981 ruling in favor of excluding women from the draft was based on the fact that women could not be combat soldiers. But the Pentagon opened up all military roles to women in 2015.

“While historical restrictions on women in the military may have justified past discrimination, men and women are now ‘similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft,’” Judge Miller wrote in his ruling. “If there ever was a time to discuss ‘the place of women in the Armed Services,’ that time has passed.”

Miller said Congress has never fully examined whether men are physically better able to serve than women. In fact, he noted in a footnote, “the average woman could conceivably be better suited physically for some of today’s combat positions than the average man, depending on which skills the position required. Combat roles no longer uniformly require sheer size or muscle.”

Miller’s ruling was declaratory, and it did not specify any action that the government must take to comply. It comes as an 11-member advisory panel, the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, is studying the draft system, considering whether it should continue and whether women should be included.

The case was brought by a men’s right group, and two men who argued an all-male draft violates the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause. Although there has not be a US military draft in 40 years, men who fail to register with the Selective Service System at their 18th birthday can be denied public benefits such as federal employment and student loans. Women cannot register for Selective Service.

The group, called the National Coalition For Men, cheered the ruling.

“We think it’s about time since women are allowed in combat,” Marc E. Angelucci, a lawyer for the National Coalition for Men, said. “If we have draft registration, both sexes should have to register. There’s really no more excuse to require only men to register.”

Many conservatives called the decision a logical result of the feminist campaign for equal rights, which in the #MeToo era has focused on combating workplace inequality.

Source

Female Yahoo CEO fires men because of gender

Yahoo President and CEO Marissa Mayer
A prominent local media executive fired from Yahoo last year has filed a lawsuit accusing CEO Marissa Mayer of leading a campaign to purge male employees.

“Mayer encouraged and fostered the use of (an employee performance-rating system) to accommodate management’s subjective biases and personal opinions, to the detriment of Yahoo’s male employees,” said the suit by Scott Ard filed this week in federal district court in San Jose.

Ard, who worked for Yahoo for 3 ½ years until January 2015, is now editor-in-chief of the Silicon Valley Business Journal. His lawsuit also claims that Yahoo illegally fired large numbers of workers ousted under a performance-rating system imposed by Mayer. That allegation was not tied to gender.

Yahoo spokeswoman Carolyn Clark defended the company’s hiring and performance-review processes, which she said are guided by “fairness.”

“This lawsuit has no merit. With the unwavering support of our CEO, we are focused on hiring employees with broad and varied backgrounds, and perspectives,” Clark said. “Our performance-review process was developed to allow employees at all levels of the company to receive meaningful, regular and actionable feedback from others.

“Our performance-review process also allows for high performers to engage in increasingly larger opportunities at our company, as well as for low performers to be transitioned out.”
In addition to Mayer, two other female executives — Kathy Savitt, former chief marketing officer, and Megan Liberman, editor-in-chief of Yahoo News, identified in the lawsuit as Yahoo’s vice president of news at the time — are accused in the lawsuit of discriminating on the basis of gender.

“When Savitt began at Yahoo the top managers reporting to her … including the chief editors of the verticals and magazines, were less than 20 percent female. Within a year and a half those top managers were more than 80 percent female,” the lawsuit said. “Savitt has publicly expressed support for increasing the number of women in media and has intentionally hired and promoted women because of their gender, while terminating, demoting or laying off male employees because of their gender.

“Of the approximately 16 senior-level editorial employees hired or promoted by Savitt … in approximately an 18-month period, 14 of them, or 87 percent, were female,” the lawsuit said.

Ard, hired at Yahoo in 2011, said in the suit that until Savitt and Liberman took over management of the firm’s media section in early 2014, he had received performance reviews and stock options reflecting “fully satisfactory” work. But in June 2014, Liberman told him that his role as head of editorial programming for Yahoo’s home page was being given to a woman Liberman had recently hired, the suit said.

Then in January 2015, during a performance review phone call, Liberman told Ard he was fired, effective that day, because “his performance was not satisfactory.”
“Liberman stated that she was terminating (Ard) because she had not received a requested breakdown of (his) duties. (Ard) had already provided that very information as requested, however, and reminded Liberman that he had done so,” the lawsuit said. “Liberman’s excuse for terminating (Ard) was a pretext.”

Right after the call, Ard requested a copy of his performance review and said he wanted to appeal his firing, the suit said. “Both requests were denied and (Ard) was ordered to turn in his laptop and depart the premises immediately.”

Ard’s suit also takes aim at the performance-review process he said Mayer imposed. The process allowed high-level managers to arbitrarily change scores of employees they had no contact with, and it “permitted and encouraged discrimination based on gender or any other personal bias held by management.”

Liberman, he said, once “unilaterally lowered” the scores of three men whose performance Ard had evaluated, while she maintained the scores of two women. 
Yahoo’s use of this review system to fire many workers individually in a short time period broke the U.S. and California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) acts, which mandate advance notification of mass layoffs, the suit alleged. “Marissa Mayer became CEO on a wave of optimism and then engaged in a sleight of hand to terminate large numbers of employees without announcing a single layoff,” the suit said.
Yahoo’s diversity reports indicate that the percentage of women in leadership positions at the company rose slightly to 24 percent in 2015 from 23 percent in 2014.

Source

Do you have an Yahoo account or have you ever reviewed the comments? Your comments mesh together from other peoples comments. I can see why this was never corrected. Yahoo is going down. Time to fire this cunt.

Canadian father stands up to injustice heaped upon him and his family

PLEASE HELP Her!!!! ...Hello everyone! My name is Jakob Letkemann, I am a father, Asking for your help and support in a lawsuit against several professionals, I am also applying for funds on behalf of my Mother Rosemary Berdan and my daughter Darian Letkemann

We are ALL taking legal action against MANY PEOPLE because of their actions, for false Reporting and accusations, slander as well as conspiracy and wrongful removal of a child. (Salt spring island has a removal rate 5X the national average)

This is going on all over Canada, The poor are the target now (was the 60`s scoop), For they feel we are easy targets and are to uneducated to fight back..well they are wrong.

I will be using most of the lawsuit winnings to fund a program to help low income family`s (Parent School Center, 1 year full support Training program) and to build housing for single and low income family`s to enhance them making all parents harder targets

I have received over 4500 peices of evidence (infromation act) and we need money to file orders on children`s aid society London ONT. to release our records, this is where it all started (my brother died in foster care and they threw that in my mothers face in court and when they MIS-REMOVED my daughter they took her from my mom`s arms (breach of policey) all on `heresay` , I LOST EVERYTHING, THEY TOOK EVERYTHING I HAD... i lost my job..all income...my home...they wanted to kill my dog for trying to protect my daughter....they took her 2 days before her 1st birthday...2 weeks before christmas...I have never cryed like that before and i would not want anyone to go through it ,Took me 10 months to get her back (fast on the family court scale)....MY DAUGHTER WAKES UP CRYING FOR ME EVERY NIGHT saying ` Daddy don`t leave me`... and now i am FIGHTING FOR MY SON AS AWELL, PLEASE HELP THE KIDS, DON`T HELP ME, DO IT FOR THEM!!!

