Bubu Thread

[swarthmoreCY]

These two back-to-back posts seems to perfectly summarize this thread. A rational, measured analysis and an over-the-top emotional hyperbolic response.

If Leather was at some level your boss, you would use hyperbole too.

 

[bawbie]

The question for me is, at the district level is actual guilt of the crime what's being argued or is procedure. This case has clearly become as much or more about whether a fair procedure has been followed than about his guilt. An absence of an argument to the original charges at this court level doesnt mean an agreement or admittance that the original charges were true\valid, just that the legal plan of attack is the procedure... and seemingly rightly so given that the district court judge looked at the process here and all but called ISU\BOR incompetent for it.

Guilt of a crime has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's all about procedure, and specifically (I believe) whether the appeal to the BOR was handled fairly and correctly. His criminal guilt (of which there is none, the charges were dropped) isn't a factor at all. His violation of the student code of conduct, while not specifically at question in the court case, is the root of the appeal to Leath and then the BOR.

 

[CycloneGB]

All I got to add is.. Saturday CANNOT come fast enough..

 

[bawbie]

If Leather was at some level your boss, you would use hyperbole too.

I wasn't aware you worked for the University. Personal animus would certainly explain some of your irrational posts in this thread.

 

[LutherBlue]

From page 11 of the latest AG court document:



I guess it comes down to the difference between non-consensual sex and rape. I'm not sure what that is.

The above paragraph sums it up nicely. In the motion to the district court, Palo's lawyers don't present any arguments showing where Leath erred in his decision (you can read it in Exhibit I). All they seem to be arguing is that the university hurt Palo by making the decision too late, that a previous decision ruled in Palo's favor, that the criminal charges were dropped, that the BOR is wrong for various reason in its assertion that Palo's chance for success in his appeal is low, and that the university and public would suffer no harm if a stay was granted.

It seems that Palo would have an easy victory if his lawyers could show that Leath made logical errors in his decision, or if they could show that Leath's findings are not based on evidence in the record. But they aren't doing that. Instead, they are arguing peripheral matters rather than directly taking on Leath's decision.

Why not take on Leath's decision directly (i.e. showing that his argument is flawed), instead of indirectly (i.e. saying that Leath's decision disagreed with a previous decision).

Come on, man. That's not how we roll around here. We need to fill in the blanks so we can place some blame, brother! Why address the issues when we can attack people and throw out some wild conspiracy theories!

On a more serious note, if you want to know where the mania over sexual misconduct on campuses is originating, look east.

Obama urges strong stand against college sexual assaults - latimes.com

He's got our back!!

 

[jbhtexas]

Re: Register Exclusive: ISU asks Supreme Court to keep Palo off men's basketball team

They have. See the comments by the judge in the stay of the BOR decision.

No they haven't. As far as I can tell, their only arguments as to the validity of Leath's decision have been that the state dropped rape charges and that a previous decision was in Palo's favor. They are trying to make an inference that Leath's decision was wrong, but as far as I can tell, they have not shown any factual or logical errors in his decision.

 

[theCyBooty]

Leath's handling of this and his decision making process make me question if he is fit to run a large University.

 

[alarson]

Guilt of a crime has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's all about procedure, and specifically (I believe) whether the appeal to the BOR was handled fairly and correctly. His criminal guilt (of which there is none, the charges were dropped) isn't a factor at all. His violation of the student code of conduct, while not specifically at question in the court case, is the root of the appeal to Leath and then the BOR.

"the crime" here specifically is the alleged violation of the code of conduct. As you say this seems to be more about procedure now, which is why i think it may be irrelevant that the lawyers didnt argue his innocence to the district court and why it seems to me may be a bit off to claim that he's implicitly admitting guilt (of the CoC violation) by not arguing it again in this court, if this court isnt the place to be doing that.

