What they are doing isn't illegal, so the state isn't interested. I doubt RAINN would be either.
Woody Allen married his adopted step-daughter.
What they are doing isn't illegal, so the state isn't interested. I doubt RAINN would be either.
The only connection he have with the woman was being in a long term relationship with her adopted mother.
Not a damn thing for the state to hang an incest charge on in that case.
With the girl, Woody was the defacto father-figure. Everybody except for the apologists knows this, Billyboy. Your excuses are just excuses.
You mean that he played it like a champion? Waited for his moment to pounce?
According to Dylan, “There’s a lot I don’t remember, but what happened in the attic I remember. I remember what I was wearing and what I wasn’t wearing.” She tells Orth, “The things making me uncomfortable were making me think I was a bad kid, because I didn’t want to do what my elder told me to do.” The attic, she says, pushed her over the edge. “I was cracking. I had to say something. I was seven. I was doing it because I was scared. I wanted it to stop.” For all she knew, she tells Orth, “this was how fathers treated their daughters. This was normal interaction, and I was not normal for feeling uncomfortable about it.” Woody Allen’s lawyer Elkan Abramowitz says that Allen still denies the allegations of sexual abuse.
Dylan tells Orth that Allen contacted her twice by mail. The second time, during her senior year of college, a large stuffed manila envelope arrived at the school, filled with pictures of Allen with Dylan. “I should have recognized the handwriting—I didn’t. It had a fake return name: Lehman.” According to her, the accompanying letter read, “I thought you’d want some pictures of us, and I want you to know that I still think of you as my daughter, and my daughters think of you as their sister. Soon-Yi misses you.” It was signed “Your father.” Dylan wonders to Orth, “How do your daughters think of me as their sister? How does that work?” When asked about the letters, Sheila Riesel, another of Allen’s attorneys, called it a “private matter,” adding, “This is a man who loves all of his children and should be respected for that.”
Farrow’s second husband, André Previn, tells Orth of his adopted daughter Soon-Yi, who is now married to Allen, “She does not exist.”
Farrow’s son Fletcher Previn, who built his first computer at the age of 13, tells Orth that he has Photoshopped Allen out of every single family photo and edited him out of family videos so that none of them would ever have to see him again. “We can look at them and be reminded of the good and not be reminded of the bad,” Fletcher tells Orth. Of the family’s reaction to the crisis with Soon-Yi, Fletcher says, “To my siblings and me, you thought of [Allen] as another dad. It can disrupt your foundation in the world. It resets the parameters of what is possible.” He also discusses the impact Allen’s actions had on the family, telling Orth, “There were casualties, who were totally derailed. It had a different impact on everyone, but everyone had a reaction.” Fletcher singles out Lark, who died at 35. “I really do think he’s got some blood on his hands,” he says of Allen.
Orth details the complex, intense, and ugly legal battle that followed, with the court proceedings and hearings dragging on for more than four years. Although Allen spent millions of dollars on legal fees, he lost two custody trials and two appeals. He also hired private investigators. Speaking anonymously, a top Connecticut State Police investigator on the sexual-abuse case says, “They were trying to dig up dirt on the troopers—whether they were having affairs, what they were doing.” The file for Dylan’s case in New York City’s Child Welfare Administration is nowhere to be found, someone close to the matter tells Orth, although it would ordinarily have been marked “indicated” to signify that it merited further attention—a potential red flag in allowing someone to adopt children.
and she wasn't the only adopted child of Farrow's that he had molested.
Consider the supposed campus epidemic of rape, a.k.a. “sexual assault.” Herewith, a Philadelphia magazine report about Swarthmore College, where in 2013 a student “was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months”:
“They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”
Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped. Now the Obama administration is riding to the rescue of “sexual assault” victims. It vows to excavate equities from the ambiguities of the hookup culture, this cocktail of hormones, alcohol and the faux sophistication of today’s prolonged adolescence of especially privileged young adults.
The administration’s crucial and contradictory statistics are validated the usual way, by official repetition; Joe Biden has been heard from. The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute notes, for example, that in the four years 2009 to 2012 there were 98 reported sexual assaults at Ohio State. That would be 12 percent of 817 total out of a female student population of approximately 28,000, for a sexual assault rate of approximately 2.9 percent — too high but nowhere near 20 percent.
