he said presumption of guilt. You should also be presumed innocent in a CoC hearing. The duty of proof is still not on Bubu and the default position should be prove to me he is guilty. That has not happened at any level that I can see and every judge that has viewed evidence agrees so the point that raises the question as to why Cfers presume him guilty is a valid one. Why do you?
I get your point, but one clarification, and obviously the Administrative Law Judge disagreed and called the decision unfounded. However, to quote the copywrited story in yesterdays DSM Register:
"The Story County attorney’s office dropped the charges,
but Iowa State’s Office of Judicial Affairs determined Palo had violated student-conduct rules. An administrative law judge found the accusations that led to that ruling unfounded.
When the matter was appealed directly to Iowa State President Steven Leath, he decided Palo had violated Iowa State’s sexual misconduct policy. The state Board of Regents later backed that decision."
So, it was an appeal of the ALj appeal that Leath made his decision on. Whether correctly or incorrectly, it had been already ruled he had violated policy.
I have my opinions, but I all I am trying to do here is list what appears to be somewhat lost in the conversation.