 

[jbhtexas]

The question for me is, at the district level is actual guilt of the crime what's being argued or is procedure. This case has clearly become as much or more about whether a fair procedure has been followed than about his guilt. An absence of an argument to the original charges at this court level doesnt mean an agreement or admittance that the original charges were true\valid, just that the legal plan of attack is the procedure... and seemingly rightly so given that the district court judge looked at the process here and all but called ISU\BOR incompetent for it.

The district court is supposed to be the last level of appeal. Now, it is true that the first motion to the district court was simply for a stay of the sanction, and Palo's lawyers may want to save some of their evidence for the actual appeal.

However, in the appeal to BOR, there also appeared to be no evidence submitted that found logical or factual errors in Leath's decision.

 

[aeroclone]

Can someone please explain to me where JP failed so hard in all of this that he should be run out of town? JP has hardly even been involved in this.

-Bubu is charged, and the AD suspends him until the legal system can take its course.

-Charges are dropped, the AD rightfully reinstated Bubu and he plays the latter part of last season.

-An anonymous individual appeals to Leath, who proceeds to sit on it, and then rules against Bubu after the transfer deadline, eliminating his chances to transfer. He is allowed to remain a student in good standing.

-Bubu appeals to the BOR. The BOR rubber-stamps the president's decision.

-Bubu takes it to court, the court has concerns with the handling by the pres and the BOR and orders Bubu reinstated while the appeal takes place.

-JP, in what appears to be a CYA move driven by Leath, issues a statement that they are disappointed that the courts are inserting themselves in what the university and AD consider an internal matter.


I'm sorry, but I really can't see where JP face plants in it during this ordeal. Someone please lay out the case to me. Sure, the statement could have been a little more PC, but it was also pretty clear that he was not the soul source behind that statement. It is really the only official statement made by anyone at the university to this point, so there is no doubt Leath had plenty of input into it. To me, the fail lies completely with the president and the BOR.

 

[theCyBooty]

Re: Register Exclusive: ISU asks Supreme Court to keep Palo off men's basketball team

There were statements showing that Leath's assertion that Palo is a danger to the victim is false as the victim now leaves outside the state. Also goes on to state that he cannot asset that Palo is a danger to students of they allow him on campus as a student.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

[h=3]2. 2 Complainant Rights and Responsibilities[/h]

1. Complainants are persons who were the target of, or were affected by, the misconduct of the accused student or student/campus organization. In addition to the rights of all students contained in Section 2.1, complainants have the following rights:
   1. Complainants shall be provided information concerning counseling, mental health or medical services available on campus and in the community.
   2. Complainants have the right to decide whether or not to notify law enforcement authorities and/or to file a report of misconduct with the Office of Judicial Affairs (OJA).
   3. To be informed about the status of the disciplinary case pending in the OJA.
   4. Complainants may make a statement of how the alleged conduct has affected them at the time of any disciplinary hearing. If the complainant is a member of the university community at the time of a request for reinstatement by a student who committed a violation against the complainant, the complainant has a right to provide a statement for or against reinstatement.
   5. Complainants may make a statement of their opinion as to an appropriate sanction if a student or student/campus organization is found responsible for misconduct.
   6. To know the final result of the case. The final results include the name of the accused student, whether the accused student was found responsible or not and any sanction that was imposed.
   7. Complainants have the right to participate in the student judicial process as required by law and as described in Section 5, below.
   8. Complainants have the right to be free of any form of retaliation or harassment due to reporting misconduct on the part of another student.
2. In addition to the responsibilities of all students contained in Section 2.1, complainants have the responsibility to cooperate in providing accurate information regarding the alleged conduct, including providing documents and physical evidence if requested.

This is why all evidence in this case is suspect. The complainant did not fulfill her responsibility to cooperate in providing accurate information regarding the incident. What happens when a complainant does not meet the responsibilities expected of them in the student code of conduct? The answer should be that the complaint may not considered valid depending on the violation. I consider falsifying evidence against someone where the result could be felony charges and jailtime/ sex offender status a pretty major violation of the student code of conduct regarding the responsibilities of the complainant.