This is a landmark case! When we win it will show these sorts of people `you cant just steal our children` like they do now ...I know there are millions of you out there touched by these people we can fight back

HELP ME SHOW YOU HOW!!!

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!
LOVE
Darian & Jakob Letkemann
Rosemary Berdan

To Donate

CSU student sues DOE for gender discrimination

A former Colorado State athlete who was suspended for sexual assault last fall is now suing the United States government for gender discrimination, while alleging that the Department of Education’s sexual assault guidance violates federal laws, therefore suggesting that every campus sex assault case decided under that guidance could be overturned.

According to the lawsuit, Grant Neal, a sophomore at Colorado State University-Pueblo (CSU-Pueblo) who played football and wrestled at the school, had consensual sexual intercourse with a female classmate, who is not named in the lawsuit, last October. The next day, a peer of that woman, who is also not named, reported to the school that Neal had raped the woman.

In December, after investigating, the school found that Neal was more than likely responsible for sexual misconduct—the standard that the federal Department of Education tells schools to use—and suspended him for as long as the alleged victim remained at the school. The woman said he never raped her, according to the lawsuit.

After the ruling, Neal apparently lost athletic scholarships and has found that no other school will admit him. His suspension had critics, and a petition for the university to overturn it has nearly 2,000 supporters.

The lawsuit names the university and several school officials, including its president, as defendants, and notably also includes the U.S., the Department of Education and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), as well as Secretary of Education John King Jr. and Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon—a first in such cases by male students accused of sexual assault, according to legal experts.

The basis for the lawsuit is the OCR’s controversial “Dear Colleague” letter, which it issued to colleges and universities in 2011. The letter stated that sexual violence at schools falls under Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education settings. The OCR offered guidance for how schools should handle sexual assault and violence cases. It also said those that mishandle them would be in violation of Title IX and could lose federal funding.

Advocates for male respondents in campus sexual assault cases say the 2011 guidance led to an overcorrection on the issue in a way that discriminates against young men, is inherently anti-male and denies them due process. Neal’s lawsuit alleges that the OCR’s guidance violates the law.

“We believe the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter issued by the U.S. Department of Education is illegal and unconstitutional,” Andrew Miltenberg, who represents Neal and has become a go-to lawyer for male respondents in sexual assault cases, tells Newsweek via email. “By essentially encouraging male gender bias, the Administration’s directive has violated Title IX and created a new class of victims on campus—accused male students who have had their right to due process stripped away.”

Male students accused of sexual assault are increasingly suing their schools, and especially since 2013, more of them are claiming Title IX discrimination—the same violation that female sexual assault complainants have made, alleging that schools mishandled their claims in a way that goes against their Title IX rights. Most of these so-called reverse-Title IX cases have been unsuccessful: In March, a judge dismissed a high-profile case against Columbia University by Paul Nungesser, the student who was the subject of classmate Emma Sulkowicz’s “mattress” art project and protest. Nungesser has until April 25 to file an updated complaint. Miltenberg represents him too and has said he plans to file.

However, a handful of these cases have recently survived motions to dismiss, including ones against Washington and Lee University, Brown University and Brandeis University.

Neal is suing for violations of Title IX and due process and breach of contract. He also alleges that the “Dear Colleague” letter violates the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which mandates a notice and review process for when the government issues a new rule. The lawsuit claims that the OCR issued “binding law” under the guise of “guidance” without following the APA procedures.

Such a violation, the lawsuit alleges, means the “Dear Colleague” letter and all disciplinary decisions made under it are “unconstitutional, arbitrary and void.” A ruling in favor of that claim might open any campus sexual assault decision a school made since 2011 to a challenge.

Hans Bader is a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit public policy organization, who practices education law and previously worked as an attorney at the OCR. He points out that a footnote to the “Dear Colleague” letter says it does not add to existing law, and yet “it requires colleges to follow those letters to the T,” he asserts.

“Requiring schools to apply that as gospel when they essentially made it up out of nothing—that’s a plain violation of the APA because you have an entirely new legal obligation without notice and comment, without even the pretext of any real basis,” he says.

Several advocates for male respondents have recently vowed to take on the OCR. Last week, Families Advocating for Campus Equality, a due process advocacy organization led by mothers of male students accused of sexual misconduct, filed testimony with a Senate subcommittee opposing a federal proposal to increase the OCR’s funding by about 30 percent. “Approval of such a dramatic increase in OCR’s budget will only reward OCR for its much-criticized overreach,” the organization said.

And earlier this month, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit that advocates for free speech and due process on campus, called for students to help challenge the OCR for the same “abuse of power” that the Neal lawsuit alleges. A FIRE spokesman says the Neal lawsuit is unrelated to the organization’s effort.

“When an administrative agency wants to promulgate a regulation that will force people to change their behavior in some way,” says Justin Dillon, an attorney who is working with FIRE on its effort, “the agency, No. 1, has to put out a notice that it’s thinking of taking this action, and No. 2, allow people to comment on this action, whether they’re for or against it.”

Those procedures, Dillon says, ensure that only federal employees with accountability to the voting public are the ones setting rules. “Agencies are not Congress. Agencies are unelected people,” he says. “The staff of the agency are just garden-variety federal employees with absolutely no democratic accountability. The idea is, you don’t want to have people who are not accountable to the voters basically making laws” without those review procedures.

Should a judge determine that the “Dear Colleague” letter is null and void, Dillon says, some “might argue that they have a right to reopen a case” under pre-2011 procedures—unless the ruling that vacates the letter only applies moving forward.

Dillon, who is not involved in Neal’s case, says he and FIRE are “very close to filing” their own lawsuit that makes a similar argument.

The OCR has been a defendant in at least one other lawsuit. In 2005, plaintiffs sued the OCR, alleging its investigation into a possible Title IX violation involving male and female high school hockey teams was flawed. A federal court judge dismissed the case in 2007.

A CSU-Pueblo spokeswoman declined to comment on pending litigation. A Department of Education spokesman declined to comment for the same reason.

As of April 13, the OCR is investigating 175 colleges for their handling of sexual violence cases.

“We’ve seen just a cataclysmic change around the country in terms of attention to the issue; responsiveness to it; and training, preparation for our students so that we can see safer campuses,” Lhamon, the civil rights assistant secretary, told Newsweek last year. She said the OCR had not yet rescinded funding from a school for mishandling a sexual violence claim but added, “I would absolutely be prepared to do it.”

Source

If this was me I would name the little fink who butted her nose in my business like she did and teach her a lesson. I hope he did just that.

Rolling Stone is sued for false rape story

Jackie Coakley
Judge: Jackie Coakley not covered by patient-counselor privilege in defamation suit
College Fix Staff •January 28, 2016

Jackie Coakley can’t hide her secrets any longer.