Education Department lawyers disregard pesky arithmetic and elementary due process. Threatening to withdraw federal funding, the department mandates adoption of a minimal “preponderance of the evidence” standard when adjudicating sexual assault charges between males and the female “survivors” — note the language of prejudgment. Combine this with capacious definitions of sexual assault that can include not only forcible sexual penetration but also nonconsensual touching. Then add the doctrine that the consent of a female who has been drinking might not protect a male from being found guilty of rape. Then comes costly litigation against institutions that have denied due process to males they accuse of what society considers serious felonies.
.
.
.
It is salutary that academia, with its adversarial stance toward limited government and cultural common sense, is making itself ludicrous. Academia is learning that its attempts to create victim-free campuses — by making everyone hypersensitive, even delusional, about victimizations — brings increasing supervision by the regulatory state that progressivism celebrates.
What government is inflicting on colleges and universities, and what they are inflicting on themselves, diminishes their autonomy, resources, prestige and comity. Which serves them right. They have asked for this by asking for progressivism.
Duke is one of a few schools with a tough new policy: If a student is found culpable for sexual misconduct, expulsion is the presumptive punishment. Most schools haven’t gone that far. .
.
.
.
The standard of proof at Stanford for a finding of liability is preponderance of the evidence; in other words, the reviewers must find only that it’s more likely than not that the sexual assault or harassment occurred. Preponderance of the evidence is a common standard for civil liability, used for civil protection orders in domestic violence cases, for example. And it’s what the Department of Education decided Title IX requires, in a 2011 letter to universities that stressed their responsibilities to protect students from sexual assault and harassment
Duke is one of a few schools with a tough new policy: If a student is found culpable for sexual misconduct, expulsion is the presumptive punishment. Most schools haven’t gone that far. .
A California state senator who sees campus rapes as quite a problem said that students should have to give formal go-aheads — via verbal or written consents — to their kissing partners to move on to the next sexual level.
Sen. Kevin de Leon’s SB 967 would mandate that college kids get “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity,” either by voice or by written document, Breitbart reported.
He said his bill will go far toward addressing the sexual assault issues that have come to light at schools around the nation in recent weeks.
“Obviously, there is a problem,” Mr. de Leon said, L.A. Weekly reported. “SB 967 will change the equation so the system is not stacked against survivors by establishing an affirmative consent policy to make it clear that only ‘yes’ means ‘yes.’ “
The text of the bill states that “consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”
Not all are hailing the bill, instead characterizing it as a legal quagmire.
“Since most people have engaged in sex without verbal consent, supporters of the bill are effectively redefining most people and most happily-married couples, as rapists,” said attorney Hans Bader, in an article for LegalInsurrection.com. “Requiring people to have verbal discussions before sex [also] violates their privacy rights.”
Under Mr. de Leon’s proposed law, colleges all across the state would have to put in writing a formal policy “concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking,” Breitbart reported. Schools that failed to comply would lose out on state money for student financial aid awards.
The bill’s already moved through the Senate — with a 27-9 vote — on to the Assembly side.
by TaboolaSponsored ContentFrom the Web
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code, relating to student safety.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 967, as amended, De León. Student safety: sexual assault.
Existing law requires the governing boards of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions to adopt and implement written procedures or protocols to ensure that students, faculty, and staff who are victims of sexual assault on the grounds or facilities of their institutions receive treatment and information, including a description of on-campus and off-campus resources.
This bill would require the governing boards of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions that institutions, in order to receive public state funds for student financial assistance assistance, to adopt policies concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. The bill would require these governing boards to adopt certain sexual assault policies and protocols, as specified, and would require the governing boards, to the extent feasible, to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements or less formal collaborative partnerships with on-campus and community-based organizations to refer victims students for assistance or make services available to victims. students. The bill would also require the governing boards to implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. By requiring community college districts to adopt or modify certain policies and protocols, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 67386 is added to the Education Code, to read:
67386. (a) The In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions that receive public funds for student financial assistance shall adopt a policy concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that includes all of the following:
(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. “Affirmative consent” is a freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in particular sexual activity or behavior, expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions. an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity. Consent is informed, freely given, and voluntary. It is the responsibility of the person who wants to engage in initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. For that reason, relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of a past sexual relationship, shall not provide the basis for an assumption of consent. Consent must be present ongoing throughout a sexual activity, and at any time, a participant can communicate that he or she no longer consents to continuing the sexual activity. If there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved. encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
(2)A provision specifying that a claim by the accused that he or she believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity shall not be considered
(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
(A) The accused’s belief in consent arose from the self-induced intoxication or recklessness of the accused.