 

[LutherBlue]

2. 2 Complainant Rights and Responsibilities

1. Complainants are persons who were the target of, or were affected by, the misconduct of the accused student or student/campus organization. In addition to the rights of all students contained in Section 2.1, complainants have the following rights:
   1. Complainants shall be provided information concerning counseling, mental health or medical services available on campus and in the community.
   2. Complainants have the right to decide whether or not to notify law enforcement authorities and/or to file a report of misconduct with the Office of Judicial Affairs (OJA).
   3. To be informed about the status of the disciplinary case pending in the OJA.
   4. Complainants may make a statement of how the alleged conduct has affected them at the time of any disciplinary hearing. If the complainant is a member of the university community at the time of a request for reinstatement by a student who committed a violation against the complainant, the complainant has a right to provide a statement for or against reinstatement.
   5. Complainants may make a statement of their opinion as to an appropriate sanction if a student or student/campus organization is found responsible for misconduct.
   6. To know the final result of the case. The final results include the name of the accused student, whether the accused student was found responsible or not and any sanction that was imposed.
   7. Complainants have the right to participate in the student judicial process as required by law and as described in Section 5, below.
   8. Complainants have the right to be free of any form of retaliation or harassment due to reporting misconduct on the part of another student.
2. In addition to the responsibilities of all students contained in Section 2.1, complainants have the responsibility to cooperate in providing accurate information regarding the alleged conduct, including providing documents and physical evidence if requested.

This is why all evidence in this case is suspect. The complainant did not fulfill her responsibility to cooperate in providing accurate information regarding the incident. What happens when a complainant does not meet the responsibilities expected of them in the student code of conduct? The answer should be that the complaint may not considered valid depending on the violation. I consider falsifying evidence against someone where the result could be felony charges and jailtime/ sex offender status a pretty major violation of the student code of conduct regarding the responsibilities of the complainant.

Then she can be disciplined separately, but it doesn't necessarily mean the accused should walk.

 

[alarson]

Then she can be disciplined separately, but it doesn't necessarily mean the accused should walk.

If the only evidence brought to the case is the testimony brought by someone who's credibility is severely in question (due to fabricating evidence) then yes, the accused should walk.

 

[LutherBlue]

If the only evidence brought to the case is the testimony brought by someone who's credibility is severely in question (due to fabricating evidence) then yes, the accused should walk.

But it wasn't the only evidence.

 

[SCISUFAN]

But it wasn't the only evidence.

When the charges for rape were dropped, why didn't they charge him with the lesser crime of "Non-consensual" sex, if there was this evidence you speak of?

 

[bawbie]

"the crime" here specifically is the alleged violation of the code of conduct. As you say this seems to be more about procedure now, which is why i think it may be irrelevant that the lawyers didnt argue his innocence to the district court and why it seems to me may be a bit off to claim that he's implicitly admitting guilt (of the CoC violation) by not arguing it again in this court, if this court isnt the place to be doing that.

"Crime" specifically means a criminal legal violation, so it isn't really a relevant term in this context.

Other than that, I wholehearted agree with your post.

 

[bawbie]

Can someone please explain to me where JP failed so hard in all of this that he should be run out of town? JP has hardly even been involved in this.

Apparently he issued a statement in which he used the word "disappointed".

That's a pretty big fail, ya know.

 

[LutherBlue]

When the charges for rape were dropped, why didn't they charge him with the lesser crime of "Non-consensual" sex, if there was this evidence you speak of?

Probably because the Fifth Amendment prevents the prosecutor from compelling Bubu to testify against himself. ISU has no such limitation in its student misconduct proceedings and in fact, the AG's brief referenced admissions Bubu made in the course of the school's proceedings.

 

[ianoconnor]

This entire thing is a clown show.