The student at the heart of Rolling Stone‘s discredited gang-rape story has been ordered by a federal judge to turn over her communications with the magazine and author Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and even her counseling communications with the University of Virginia, though they won’t be made public.

UVA Associate Dean of Students Nicole Eramo is suing Rolling Stone for $7.5 million, claiming its portrayal of her and her interactions with Coakley are defamatory. Judge Glen Conrad earlier signaled he would force Coakley, who is not a party in the case, to turn over some communications that are relevant to Eramo’s claims against the magazine.

(Though Coakley is still identified only as “Jackie” in the litigation and mainstream media coverage, her full identity has been public for months and her status as a gang-rape victim is in serious doubt, so The College Fix has decided to fully identify her going forward.)

Conrad wrote in his memorandum opinion that Coakley’s claimed privilege for being an alleged rape victim doesn’t protect her because federal restrictions only apply to the admissibility of sexual-behavior evidence at trial, not their relevance in discovery, which is what Eramo is seeking.

It is “reasonable and proportionate” for Eramo to obtain Coakley’s communications with Rolling Stone, Erdely and “Eramo/UVA” as evidence of defamation and negligence by the magazine, especially because it has already turned over its communications with Coakley, Conrad wrote.

Perhaps the most notable part of Conrad’s ruling is his dismissal of Coakley’s claim that her counseling sessions with Eramo and Emily Renda (another UVA employee) are protected by “patient-counselor privilege” – a legally dubious claim that nonetheless became a PR nightmare for the University of Oregon in a countersuit against an alleged rape victim suing that school.

Virginia law on the privacy of sexual-assault victims provides an explicit exemption for court orders, Conrad wrote:

The court is unaware of any authority that holds that [the relevant law] creates a patient-counselor privilege, and the court declines to do so in this case. In addition, the statutory language permits disclosure of protected information in response to a court mandate, which provides further support for the court’s finding that the statute does not establish an evidentiary privilege. Even assuming that the court could find that this statute establishes a patient-counselor privilege, it appears that Jackie may have waived such privilege by voluntarily disclosing the contents of her communications with Eramo and UVA to defendants.


Communications between Coakley’s pseudonym “Haven Monahan” and her friend Ryan Duffin, as well as Monahan’s communications with anyone else Coakley gave Rolling Stone before its article was published, must be turned over:

One of the main issues in the defamation action is defendants’ due diligence in relying on Jackie as a source for the Article. Plaintiff argues that defendants could have interviewed Ryan Duffin and others about Jackie’s story and her credibility as a witness, but failed to do so. As such, these communications are relevant and proportionate as they will help resolve the question of what the defendants could have discovered about Jackie’s story and credibility if they had interviewed Jackie’s friends.

Only Coakley’s communications about the Rolling Stone article before her last public comment to The Washington Post Dec. 5, and not the “details of her alleged assault,” must be turned over, Conrad ruled:

The crux of the dispute in the defamation action is defendants’ portrayal of Eramo and Jackie’s communications with Eramo/UVA . The specific, graphic details about what may or may not have occurred on the night of September 28, 2012 have no bearing on these issues.

Source

Jameis Winston goes after his accusers

Kirby Dick and Amy Herdy
n Orlando law firm representing Jameis Winston and FSU administrators are protesting CNN's decision to air the film "The Hunting Ground" Sunday.

"We are writing to formally caution CNN that the portions of the film 'The Hunting Ground' pertaining to Mr. Winston are false and defamatory to Mr. Winston," Gray Robinson attorney John A. Boudet wrote in a letter to CNN on behalf of the Tampa Bay Bucs starting quarterback. "We urge CNN to reconsider the reckless decision to proceed with the broadcast of this deeply flawed documentary in the face of overwhelming evidence that the film's producers consciously and intentionally failed to adhere to any accepted journalist standards."

The film, which earned positive reviews at the Sundance Film Festival and screened at theaters throughout the country, focuses on sexual violence on college campuses and is set to air at 8 p.m.

While stressing Florida State does not tolerate rape, President John Thrasher wrote in a statement the film "contains major distortions and glaring omissions to support its simplistic narrative that colleges and universities are to blame for our national sexual assault crisis."

Winston's attorney and FSU both cite an email from film producer Amy Herdy to one of Winston rape accuser Erica Kinsman's attorneys that states, "We don't operate the same way as journalists -- this film project very much is in the corner of advocacy for the victims, so there would be no need to get the perpetrator's side." Another email stated the filmmakers planned to "ambush" Winston with cameras after he declined to be interviewed for the film. The emails were obtained during ongoing litigation involving FSU, Winston and Kinsman.

Then you are propagandists and yellow journalists. Bitch,if you think that faggot and you are immune from legal action guess again.

Harvard professors also questioned the accuracy of another incident highlighted in the film and asked CNN not to air it.

Film director Kirby Dick and producer Amy Ziering have promoted themselves as advocates working on behalf of victims of sexual assault on college campuses. They defended the accuracy of their film during interviews and updates posted on the film's twitter account.

"The facts make them look bad, so they don't want people to see the film on @CNN. We'll let viewers judge Sunday," one Tweet attributed to Ziering read.

CNN has not issued a statement in response to the protests.

John Clune, one of Kinsman's attorneys, released a statement that read, "Mr. Winston is apparently in the midst of another PR battle this week due to the release of The Hunting Ground on Sunday. When your lawyers' letters written on Friday are somehow getting printed in the media on Saturday, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what’s going on. His latest attack is an attempt to revive his lawyers' media themes and, as expected, shows no understanding of rape trauma and misrepresents the actual evidence.

"More importantly, Mr. Winston should get used to the rape allegations against him because film or no film, they aren’t going away."

Winston, a former FSU star quarterback and current Bucs starter, is the only person accused of raping a student named in the movie.

Winston was never charged with a crime after an investigation by state attorney Willie Meggs, who noted delays and unusual actions taken by the Tallahassee police were factors in his decision.

An FSU hearing found there was not enough evidence to deem Winston responsible for violations of the school's code of conduct.

The letter from Winston's attorney to CNN closes by stating, "CNN may have persuaded itself that Mr. Winston's status as a public figure insulates your company from a libel judgment. If CNN decides to proceed with this broadcast, we will perhaps have the opportunity to test that legal proposition in a court of law."

Source

Jameis Winston should definitely sue not only the producers and anyone else who were part of creating this film but his accusers as well. You should sue everyone of them into the poor house and make sure they can never find work,have a decent place to live or any good life whatsoever. They are misandrists,they are evil.

Alan Dershowitz stands up to false rape accusation

Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz fights accusations of sexual assault
BY ASHE SCHOW | JANUARY 2, 2015 | 12:29 PM

Unlike other celebrities and politicians who have allowed sexual assault accusations to ruin their careers, attorney Alan Dershowitz is fighting back early — and hard.

Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor and outspoken critic of how colleges have been handling sexual assault, was accused of having sex with an underage girl by a former witness against billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein.

