Anybody heard about this Rolling Stone UVA rape story controversy?

[DQ12]

itll be interesting if they can prove damages to the fraternity itself.

The chapter or general? Chapter should be pretty easy, what with having to shut down and the vandalism. General may be tougher but I bet they could show a drop in fundraising with creative enough accounting. If this case gets to the damages element RS is eff'd.

I'm also not sure that the public/private figure distinction will matter much, since I think the judge will find a question of fact for the jury as to whether RS was reckless - not just negligent. Again, if this case goes to a jury RS is eff'd.

Eh, you're public/private distinction is getting all mixed up.  If the fraternity is a public figure, it requires malice -- and there's no way there was malice here.  Also, if it's public, then there's no punitive damages.

The negligence/reckless distinction is if this is a "matter of public concern."  If the frat is considered a private figure and the rape allegation is a matter of private concern (which i doubt it is), then punitive damages don't require malice.  If frat is a private figure and the allegation is a matter of public concern, punitive damages require malice. 

[EMAWmeister]

fsd is going to look pretty foolish if/when 'blast gets gang raped.  it's going to be awkward for him.

I mean 'blast does dress pretty slutty

[star seed 7]

frats, man

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3030555/Jon-Hamm-s-sadistic-college-hazing-shame-Mad-Men-star-beat-pledge-paddle-set-pants-fire-used-claw-hammer-drag-genitals.html

[Dugout DickStone]

If the frat asks for a jury trial, they should have a subsequent decent malpractice claim against their attorney. No rough ridin' way you're able to get a majority of people who aren't predisposed to hating fraternities.

The RS would be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) not to settle, there's no upside to defending what they did. They should just admit that they're a comic book and quit pretending to be journalists. That's actually probably their best defense in this matter.

So, juries hate frats and will decide against them but the magazine should roll over and settle anyway?

Good thing you aren't a lawyer.

[star seed 7]

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

If the frat asks for a jury trial, they should have a subsequent decent malpractice claim against their attorney. No rough ridin' way you're able to get a majority of people who aren't predisposed to hating fraternities.

The RS would be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) not to settle, there's no upside to defending what they did. They should just admit that they're a comic book and quit pretending to be journalists. That's actually probably their best defense in this matter.

So, juries hate frats and will decide against them but the magazine should roll over and settle anyway?

Good thing you aren't a lawyer.

Try it to the judge dipsmack.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What is it with libtards and rape hoaxes? They really really love fake rape victims. The worse the fake rape details the better.

This time it's Dem Sen Gillibrand, who invited "Mattress Girl" to be her honored guest at this year's State of the Union. And it looks like she made it all up.... More disgusting allegations and a life destroyed, and the libtards celebrate the perpetrator of the hoax.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/24/student-accused-of-rape-by-mattress-girl

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Gillebrand is a certified lunatic.

[Dugout DickStone]

If the frat asks for a jury trial, they should have a subsequent decent malpractice claim against their attorney. No rough ridin' way you're able to get a majority of people who aren't predisposed to hating fraternities.

The RS would be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) not to settle, there's no upside to defending what they did. They should just admit that they're a comic book and quit pretending to be journalists. That's actually probably their best defense in this matter.

So, juries hate frats and will decide against them but the magazine should roll over and settle anyway?

Good thing you aren't a lawyer.

Try it to the judge dipsmack.

I bet RS waives their right to jury trial like instantly, these kinds of cases are always bench trials.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Seriously though, there is about 0% chance of this being a bench trial. Probably will settle if they get past summary judgment, but it will be tried to a jury if it gets there. Depos are gonna be fun.

[Dugout DickStone]

Seriously though, there is about 0% chance of this being a bench trial. Probably will settle if they get past summary judgment, but it will be tried to a jury if it gets there. Depos are gonna be fun.

FSD thinks you are wrong

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Fake rape stories really resonate among the libtards. UN Ambassador Samanatha Power is a little behind the times... http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/05/18/un-ambassador-compares-struggles-of-afghan-women-to-a-college-student-who-lied-about-rape-n2000392

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428910/campus-rape-courts-republicans-resisting

The authors of this article are not partisan critics. One of us is an independent, the other a Democrat who twice voted for Obama and donated to his presidential campaign. But when the president and his party go rogue, it is the duty of the loyal opposition to blow the whistle and fight back.

