When you are the Governor of any state and you make policies that enrich your own pockets that's not largess, that's a clear conflict of interest, and a violation of the public trust. Especially since his other company defrauded the government already. Forget how you feel about welfare people. That's not the point, enriching yourself at the expense of the state you govern is. And they are still trying to get Blago, and letting this guy do whatever??

Unbelievable! Now the guy in Florida ain't the only one mind you, as Arizona, got a doozy out there with the private prisons deal by her aides, and Michigan and Wisconsin, have their hands full with corporations running the cities and municipalities, I mean what's up with these republican governors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

When you are the Governor of any state and you make policies that enrich your own pockets thats not largess, thats a clear conflict of interest, and a violation of the public trust. Especially since his other company defrauded the government already. Forget how you feel about welfare people. Thats not the point, enriching yourself at the expense of the state you govern is. And they are still trying to get Blago, and letting this guy do whatever???

Unbelievable! now the guy in Florida ain't the only one mind you, as Arizona, got a doozy out there with the private prisons deal by her aides, and Michigan and Wisconsin, have their hands full with corporations running the cities and municipalities, I mean whats up with these republican governors?

---

One believable that a system exist where one person can have so much power

We give them the power, but they abuse it, and that means we the people have to act in our own interest, to end the abuse, which gladly, some are.

Not to hijack... BUT...

What about the guy in Michigan who won 2 MIL and still can use his food stamps?

Leroy Fick, Millionaire Lottery Winner, Still Using Food Stamps (VIDEO)

Talk about ABUSE!

Seems the Obama administration's DOE doesn't care much about our rights either. The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is instructing universities that receive federal funding, almost all universities, to use a "preponderance of the evidence standard to resolve complaints of sex discrimination" and sexual harassment.

No longer is the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to be employed, but if a finding of just 50.01 percent of probability of guilt is reached, lives can be ruined. The Duke lacrosse case comes to mind here.

So much for "due process."

Big deal from nothing as a request such as this one doesn't stop what the policy is already and was suggested to curb the schools from sweeping stuff under the rug instead of investigate the serious cases. It's a guideline for a starting point to a process, but universities are seeing this push as an intrusion of their right to handle things their way, in house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Big deal from nothing as a request such as this one doesn't stop what the policy is already and was suggested to curb the schools from sweeping stuff under the rug instead of investigate the serious cases. Its a guideline for a starting point to a process, but universities are seeing this push as an intrusion of their right to handle things their way, in house.

---

Seriously? Schools aren't sweeping things under the rug, they're already over-zealously persecuting students for the slightest of offenses. Columbia considers "love letters" a form of sexual harassment. UC Santa Cruz considers "terms of endearment" to be sexual harassment. Yale, "unspoken sexual innuendo such as voice inflection" is sexual harassment. But, I'm sure the Vagina Monologues is still welcome on campus.

As in the Duke rape case we're talking felony here, not a parking ticket. They better damn well be sure they've got "clear and convincing" evidence before destroying someone's life. Someone charged with sexual assault deserves more than a "preponderance of the evidence."

Quote:

---

Someone charged with sexual assault deserves more than a "preponderance of the evidence."

---

So tell that to the ones charged with gathering the evidence. Universities don't, they just want to get it over with and not be burdened with accusations that may or may not be serious issues, or even true ones. That's what a preponderance of the evidence means. You actually have to investigate, and see what the truth is and not pass it off, or ignore it.

There are two sides here the one accused, and the VICTIM. Who's right when you can't be convinced, and there is NO clear and convincing evidence, one way, or another.

That's what the edict was pushing for, taking any incident, or allegation serious enough for it to be put into professional hands just in case the victim was telling the truth, and there was a felony.

Sure you may cite example of overzealous behavior, but there are many cases of crimes being hushed up, and swept under the rug, for whatever reason, just to stop a bunch of unwanted attention, or publicity, by these schools.

Preponderance of the evidence is an instruction that's used in every court of law to the jury that's charged with judging innocence, and guilt, and in the case you cited, they are saying don't judge until you get the whole story, and that's all you can expect when charged with any crime in America from the court. Doesn't matter who is accused, or who does the accusing. Its about due diligence in judging facts, in the fairest manner humanly possible.

Never done jury duty, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Never done jury duty, huh??

---

That's a hell of an assumption. Um, I've been through voir dire numerous times. And served as a juror in a murder trial, a case of sexual abuse of a child and medical malpractice. I'm quite experienced in the process.

The latter we were charged with a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning essentially you put both sides on a scale and whichever way it tilts in the least is how you find. That is the standard used for civil trials in this country.

The first two we were charged with finding "beyond a reasonable doubt," meaning we had to be damn sure they were guilty before returning with a finding of guilt. That is the standard for criminal trials in this country. Sexual abuse and sexual assault are CRIMINAL charges - no matter the jurisdiction. You can't sweep THAT under the rug.

Darn Steve, you are sharp, and the distinctions you make are on the money, but goes to my point about the standard that are recommended for schools to follow when the have an accuser of wrong doing. Since they cannot judge guilt or innocence, and apply the LAW, they at least have to meet the minimum civil standard for redress by university RULES Of proper behavior. That's to prevent them from sweeping things under a rug. There have been many instances of universities doing this, and when in doubt, call a cop, they will be the final determinate of what's criminal, what's civil, and what's the truth, because they are better equipped, and trained to investigate. Sweeping things under a rug though, is unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Someone charged with sexual assault deserves more than a "preponderance of the evidence."

---

That's for a court to decide, not a school official. It should be reported to the proper authorities, and as you know whether there is enough evidence or facts, a civil suit is up to the party involved, whether they are found guilty or not in a court of law. Until one is lawfully charged with an offense, felony, or misdemeanor, its still has to be a duly authorized officer of the court. Not a university official.

This whole thing started with the universities, and schools arbitrarily labeling someone a trouble maker, and kicking them out, no matter the situation. Is that a fair standard? Because they said it was so??