Dershowitz categorically denied the allegation, calling it “totally, unequivocally and completely false.”

The woman, identified in court papers as Jane Doe #3, made the allegations last Tuesday against Dershowitz and several prominent Europeans — including Britain’s Prince Andrew.

Jane Doe #3’s complaint accuses Dershowitz and others of taking part in Epstein’s transgressions. Her lawsuit accuses federal prosecutors in Florida of violating the law by not consulting with Epstein’s victims before arranging a deal requiring the investor to be sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Jane Doe #3 mentioned several occasions in which she allegedly had sexual relations with Dershowitz. Dershowitz says he has documentation to prove he couldn’t have been in the same place as Jane Doe #3 at the times she claims, except once. And in that one instance, he was there with his family.

"I'm planning to file disbarment charges against the two lawyers who signed this petition without even checking the manifests of airplanes or travel itineraries, et cetera," Dershowitz told Politico. "I'm also challenging the young woman and the lawyers to level those charges against me outside of the courtroom, so that I can sue them for defamation. ... Finally, I’m challenging the woman to file criminal charges against me because the filing of false criminal charges is a crime."

Source

Go,Alan,go. Nail their asses to the wall. That's what I like about Dershowitz he takes no shit and he especially goes after feminazis,that is why they hate him. If feminazis hate him he is alright in my book.

Lena Dunham persecutes conservative group over book that Dunham wrote

From Truth Revolt:

Liberal Hollywood actress and darling of Planned Parenthood, Lena Dunham, is gunning for the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt --- and now I urgently need your help to build up our legal defense fund.

You might have read about it on the Drudge Report or seen it in The Hollywood Reporter, The Daily Mail, the Los Angeles Times, or People Magazine or any other mainstream media outlet...

Leftwing Hollywood feminist Lena Dunham is threatening to sue Truth Revolt and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, because we wrote an article in which we quoted her book, Not That Kind of Girl!

Who is Lena Dunham, you may wonder? She is the New Hot Thing-a leftist actress who is the darling of the liberal media; who has been one of Obama's most rabid backers; who has been in America's face as a supporter of what she calls "reproductive rights" and "female sexuality"; and who teams up with groups such as Emily's List and Planned Parenthood to try to tilt the playing field in favor of leftwing causes.

She's also a best selling author whose new book causes the flesh to crawl because, among other things, of the way it describes her relationship with her younger sister. This part of Not That Kind of Girl caught our eye, which is why we described it, using Dunham's own words, in Truth Revolt.

Without going into detail, I'll just say that it's very disturbing, especially coming from someone who has presented herself as so very progressive and such a critic of sexual abuse --- and in particular, a spokesperson against the right's fictitious War on Women.

Whether you want to call what Dunham wrote an admission of sexual abuse or just a very progressive view of sibling relations is up to you. What is not up for debate is that she wrote some bizarre and graphic passages that Truth Revolt quoted -- and the next thing we knew, we had a letter from her attorney, threatening suit for defamation.

In his "cease-and-desist" letter, Dunham's lawyer stated "Our client intends to vigorously pursue all possible legal remedies available to her . . . Remedies available to my client include, without limitation, actual damages to her personal and professional reputation which likely would be calculated in the millions of dollars [plus] punitive damages." The letter demanded that the story be immediately removed.

The letter also stated: "Demand is further made that you immediately print a prominent public apology and retraction at all media whereat you published the Story, stating that the Story is false, that you regret having published it, and that you apologize to Ms. Dunham and her family for having published it."

We refused to comply with these demands. In response to the attorney's threat, we stated: "We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman's book does not constitute a "false" story, even if she is a prominent actress and leftwing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book - and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like."

Our lawyer advises us that we have a strong legal defense, based on the First Amendment, and we fully expect to prevail. But the costs of defending a case are high, and now we could be facing $250,000 in legal defense costs-a negligible sum for someone like Dunham, but a serious expense for us.

So can we count on your emergency, tax-deductible donation of $25, $50, $100 or more to start building or legal defense fund right now?

Lena Dunham is a very public figure that stars and directs the HBO show "Girls." She has made a career out of shocking her audiences and exploiting her celebrity to push hard-left causes. Her book is certainly fair game, as are questions about her sickening conduct with regard to her sister. That is what the First Amendment is for and what it protects.

Truth Revolt criticized Dunham. Dunham fired back on Twitter, and her sycophants in the media covered for her. But she didn't stop there. She decided, as leftists often do, that to silence critics is more appealing than simply utilizing her own freedom of speech under the First Amendment. People like Dunham want to be as "provocative" and "edgy" as they choose. But when anyone calls them on their conduct they want to unplug the microphone.

So, she ordered her attorney to issue this letter threatening suit. If she does sue, the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt are prepared to go to the wall in defense of free speech. Lawsuits can be incredibly expensive, especially when the other side is a major entertainer with millions in the bank and fellow Hollywood leftists urging her to silence a fearless conservative publication like Truth Revolt. But we will do what needs to be done to protect the First Amendment.

And we need you to help us.

We have to raise $250,000 immediately to fund our legal defense fund. We have to be able to tell Dunham and all the other leftists who try to shut Truth Revolt down to bring it on. We're not backing down, we stand by the truth, and we'll see them in court.

That's why we're asking you to stand with us today as we begin building our legal defense fund by making an emergency donation of $25, $50, $100 or more.

Thank you for standing with the Freedom Center, Truth Revolt and the freedom of speech.

Federal court gives men a weapon to fight back against false accusers

Students Accused of Rape Can Fight Back // Court OKs Suits Against University, Employees, and Female

With so much attention focused on alleged failures to prosecute students accused of date rape, the problem of universities whose judicial proceedings are unfair to the accused have been largely overlooked

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) - May 19, 2014 - WASHINGTON, D.C. -- WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 19, 2014): With so much attention focused on the alleged failures of many universities to forcefully prosecute male students accused of date rape and sexual assault, the problem of universities whose judicial proceedings are unfair to the accused, and/or are overzealous because of pressure from female students or otherwise, have been largely overlooked.

But now a new judicial ruling gives those wrongly convicted a powerful new weapon - they can sue the university, the employees who participated in the proceedings, and even the accused herself in federal court for substantial monetary damages and other remedies, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who was twice called a “radical feminist.”

After a school tribunal at Saint Joseph's University found a male student to have committed sexual assault arising out of an incident of allegedly consensual sexual intercourse, he took legal action, says Banzhaf, who has been successful in over 100 sex discrimination proceedings.

The federal court held that he was entitled to sue the private university under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and that he could also sue the university, university employees, and the female complainant for defamation (slander), with the court holding that their accusatory statements about him were not legally privileged.

Interestingly, the court said that he could also sue the female complainant for intentionally interfering with his contractual relations with the school; an important ruling, suggests Banzhaf, because for such an intentional tort he can seek much higher punitive damages in addition to general damages. Also, the court ruled that the mere fact that the tribunal found that the male student had committed the wrongful act complained of was not conclusive as to his guilt or innocence, and did not shield the female complainant from this type of legal liability.