[sys]

If there are ten people who have been accused, and under a reasonable-likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all ten people.

that is really bad.  i looked up the mentioned retraction, it seemed a little more sincere than the article alleges.

Its language presumes the guilt of all students accused of sexual assault by repeatedly calling accusers who have not yet substantiated their claims “victims,” without the critical qualifier “alleged.”

iirc, h. clinton stated something like this that liblib attempted to defend.

[ednksu]

A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428910/campus-rape-courts-republicans-resisting

The authors of this article are not partisan critics. One of us is an independent, the other a Democrat who twice voted for Obama and donated to his presidential campaign. But when the president and his party go rogue, it is the duty of the loyal opposition to blow the whistle and fight back.

Please provide a detailed list of unconstitutional acts.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.

Please provide a detailed list of unconstitutional acts.

Ok. Here is a very detailed and extensively reasoned list. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions

In summary, Obama has used his executive agencies to create and enforce regulations that are in no way shape or form authorized by the law. Example, the EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions, based upon a law - the Clean Air Act - that makes zero reference to climate change or CO2.

In other instances, he has ordered agencies to simply ignore laws for entire classifications of people, far beyond case-by-case prosecutorial discretion. Example, his attempts to create new immigration amnesties in direct contravention of immigration law - a move that has thus far been blocked by the courts.

In other instances, he simply ignores inconvenient parts of his very own signature law - Obamacare - unilaterally ignoring statutory deadlines and other provisions.

He is EASILY the most lawless, unconstitutional president in US history.

To Barack Obama, the law is whatever the eff he says it is. His strategy is to do whatever he wants, let his opponents sue the various agencies, and even if he ultimately loses a few years later, big deal.

[star seed 7]

Sounds like a leader 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

If there are ten people who have been accused, and under a reasonable-likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all ten people.

that is really bad.  i looked up the mentioned retraction, it seemed a little more sincere than the article alleges.

Its language presumes the guilt of all students accused of sexual assault by repeatedly calling accusers who have not yet substantiated their claims “victims,” without the critical qualifier “alleged.”

iirc, h. clinton stated something like this that liblib attempted to defend.

You do recall correctly. Clinton said rape victims have the right to be believed. When confronted by a person a book signing - not a journalist, of course - about whether Bill's accusers also have the right to be believed, she responded "until disbelieved based on the evidence."

So Hillary's standard for rape accusations is "guilty until proven innocent by the evidence."

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Sounds like a leader 

Dictators are leaders, too. But not really what we want. You know, supposedly being a country of laws and all....

[renocat]

KSUW points out the hypocrites in American journalism.  If Bill the Thrill came out and said he is against planned hamburger, he would be labelled as a serial assult er and soon sharing a cell Knockout Cosby.  By MG standards is Bill Cosby guilty?    Is MG just as loathing as Leacherous Grandpa? LG and MG are not friends to women.  They only care about their own golden butts.

[ednksu]

A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.

Please provide a detailed list of unconstitutional acts.

Ok. Here is a very detailed and extensively reasoned list. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions

In summary, Obama has used his executive agencies to create and enforce regulations that are in no way shape or form authorized by the law. Example, the EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions, based upon a law - the Clean Air Act - that makes zero reference to climate change or CO2.

In other instances, he has ordered agencies to simply ignore laws for entire classifications of people, far beyond case-by-case prosecutorial discretion. Example, his attempts to create new immigration amnesties in direct contravention of immigration law - a move that has thus far been blocked by the courts.

In other instances, he simply ignores inconvenient parts of his very own signature law - Obamacare - unilaterally ignoring statutory deadlines and other provisions.

He is EASILY the most lawless, unconstitutional president in US history.

To Barack Obama, the law is whatever the eff he says it is. His strategy is to do whatever he wants, let his opponents sue the various agencies, and even if he ultimately loses a few years later, big deal.

