that would put her in legal trouble with god-knows how many firmsPotentially she could be sued by both the prosecuation and defense.
that would put her in legal trouble with god-knows how many firmsPotentially she could be sued by both the prosecuation and defense.
A duration pending ban so it could be a perm.
This post was made a mere 10 days ago. It was completely reasonable and the person who made it got a duration pending ban, which was ridiculous even without this new development.
Banning people who called her a Russian agent from the get go is one thing, banning people who expressed the mildest forms of doubt is another. The mods crossed a line. They definitely deserve some blame here, and in the absence of apologies, let alone ban reversals or policy changes, that's probably the most accountability that's going to happen here.
This post was made a mere 10 days ago. It was completely reasonable and the person who made it got a duration pending ban, which was ridiculous even without this new development.
Dr. Edmund Chein was an expert medical witness in an automobile accident trial in California state court. He was also involved in a suit with a former business associate concerning the distribution of fees paid by patients. In both lawsuits he provided evidence-in the first instance trial testimony, in the second an interrogatory answer-that was misleading, at the least, concerning his medical credentials. At the instigation of the trial judge in the personal injury trial, he was charged in California state court with four counts of perjury and convicted of three. This habeas case raises various questions concerning the propriety of his conviction, of which we address only one.
This is definitely a disturbing turn of events. I still believe her for now but I am starting to question her character.
If she lied about her qualifications, that's pretty much game over. The verdict will get overturned, unless for some reason her testimony can be shown to have been immaterial (such as, for example, if she only gave testimony relating to a charge that the defendant was not convicted of).Some of the attorneys might push for retrials. Others might push for outright overturning the conviction. It'll likely be a factor of how much the defense attorney can convince a judge that Reade's testimony mattered and how much it mattered.
No, there has been a not so secret rivalry between leftists and people who want Democrats to win even if their preferred candidate isn't the nominee. The vast majority of the people labeled as centrists around here and PoliERA were Warren supportersThis is definitely a disturbing turn of events. I still believe her for now but I am starting to question her character.
I think it wasn't the post itself but the history of trolling/acting in bad faith that finally warranted the ban. There's been this not so secret rivalry between the leftists and centrists on this site. Based on some of the rhetoric in the past, it probably didn't give them the benefit of the doubt in the mods' eyes when they started doubting someone accusing a powerful figure of rape. The same could be said about the DNC conspiracy theories from the leftists.
I believed her, and then the events of last week happened and it moved me to the fence. If all of this isn't some huge misunderstanding, I'll be firmly in the 'I dont believe a word she says' camp. I suddenly dont feel dread anymore over having to vote for Biden.
Thank you for sharing this. I'll try to reply in kind. I do think there's a line; I think that people draw the line differently, and that's where the tension lies. For instance, I'm going to postulate that the line's shifted towards the "Reade has no credibility and her claims are suspect" camp pretty conclusively. For others, that shift occurred with the Vox article, the PBS article, the "tik tok" tweet, or affiliation with The Intercept -- just a host of data points that, when aggregated, do create a line. Somewhere.I don't know where the line is, and even if I did it wouldn't be up to me to enforce it. That said, it would also need to be respected that it's a sensitive issue, and I don't think any of us would or should gripe too much if a victim of sexual assault feels passionately about the subject and wants to tell people they are, in their opinion, trampling on victims or excusing rape/supporting rape culture. I can't see anyone being hurt by that to the degree they would complain about it as opposed to just stepping away and maybe reevaluating or trying to see things from their perspective.
I've been through it, twice. I never took any steps to work through what happened to me because in my case I've been lucky enough to have no lasting trauma, very, very lucky. Most victims don't get that. I don't like what happened to me and try not to think about it, but when I do, of course it hurts. But my hurt is infinitely small compared to most, and to the degree I can understand it it's a deep, pervasive hurt that can manifest strongly especially in discussions like this. Things get heated. They never asked to be assaulted or live in a world that doesn't take them seriously, and sometimes they may be angry or frustrated, and it's understandable.
Kind of rambling a bit but my point is, and this isn't even related to what you said I guess, but for anyone complaining about being called a rape apologist who hasn't been through it, maybe chill and understand what you went through in that moment on an internet forum is such small potatoes compared to where a comment like that likely came from, what precipitated that response.
I do think we can remember this isn't a detective agency, it's just a niche gaming forum, so considering that I don't even know if we are capable of having the kinds of discussions you're talking about without creating an atmosphere hostile to assault survivors. It seems like a big ask for what this forum is. What I mean is, it's a shaky road to go down, and there are examples of where it leads on other forums who would take a less strict approach in the discussions and what they can turn into.Let's be clear here. We should want to support real victims -- which Tara Reade may very well be. If you disallow critical discussion about an accuser (even if tertiary to the accusation at hand) -- then you set up an environment in which real victims aren't properly supported, because you've lessened the standard of believability to such an extent that it cannot weed out the rare false (or misguided/mistaken) allegation.
I dunno, I don't think we have to stay moored to them either necessarily, but it would depend on the rules you're talking about. If we used civility politics as an example, there is one instance where following the rules out of obligation or blind precedent can be harmful. Sometimes commonly understood rules can be a detriment if they are rules for the sake of them or the sake of precedent or to put all sides on a notion of equal footing.I admire the desire to be as supportive as possible to those who have been harmed, but we cannot just throw out all rules of discussion and debate and reason.
If that's the case it's absolutely awful for sure. I think we can all agree on that!We've reached the point here that -- absent some crazy paperwork mixup at Antioch -- she has no credibility remaining. And the real victims there are real abuse survivors -- and those people involved in the 20 cases she may have influenced with her lies.
