~ archived since 2018 ~

Two Students Hooked Up. It Was Clearly Consensual. He Still Spent $12,000 Defending Himself.

Seicair

October 22, 2018

136 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Two Students Hooked Up. It Was Clearly Consensual. He Still Spent $12,000 Defending Himself.
Author	Seicair
Upvotes	136
Comments	9
Date	October 22, 2018 4:18 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9qfbt8/two_students_hooked_up_it_was_clearly_consensual/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/two-students-hooked-up-it-was-clearly-consensual.1184274 https://theredarchive.com/post/1184274

Comments

[–]M60P 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tankboy28 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]postyogaera 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seicair[S] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]postyogaera 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I understand you might need pseudonyms for the parties involved, but you don't need them for an attorney representing any party, especially when supposedly quoting him/her. You don't need them for investigators for the school, and surely someone on campus went on record.

"James' family found him an attorney, who listened to James story and then told him, "If everything goes south on us, don't kill yourself." The attorney promised to do everything he could to get justice for James."

The source should name the attorney, and most surely shouldn't attempt to quote the attorney based on a conversation he/she had with a client. Unless the reporter was there, and recorded those words, it shouldn't be in quotes.

"On April 11, James' attorney fired off a letter to UC-Davis demanding an immediate end to the investigation. "Even taking everything [Becky] alleges in her account as true, no reasonable person could harbor even a suspicion that my client acted improperly, let alone that he violated any university policy," wrote the attorney. "It is an outrage that the University is subjecting my client to an investigation under these circumstances."

Now quoting the letter, (so the author must possess it) yet still doesn't disclose the attorney name, or state whether they spoke on or off the record. There is no indication that the author attempted to speak on or off the record with the school.

There should be multiple paragraphs of an actual interview with the attorney, as well as legal staff from the school. Without it, the story is some subjective narrative.

It could be some composite story, but is should state that. If it is in fact real, as a single story, it needs a hefty re-write. As is, it reads some like some bad pulp fiction narrative.

[–]dmfreelance 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]postyogaera 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_MORE_PICS 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrway_1000 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link