Yeah those are arguably "lawless" acts which are debateable.  You could mildly claim he wasn't acting in a constitutional manner since he isn't upholding his oath the way you want him to, but you still failed to list anything that smacked against the constitution itself. If you really want to educate yourself read up on Jackson and get back to me when Obama tells the SCOTUS to stuff it and then proceeds to destroy a civilization.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.

Please provide a detailed list of unconstitutional acts.

Ok. Here is a very detailed and extensively reasoned list. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions

In summary, Obama has used his executive agencies to create and enforce regulations that are in no way shape or form authorized by the law. Example, the EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions, based upon a law - the Clean Air Act - that makes zero reference to climate change or CO2.

In other instances, he has ordered agencies to simply ignore laws for entire classifications of people, far beyond case-by-case prosecutorial discretion. Example, his attempts to create new immigration amnesties in direct contravention of immigration law - a move that has thus far been blocked by the courts.

In other instances, he simply ignores inconvenient parts of his very own signature law - Obamacare - unilaterally ignoring statutory deadlines and other provisions.

He is EASILY the most lawless, unconstitutional president in US history.

To Barack Obama, the law is whatever the eff he says it is. His strategy is to do whatever he wants, let his opponents sue the various agencies, and even if he ultimately loses a few years later, big deal.

Yeah those are arguably "lawless" acts which are debateable.  You could mildly claim he wasn't acting in a constitutional manner since he isn't upholding his oath the way you want him to, but you still failed to list anything that smacked against the constitution itself. If you really want to educate yourself read up on Jackson and get back to me when Obama tells the SCOTUS to stuff it and then proceeds to destroy a civilization.

I'm going to nominate this one for the Libtard HOF. Here's the thing, silly, the President's duty to faithfully execute the laws isn't in his oath - it's in the Constitution. Article II Section 3: "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He takes an oath, written verbatim in the Constitution, to faithfully execute his office. It is the Constitution that establishes the separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. When Obama does not take care that the laws are faithfully executed or creates his own laws unilaterally - as he has in the examples presented above - he is being unconstitutional.

And at reaching all the back to Andrew Jackson!

[ednksu]

A good article on how this administration, the most lawless and unconstitutional administration in history, have stretched their executive powers to pretty much abolish due process in campus rape accusations.

Please provide a detailed list of unconstitutional acts.

Ok. Here is a very detailed and extensively reasoned list. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/an-executive-unbound-the-obama-administrations-unilateral-actions

In summary, Obama has used his executive agencies to create and enforce regulations that are in no way shape or form authorized by the law. Example, the EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions, based upon a law - the Clean Air Act - that makes zero reference to climate change or CO2.

In other instances, he has ordered agencies to simply ignore laws for entire classifications of people, far beyond case-by-case prosecutorial discretion. Example, his attempts to create new immigration amnesties in direct contravention of immigration law - a move that has thus far been blocked by the courts.

In other instances, he simply ignores inconvenient parts of his very own signature law - Obamacare - unilaterally ignoring statutory deadlines and other provisions.

He is EASILY the most lawless, unconstitutional president in US history.

To Barack Obama, the law is whatever the eff he says it is. His strategy is to do whatever he wants, let his opponents sue the various agencies, and even if he ultimately loses a few years later, big deal.

Yeah those are arguably "lawless" acts which are debateable.  You could mildly claim he wasn't acting in a constitutional manner since he isn't upholding his oath the way you want him to, but you still failed to list anything that smacked against the constitution itself. If you really want to educate yourself read up on Jackson and get back to me when Obama tells the SCOTUS to stuff it and then proceeds to destroy a civilization.

I'm going to nominate this one for the Libtard HOF. Here's the thing, silly, the President's duty to faithfully execute the laws isn't in his oath - it's in the Constitution. Article II Section 3: "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He takes an oath, written verbatim in the Constitution, to faithfully execute his office. It is the Constitution that establishes the separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. When Obama does not take care that the laws are faithfully executed or creates his own laws unilaterally - as he has in the examples presented above - he is being unconstitutional.

And at reaching all the back to Andrew Jackson!

Another post of misdirection and obfuscation. I'll take it as your tap out.