Several additional claims by the plaintiff were not accepted by the court on the basis of the complaint which had been filed, but the court said that the male student was not precluded from bringing up these claims again, provided they were properly pleaded.

These claims included, said Banzhaf: breach of contract, violation of Title IX (discrimination against him by the school on the basis of his gender), negligence, making public statements which place him in a false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (which might also warrant punitive damages).

"Female university students in 'he said, she said' rape and sexual assault cases, who were dissatisfied with the way the school handled the situation, are increasingly seeking legal remedies.

But now men who feel that the pendulum has swung too far, or that they were not treated fairly in school judicial proceedings, suddenly also have powerful legal weapons on their side.

Also, says Banzhaf, it is likely that some attorneys will take these cases on a contingency fee basis, so that both rich and poor students can go after both the universities and any women who improperly accuse them. Female students, knowing that they may have to repeat their allegations under oath in open court, may think carefully before bringing any unfounded charges, he predicts.

Source

Well shut my mouth. This is a blessing,it truly is. It's about time someone in government took action and gave men a legal remedy to fight against the injustice of being falsely accused. This is what activism and making our concerns known accomplishes. There are lots of twists and turns on this road but if it yields victories such as this one then it is worth it.

Another university gets sued because of the "dear colleague" directive

MAY 16, 2014

A Win for an Accused Male at St. Joe's
Posted by KC Johnson


A federal judge has permitted a second denial-of-due process suit against a university to proceed. First it was Xavier--after which the university quickly settled with Dez Wells. Now it's St. Joe's, where district court judge Felipe Restrepo (an Obama appointee) has issued a ruling that narrowed the lawsuit filed by Brian Harris, but has allowed the case to proceed.

The Harris case is one of a number with depressingly similar facts: a student is accused of sexual assault by an accuser who either doesn't go to the police or who authorities deem non-credible. The college nonetheless proceeded forth, seemingly cutting corners along the way, and branded the student a rapist despite what appeared to be sketchy evidence.

Restrepo allowed Harris to continue with his case on three grounds, the most significant of which flows form a Pennsylvania law holding that "'[a]ny person who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for personal, family or household purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property' as a result of the seller's deceptive or unlawful actions." Based on Restrepo's ruling, Harris will now have the opportunity to subpoena the university's records regarding how it "investigated" his case. (Restrepo also dismissed St. Joe's claims that the university's investigation should be deemed "quasi-judicial" and therefore immune from a civil suit.) The ruling permitted Harris' defamation claims against St. Joe's and against his accuser, Lindsay Horst, to proceed. And finally, over St. Joe's objections, Restrepo accepted an amicus brief from FIRE.

That said, Restrepo dismissed two of Harris' claims, regarding breach of contract and Title IX violation (though the judge did grant permission to amend the complaint within 20 days). And the manner in which Restrepo ruled provides a reminder of why courts shouldn't cling to the old, pre-2011 reality, and recognize that in an environment in which colleges are strongly pressured to carry out rigged criminal investigations and judicial inquiries, some type of oversight from a real judge is necessary.

Regarding the breach of contract claim, Restrepo conceded that the student handbook is a contract. (This issue varies from district to district; in the Duke case, Judge James Beaty held that Duke had no legal obligation to enforce its student or faculty handbook.) But he held that Harris had not been specific enough in outlining which portions of the handbook St. Joe's violated, and urged Harris to specify in an amended complaint. That said, Restrepo cast strong doubt as to whether Harris could successfully amend this portion of the complaint, given that St. Joe's handbook holds that "subsequent reviewers shall not determine anew whether there was a Community Standards violation" and "the decision made on appeal [by the Vice President for Student Life/Associate Provost ('VPSL')] will be final."

These provisions make perfect sense regarding academic matters. But in an environment in which colleges are functioning as investigators, prosecutors, and judges regarding an allegation that's a crime, a schools should not be allowed to wholly immunize themselves from judicial review for failing to respect their (minimal) due process protections.

Regarding the Title IX claim, Restrepo held that the facts alleged by Harris "do not suggest gender bias as a motivating factor." Yet the entire thrust of sexual assault policy over the last three years is that "gender bias" requires college to minimize due process protections for students accused of sexual assault. If--as the OCR has claimed--an intimate connection exists between gender bias and due process protections, then presumably male students should be allowed to explore the issue (from the other direction) in court.

Regardless of the manner in which he reached his decision, Restrepo has allowed the lawsuit to proceed, and on multiple grounds. Will St. Joe's follows Xavier's path and quickly settle?

Source

There is a pattern here. All these colleges and universities getting sued and forced to settle meanwhile those that crafted this directive and those who made contributions toward it get away without paying a penalty. Meanwhile more men are going to sue more universities and more universities are going to either settle out of court or take their chances with a jury civil trial. Most colleges and universities will of course do the former which will either keep them out of the limelight all together or minimize bad publicity because of it. Like I said the feminists crafted this directive and as usual someone else takes the blame for them. A blame the feminists richly deserve too.

Department of Justice hit with a lawsuit over dear colleague

Falsely accused student sues Delaware State University

December 18, 2013 By Robert O'Hara

A Delaware State University student is suing that school for defamation of character and violation of his civil rights delawareonline.com. reported yesterday.

Andre L. Henry was brought up on criminal charges after a woman with whom he had consensual sex on October 24 falsely accused him of raping her. The charges were dropped on November 1 according to his lawsuit but around that time the University notified him that he was barred from campus pending an investigation and hearing provided by the school. He was not allowed on campus grounds or adjacent areas for 45 days.

“For 45 days he was kicked out of his home, … he was kicked off campus, he was kicked out of school, all based on an allegation” said Daniel C. Herr, Henry’s attorney. “You can’t do that for 45 days and then finally say ‘Oh, we’ve come to our decision. He was found not guilty.’ ”

On Nov. 1 Henry was informed by DSU’s Director of Student Judicial Affairs, Paula Duffy, that a hearing would be held in front the General Judicial Council on Nov. 6. The suit says that he was not informed of his right to have an attorney present.

The suit also says he was not informed of his right to remain silent and that he was not given the right to face his accuser who was not present at the hearing.

A separate hearing, of which Henry wasn’t informed, was held especially for the alleged victim.

Jesse Allen, Henry’s roommate, testified at his hearing saying he had been in the apartment’s common room the evening Henry and the woman had sex and testified the woman did not scream for Henry to stop, as she previously alleged.

Henry’s suspension was lifted upon the conclusion of the hearing.

“We found out yesterday that his on-campus disciplinary charges were found to be ‘not responsible,’” said Herr on Tuesday, referring to DSU’s General Judicial Council’s investigation.“We are still moving forward for damages because he was suspended for a total of 45 days pending a full investigation and full hearing, which we allege is a violation to his right to due process,”

The lawsuit comes at a time when the Department of Education and Department of Justice has come under fire for recent developments in the way they expect schools to pursue alleged sexual assaults and sexual harassment. On November 14 the Department of Education, in a letter sent to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, renounced it’s overall support of the “blueprint” letter drafted by the Department of Justice in which it was deemed appropriate to suspend students, as well as meting out other punishments, before hearings were even held.