(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.
(3) A preponderance of the evidence standard in the determination of disciplinary action.
(4) In A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, an individual under any of the following conditions is unable to consent to the sexual activity: it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) Asleep The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) Incapacitated The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication. medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual situation.
(C) Unable The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.
(b) The In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions that receive public funds for student financial assistance shall adopt detailed and victim-centered sexual assault policies and protocols that comport with best practices and current professional standards. At a minimum, the policies and protocols shall cover all of the following:
(1) A policy statement on how the institution will protect the confidentiality of individuals involved in the incident.
(2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of sexual assault, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses.
(3) Response to stranger and nonstranger sexual assault.
(4) The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup victim interview.
(5) Contacting and interviewing the accused.
(6) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate.
(7) Participation of victim advocates.
(8) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident. incident, and providing amnesty from disciplinary action if the victim violated the school’s policy when the sexual assault occurred.
(9) The role of the institutional staff supervision.
(10) A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.
(10)
(11) Procedures for anonymous reporting of sexual assault.
(c) To the extent feasible, In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions that receive public funds for student financial assistance shall shall, to the extent feasible, enter into memoranda of understanding, agreements, or less formal collaborative partnerships with existing on-campus and community-based organizations, including rape crisis centers, to refer victims students for assistance or make services available to victims, students, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, student advocacy, and legal assistance.
(d) The In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions that receive public funds for student financial assistance, shall implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. A comprehensive prevention program shall include a range of prevention strategies, including, but not limited to, women’s empowerment programming, awareness raising campaigns, primary prevention, bystander intervention, and risk reduction. Outreach programs shall be provided to make students aware of the institution’s policy on campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. At a minimum, an outreach program shall include a process for contacting and informing the student body, campus organizations, athletic programs, and student groups about the institution’s overall sexual assault policy, the practical implications of an affirmative consent standard, and the rights and responsibilities of students under the policy. Outreach programming shall be included as part of new student orientation.
SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
http://collegeinsurrection.com/2014/06/judge-sides-with-duke-student-accused-of-rape-blocks-expulsion/
Judge Blocks Expulsion of Duke Student Accused of Sexual Misconduct
A North Carolina judge has stopped Duke University from expelling a male student who was accused of rape by a female freshman.
Duke, which came under fire in 2006 for its handling of rape accusations against lacrosse players who were later exonerated, has found itself back on the defensive, as it battles a claim by a student that it expelled him without a proper investigation and due process. State prosecutors in the earlier case dropped all charges against the players, declaring them innocent victims of a district attorney’s rush to judgment.
The unusual case comes as colleges around the nation face growing pressure to go after sexual-assault crimes on campus. Dozens of schools have come under investigation by the Obama administration for their perceived inadequate handling of sexual violence or harassment complaints.
The Duke case also comes amid criticism by some student civil liberty advocates who say campus systems for adjudicating complaints lack safeguards for protecting the rights of the accused.
Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III on Thursday rejected Duke’s effort to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the accused student, Lewis McLeod, a senior who accuses the university of violating his contractual rights. The ruling blocks Duke from expelling him at least for now.
“The plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits as to his contentions that the defendant has breached, violated, or otherwise deprived the plaintiff of material rights related to the misconduct allegations against him and the resulting disciplinary process addressing such allegations,” the judge wrote.
0
Oh well, the feminists will come up with some way to get men the beating that we deserve, they always do.
Quote:Oh well, the feminists will come up with some way to get men the beating that we deserve, they always do.
It amazing first by using crazy and I mean crazy definitions of what a sexual assault happen to be they created a "crisis" of twenty percents of all female college students being victims of sexual assaults, then when the law does not match how they had defined sexual assaults they created their own "legal" system so while they can not place these evil males into prisons they can at least kicked them out of college.
Now the Federal government and the state of California is mandating kangaroo courts to deal with the "crime" of having sex without written or at least verbal permission for every stage of the act.
I am 66 years old and it would seems by that standard I am one of the worst serial rapists that ever live as off hand I can not remember ever asking or getting even verbal permission less alone written permission for every sex act with a partner.
What a surprise, how about the ones on life support or in a coma. I'm sure on some level they must cherish the experience, even though they will never know it happened