“The lawsuit looks good on DSU, and this sort of thing is way overdue. Colleges and universities have been blatantly violating the civil rights of male students since the Obama administration issued the ‘Dear Collegue’ letter’,” said Paul Elam, a men’s advocate and founder of A Voice for Men. “If they won’t stop it for the sake of decency, then perhaps financially bleeding them will do the trick.”

Source

I wish Andre L.Henry well and may he be victorious against this injustice called "dear colleague" which demonizes men and make women damsels in distress regardless of the facts. We at the Men's Rights Blog salute Mr. Henry and wish him well. If he is reading here he should go to the Community of The Falsely accused at COTWA where he can gain valuable information which should hopefully serve him well.

Wrongfully expelled man sues Xavier Unversity

Maryland guard Dez Wells suing Xavier for expulsion
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 10:13 PM EDT..

University of Maryland guard Dez Wells filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking damages against his former school, Xavier University, and its president, Father Michael Graham, over what he asserts was his wrongful expulsion last summer.

Dez Wells played for Maryland last season after he was expelled by Xavier. (USA Today Sports)The suit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him following a 2012 allegation of sexual assault. The local prosecutor investigated the case and not only declined to charge Wells but declared in media accounts the allegation "didn't reach anything close to a standard of proof" and "should never have gotten to the point where someone's reputation is ruined." A grand jury also declined to indict the basketball star.

The lawsuit, filed at the United States District Court in Cincinnati, seeks monetary compensation as well as an overturning of the expulsion to clear Wells' name of what he calls a false accusation.

Wells, according to his attorney, has no interest in returning to Xavier, but has suffered "severe emotional distress" for having been essentially deemed a rapist – and heckled as such while playing road games. This, Wells said, is his best chance to set the record straight with the public and hold Xavier accountable.

"From the moment this nightmare began, I've been trying to get everyone to understand that I am innocent," Wells said in a statement through attorney Peter Ginsberg. "The supposed leaders at Xavier destroyed my reputation. It needs to make this right. Xavier needs to set the record straight."

Xavier released a statement from Father Graham to Yahoo! Sports on Tuesday evening.

"We have read the complaint and the allegations of wrongdoing are unfounded and cannot be supported," Graham said. "The process used by the Xavier University Conduct Board (UCB) applies to all of our students and is the standard used in American universities. After members of the Conduct Board reached their decision, the matter was considered and upheld in an appeal. The sanction for the offense was expulsion.

"The University has never revealed the specific charge against Dez Wells other than to say he was found responsible for a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The university will vigorously defend the process and the decision."

After being expelled in the summer of 2012, Wells transferred to Maryland. The NCAA, in a rare move, ruled on appeal to grant him immediate eligibility rather than make him sit out a season like most transfers. He started 37 of 38 games and led the Terrapins in scoring with 13.1 points a game. He will be a focal point of the team again this season.

It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for an active, high-profile player to file a federal suit against another NCAA member institution. Adding to the uniqueness of the case, Wells' most powerful advocate is Hamilton, Ohio prosecutor Joseph Deters, who has forcefully and publicly, defended Wells and blasted Xavier's handling of the incident as "fundamentally unfair."

"If I thought [Wells] did this, he'd be in prison," Deters says in the lawsuit. "I wouldn't pull any punches."

Wells' lawsuit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him. (USA Today Sports)Wells, a native of Raleigh, N.C., was named to the Atlantic 10 All-Rookie team following the 2011-12 season.

Last summer, on the night of June 7, 2012, he engaged in what he asserts was consensual sex with an Xavier student.

The two, among others, had been hanging out that night in their dorm playing a game of group "truth or dare," according to the lawsuit. "A number of the dares were sexual in nature," the suit alleges, including lap dances and stripping. The two kissed multiple times during the evening before going to the woman's room, where, according to the suit, she asked if Wells had a condom before they had sex.

The next day she reported to the campus police she had been sexually assaulted. She later met with Cincinnati police but declined to press charges. Undeterred, Deters, the local prospector assigned two staff members to look into the incident.

Deters, according to the suit, quickly "developed serious concerns about [the] truthfulness of the allegations." He left messages with Father Graham, the Xavier president, in an effort to convey those concerns but the messages were not returned, the suit alleges. He later discussed with another Xavier official and instructed his concerns be passed on to Graham.

Before the prosecutor finished his work and a grand jury cleared Wells, however, the player was called before Xavier's University Conduct Board, where the lawsuit alleges a group of administrators, faculty and students "impermissibly placed the burden on Wells to prove his innocence."

The suit runs through a litany of what it alleges are breaches of the UCB rules and procedures. It also hammers the group for either dismissing or ignoring the concerns of the prosecutor's office, failing to wait for "vital laboratory tests" and allowing for just a brief, two-day appeal process. It also alleged UCB members "had received woefully inadequate training" to make a ruling on these kinds of cases.

The UCB expelled Wells on Aug. 3, 2012. On Aug. 28, a grand jury declined to indict him and Deters took to the local media to stand up for the player and urge Xavier to reconsider.

Ginsberg alleges Xavier acted unfairly to Wells because it was under pressure from an investigation by the U.S. Education Department's Office of Civil Rights for mishandling previous allegations brought against male students and treating them too leniently.

"It was much more anxious to appease the Department of Education then satisfy its own obligations to fairness for its own students," Ginsberg told Yahoo! Sports Tuesday night. "Unfortunately, Dez was the sacrificial lamb."

Ginsberg cites Father Graham ignoring the prosecutor's urge for caution and reconsideration as proof.

"It should have been clear to university officials on their own that the accusations were fictitious," Ginsberg said. "Add to that a trained professional with no skin in the game was imploring Father Graham to hold off and act responsibly and Father Graham simply ignored Mr. Deters admonitions."

The suit seeks a jury trial in Ohio and seeks unspecified damages. Outside the specific wording of the lawsuit, Wells stated he is also seeking an apology from Father Graham.

Source: click here

Symantec under fire

Symantec Shareholders Worried

Symantec shareholders are increasingly worried about the growing likelihood of multiple legal prosecutions and adverse publicity surrounding Symantec's Rulespace software.

Concerned shareholders who remain unaware of the impending problems should investigate the claims of thousands of internet users and webmasters who are currently gathering together to force Symantec to stop blocking websites and blogs simply because the Symantec management does not approve of their political content.

If these claims are true, this will be seen as a sinister development to people who are concerned about civil liberties, freedom of speech and internet censorship.

Worse, from Symantec's point of view, is that thousands of these sites have been categorised as "hate sites" by Symantec, but a close look at many of these sites clearly reveals that they are nothing of the sort.

One good example of this is the website ...

DV Men UK

... which is a site simply devoted to pointing out that men, as well as women, can experience domestic violence.

As a result of these serious misclassifications, webmasters and bloggers are gradually uniting and planning to sue Symantec for libel and defamation.

The costs of such suits for Symantec could run into millions of dollars; particularly since the management has been aware of these misclassifications for some considerable time - thus compounding the company's liability in law - but appears to have made no attempt to deal with them.

As such, shareholders might well have grounds to wonder if the company is much more concerned about the political leanings of its management and much less concerned about them.

More disturbing, perhaps, is that Symantec is being accused by some people of blocking web sites devoted to exposing child abuse. And the question is being asked, "Who is Symantec trying to protect? What is the company trying to hide?"

On a lighter note, the Fathers For Justice website was, until a few days ago, catagorised as a "Shopping" site.

Symantec is also likely to face intense lobbying in the UK following the revelation that, despite having made millions of pounds from its UK activities, it pays virtually no tax in the UK.

UK politicians, UK government departments and UK businesses are therefore coming under increasing attack for using Symantec products.

It is also seems likely that Symantec has been avoiding the payment of millions of tax dollars in America - where it is based.

Many people are now arguing that even if Symantec's tax avoidance measures are currently legal, American patriots should choose to use other products particularly given the current poor state of their own economy.

In January of 2012, James Gross filed a lawsuit against Symantec for distributing fake scareware scanners that purportedly, and fraudulently, proclaimed to have discovered malware issues with their computers. The solution proffered? Buy Symantec's Norton Security software.

To add even further to its woes, there has recently been the suggestion that Symantec is heavily blocking non-USA sites while allowing equivalent sites in the USA to pass through its filters.

Finally, as of June 2013, the widely respected Customer Service Scoreboard rated Symantec's customer service as "Disappointing"

All in all, therefore, it looks as if Symantec's shareholders might shortly be in for a bumpy ride as more and more questions arise over the competence and trustworthiness of its senior management.

Angry Harry

Wanetta Gibson is nailed for $2.6 million by school board

Wanetta Gibson-worthless cunt

Long Beach Unified wins judgment against accuser in false rape case against Brian Banks

By Greg Mellen
6/14/2013

WANETTA-GIBSON-400LOS ANGELES – The Long Beach Unified School District won a $2.6 million default judgment against a woman whose false rape allegation in 2002 cost the school district money and landed a fellow student in jail.

Although Wanetta Gibson has not appeared in court throughout the proceedings and her whereabouts were not know, the ruling allows the school district to recoup the money through her future wages and property.

Gibson was a student at Long Beach Poly High when she first sued the district for having lax security and an unsafe environment after she accused Brian Banks, a promising football star, of rape.

Gibson later recanted the rape claim on tape, paving the way for Banks’ exoneration of the charge – however, he had already served more than five years in prison.

Banks earlier this year signed a contract to play football for the Atlanta Falcons. He was unavailable for comment.

According to the school district, the judgment recoups a $750,000 settlement paid to Gibson and also includes attorney’s fees, interest and $1 million in punitive damages.

“The court recognizes that our school district was a victim in this case,” Long Beach Unified Superintendent Christopher J. Steinhauser said.

“This judgment demonstrates that when people attempt to defraud our school system, they will feel the full force of the law.”

When the school district first announced it was suing Gibson, district spokesman Chris Eftychiou said “It is important to convey that the school board isn’t going to sit idly by if someone tries to defraud it of taxpayer resources.”

Lawyers from the school district were unable to locate Gibson, who in 2007 was awarded the settlement.

The Press-Telegram reported initially that Gibson received $750,000 from a $1.5 million overall settlement.

When Banks was exonerated in May 2012, the school district refused comment on whether it would pursue Gibson for damages.

The district has since filed a complaint in Long Beach Superior Court and a summons against Gibson.

In January, when Gibson could not be found, an order for publication was granted, meaning Gibson could be served via a public announcement.

Legal experts debated whether a judgment would be won from Gibson if she had adequate representation.

The statute for limitations on fraud is three years from when it is discovered; it is unclear whether the clock should begin when Gibson recanted on tape, or whether it could have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.

Gibson was also a juvenile when she first accused Banks, but not when she received the award.

Court records show Gibson has had a tumultuous life since she won the settlement, with a number of claims lodged by and against her in civil litigation, including temporary restraining orders and domestic violence charges.

According to news reports, Gibson and her children have received public assistance and she has been sued by the county for child support.

After Banks’ release from prison, Gibson sent him a “friend” request on Facebook and was seeking to “let bygones be bygones.”

Private investigator Freddie Parish, whose son played football with Banks at Poly, was able to elicit the recantation on audio and videotape from Gibson, who was unavailable for comment.

In the tape, which has been widely circulated since Banks was exonerated in May 2012, Gibson gives one-word “no” answers when Parish asks her if she was raped or kidnapped. In a separate interview, Gibson said she was hesitant to help Banks when he asked for her help.

“I will go through with helping you, but all that money they gave us, I mean, gave me, I don’t want to have to pay it back, all of it, because that would take a long time,” Gibson said.

Source:click here

Poetic fucking justice. That is what I say. Now throw this bitch in prison so she knows how it feels. Fucking worthless cunt. I'm glad she got nailed and will have her future earnings garnished. Maybe they should give the money to Brian Banks since Gibson turned his life upside down.

Justice catches up with Wanetta Gibson

LONG BEACH, Calif. (KABC) — The Long Beach Unified School District is suing a woman who falsely accused former student and football star Brian Banks of rape, saying it wants to get back some of the money it paid her in a settlement.

The school district wants to press criminal charges against Wanetta Gibson. The district says the lawsuit was filed months ago, but Gibson was finally served Friday.

It’s all possible thanks to one dramatic moment.

Gibson sat down in a private investigator’s office last year and made a startling confession about Brian Banks, the man she once accused of rape. Her recantation was captured on video. Gibson is asked if Banks raped her. She can be seen and heard saying, “No, he did not.” She is asked if Banks kidnapped her. Again, she replies, “No, he did not.”

Soon after, Banks was exonerated.

Gibson had previously claimed that Banks raped her at Long Beach Polytechnic High School while they were both students there. Banks was then a football stand-out committed to play at the University of Southern California. Instead, he spent years behind bars.

Gibson sued the school district and won $750,000. Now the district wants its money back. It is suing her for the $750,000, and more than $1 million in damages.

A district spokesman said in a statement: “Our school district takes seriously our obligation to be a good steward of public funds. It’s important to convey that our school board will take action to recoup any losses if someone attempts to defraud our schools of much-needed resources.”

It’s a happier ending for Banks, who recommitted himself to fulfilling his NFL dream. Last year he earned a tryout with the Seattle Seahawks, and just recently he was signed by the Atlanta Falcons.

Banks was in San Diego Friday night practicing for the upcoming season. He did not return an email regarding Friday night’s development.

But in the past he’s said he’s no longer concerned with Wanetta Gibson and doesn’t plan to sue her himself. He just wants to focus on his life and football.



Source:click here

I hope this fucking cunt does time on top of it. Throw the fucking book at her. Hey feminists didn't you say women never lie about rape. You said it yes you did. Now what do you have to say? Lying cunts. How about that principal that said Brian Banks could never return regardless? I say fire him,take away his pension,starve his ass close to death and throw him in the desert for the animanls to rip his flesh from his bones. It's the only good he can possibly give to any creature. He's just garbage otherwise. No good to anyone.

NCFM sues over anti-male bias in selective service requirements

NCFM SUES SELECTIVE SERVICE FOR REQUIRING ONLY MEN TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT

April 4, 2013
By NCFM

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Marc Angelucci, Esq., NCFM Vice President, marcangelucci@hotmail.com 626-319-3081

Or, Steven Svoboda, Esq., NCFM PR Director, arc@post.harvard.edu 925-395-2065

NATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN SUES SELECTIVE SERVICE FOR REQUIRING ONLY MEN TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT

Lawsuit Asserts Department of Defense’s Recent Repeal of Ban on Women in Combat Removes Lone Legal Obstacle for Requiring Women to Register for Draft

Los Angeles (4/4/13) – The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) is a non-profit educational organization that advocates for equal rights for men and women.

NCFM has filed a lawsuit that challenges the legality of requiring only males to register for the military draft. The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Selective Service System in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 4, 2013, Case Number 2:13-cv-02391-DSF-MAN .

The 1981 U.S. Supreme Court equal protection case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) held that men and women were not similarly situated in the U.S. military because women were excluded from combat, therefore women did not have to register for the draft. Dissenting Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, “The Court today places its imprimatur on one of the most potent remaining public expressions of ‘ancient canards about the proper role of women’.”

In January, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that women will be allowed to enter all combat positions in all branches of the U.S. military, thereby removing the sole legal basis for requiring only males to register for the draft.

NCFM’s complaint alleges that because men and women are now similarly situated in the military, Selective Service’s requirement that only males must register for the draft violates the rights of both men and women to equal treatment under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and under United States Code, Title 28, Section 1983.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, calling for the Selective Service to stop discriminating against men and women by requiring both men and women to register for the draft, or by requiring neither to register for the draft.

Men failing to register for the draft can be fined up to $250,000, sentenced to up to five years in prison, and denied eligibility for federal and state benefits including jobs, financial aid, citizenship, loans, and job training. Only men now face these harsh penalties.

NCFM calls on the Obama Administration and Congress to end the institutional sex discrimination that requires only men to register for the draft. The ancient canard is gone, because women are now eligible for combat roles in all branches of the U.S. military. There is no longer any legal justification for continuing the unequal treatment of our draft age population based solely on their gender. The Selective Service System should treat men and women equally, including imposing penalties against both men and women for failing to register.

Read the complaint here

Source: click here

Go NCFM Go. I've been waiting a long time for this and I'm glad it has happening. Why should men be the only ones to die in a war. If women want rights they should fight for them as any man would. Fair is fair.

Commissioner bullies MRA attorney

Carlos Velez

Anti-feminist attorney Roy Den Hollander served a complaint today, Aug. 20, with the N.Y.C. Commission on Human Rights against the Commission’s Executive Director of Law Enforcement—Carlos Velez (212 306 7765) for discriminating against Den Hollander, in part, because he is a Euro-American. (Then again, maybe Velez discriminated against him for being an African-America. After all, everyone’s ancestors originated in Africa.)

Anyway, on July 27, 2012, Velez issued a Determination and Order that Den Hollander charges was motivated by Velez’s prejudice against Euro-Americans of protestant ancestry,divorced husbands who criticize their ex-wives, and men who choose not to meekly submit to feminist and political correctionalist totalitarianism by prosecuting anti-feminist lawsuits of which Den Hollander has done a few times.

“Totalitarianism!” That’s a little strong, or is it? “To exalt as an absolute is the mark of totalitarianism, and it is possible to have an atmosphere of totalitarianism in a society that has many of the attributes of democracy.” ~ Howard Zinn.

Believing that certain political beliefs are the only “correct” ones sounds absolute. Not good enough, how about a feminist and PCer “tyranny.”

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ~ James Madison, Federalist Paper 47.

So what ideology rules over the actions of most government officials—feminism and PC.

Velez’s Order dismissed Den Hollander’s age discrimination complaint against the nightclub Amnesia based on various extra-legal and bigoted reasons that expose a discriminatory intent by Velez in investigating, writing, and issuing the Order.

Amnesia refused to admit Den Hollander and his equally older attorney friend and former Democratic State Committeeman unless they bought a $350 bottle of watered down, brandless vodka. They declined. Den Hollander then filed a sex discrimination complaint with the State Human Rights Division. The State said no sex discrimination but looks like age discrimination. The State, however, lacks jurisdiction over nightclubs for age discrimination but NYC Human Rights has such jurisdiction, so off Den Hollander righteously went to complain.

At NYC Human Rights, Velez refused to accept Den Hollander’s complaint by communicating through another employee that there was no discrimination because had Den Hollander and his friend agreed to buy a $350 bottle, they could have entered. Duh, that can’t be right; otherwise years ago in the Deep South it would have been okay to require people with relatively darker skin color to enter a public bus so long as they sat in the back. The U.S. Supreme Court kicked that looney-tune reasoning out of the law in Browder v. Gayle, 352 U.S. 903 (1956).

A letter to the Commissioner forced Velez to accept the case but didn’t reign in the prejudice that colored his investigation, reasoning, and Order. Among the reasons for dismissing the age discrimination complaint Velez wrote:

Complainant [Den Hollander] is a self-professed advocate for men’s rights who identifies himself as an ‘anti-feminist lawyer’ on his website. He has filed a number of lawsuits against bars and clubs that have ‘Ladies Nights,’ and admits in several online publications that he is ‘bitter’ from an ex-wife who used him for his US citizenship and money. Complainant’s description of himself is consistent with his pattern of filing several gender discrimination suits.” Velez Determination and Order, Ex A. at p. Tres.

So what’s that got to do with an age-discrimination complaint? Sounds like the typical feminist and PC’er tactic of discrediting someone by pegging them as a member of a currently disfavored group. In Den Hollander’s case, a member of the last remaining 200 men in this country willing to fight for their constitutional rights against the feminists and PCers. Although some, such as Marc Rudov, think that number is too high.

“Discrimination itself, by perpetuating ‘archaic and stereotypic notions’ or by stigmatizing members of the disfavored group as ‘innately inferior’ and therefore as less worthy participants in the political community, … can cause serious noneconomic injuries to those persons who are personally denied equal treatment….” ~Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 739-740 (1984).

Roy's complaint here

Source:click here

Give him hell,Roy. Roast his hide royally,bro. This Velez asshole looks like another UN twerp to me. Fuck you,Velez.