I believed her, and then the events of last week happened and it moved me to the fence. If all of this isn't some huge misunderstanding, I'll be firmly in the 'I dont believe a word she says' camp. I suddenly dont feel dread anymore over having to vote for Biden.
well, the bigger thing that made her an expert was a lie. She claimed she was a legislative assistant who helped draft the violence against women act. She was a poorly performing staff assistant who frequently lost constituent mail.Personally I think a lack of liberal arts degree in political science in relation to what she was an expert witness on is not enough to throw out the cases, but obviously they'd need to be reviewed if the bachelor's degree. Then you have the mess of law school requiring a bachelor's and her getting in. So that's confusing.
Again I'd like to return to the 20 cases of perjury which are important all on their own.
I believed her, and then the events of last week happened and it moved me to the fence. If all of this isn't some huge misunderstanding, I'll be firmly in the 'I dont believe a word she says' camp. I suddenly dont feel dread anymore over having to vote for Biden.
If all 20 cases are thrown out, Jesus, that's a lot of damage done. I'm assuming there will be retrials and the cases won't be dismissed outright, right?
I can't agree. The mods were going overboard and continued to do so well after people found definite issues with the story.
This post was made a mere 10 days ago. It was completely reasonable and the person who made it got a duration pending ban, which was ridiculous even without this new development.
Banning people who called her a Russian agent from the get go is one thing, banning people who expressed the mildest forms of doubt is another. The mods crossed a line. They definitely deserve some blame here, and in the absence of apologies, let alone ban reversals or policy changes, that's probably the most accountability that's going to happen here.
Yeah, for some reason my brain is finding it hard to believe something this unbelievable actually happened. But you're right, her university calling bullshit on this pretty much is the final nail in her coffin.It's not a misunderstanding. The university doubled down on their claim she never graduated, and Reade showed the NYT a clearly BS transcript that doesn't proved she graduated. Oh and she claims she has a "secret" degree (which the university denies).
That post is not reasonable. What the fuck? I do not understand why anyone would think that post is appropriate to the story and details that the other poster just shared. Like what on earth are you talking about?
The thread is called "we need to be better allies to sexual assault victims era" and that bullshit was the only thing that poster could come up with in response to that entire story.
This is why to an extent all the bitching about moderation here never draws any mind from me. There is no such fucking thing as perfect moderation but some of the shit people quote as bad moderation is the most tone deaf bullshit. Who the fuck says what that post says in response to a sexual assault survivor? You seriously arguing this in good faith?
The PBS story that shined a light on some of her other lies/misrepresentations.
PBS article where other coworkers said "Biden had an official policy prohibiting senate staff from attending fundraisers. Biden had a policy of only men serving him drinks. The area where the assault occurs is super public." Then, there's this article which shows she doesn't have problem with lying under oath by over-embellishing or outright fabricating.
I think they are referring to the articles about past Biden employees and also the reports of people who were landlords and friends to Tara in the past. The latter painted a bad picture of her, while the former raised some questions about her credibility when some details didn't match up. Especially regarding her firing.
I'm not a lawyer -- and I'm still reading the article -- but this case from 2004 in California seems on-point:
CHEIN v. SHUMSKY LA (2004) | FindLaw
Case opinion for US 9th Circuit CHEIN v. SHUMSKY LA. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.caselaw.findlaw.com
What does it take to convict an expert witness of perjury? Well, according to the Ninth Circuit (over dissents from O'Scannlain and four others), ruling last week, it's not enough to catch the expert passing himself off in testimony as a specialist in orthopedic surgery when his actual residency was in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Very curiously, the Ninth Circuit judges decided that the misrepresentation was not material to the jury's reception of Dr. Edmund Y. Chien's testimony -- even though he was testifying on a plaintiff's future need for orthopedic surgery -- and thus, on a habeas corpus petition, overturned his California state court perjury conviction. The case is Chein v. Shumsky, No. 01-56320, D.C. No. CV-99-05296-ABC, (Jun. 25 (PDF)); via Peter Nordberg, who comments.
The slip was not exactly an isolated one. To quote the majority opinion in the case, Chien on more than one occasion described his educational background as "'American University School of Medicine, Florida, 1979-1980,' when he in fact was enrolled in the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine, which is located in the West Indies but has an office in Florida." (Chien, it should be noted, was not charged with making this particular misrepresentation in the course of rendering expert testimony, though he did make it in an interrogatory in an unrelated legal case.)
What gets me is that even her own transcripts that she provided to the NYT show she didn't complete her degree.
Simply astonishing.
BingoHow often does this happen vs how often is the claim actually just straight forward?
I feel like people are trying to use this to dunk on moderation and it's dishonest. The vast majority of times we have cases involving these types of allegations or sensitive topics the shit is actually what it appears to be. We just remember the ones that aren't because they stand out for that exact reason.
You'd imagine colleges and the fucking justice system woild veto people properly ibstead of just giving away positions like that...
What a mess...
For one, to clear this whole situation up with some hard evidence one way or another. If Reade has a transcript here has to be a record of her attending which would prove if she graduated or not. Otherwise how the hell did she get into law school?
I think Seattle University needs to be contacted to find out what evidence was provided of her undergrad degree.It should be noted Tara Reade worked in administration briefly for Antioch giving her the opportunity to fabricate paperwork with official letterheads.
The issue was we said "hey let's wait and vet before we burn the witch" and we were met with bad faith and dishonesty.How often does this happen vs how often is the claim actually just straight forward?
I feel like people are trying to use this to dunk on moderation and it's dishonest. The vast majority of times we have cases involving these types of allegations or sensitive topics the shit is actually what it appears to be. We just remember the ones that aren't because they stand out for that exact reason.
Here's an article written about the case that is more understandable: http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000240.php
And a follow-up: http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000252.php
As a layman, my reading is that Chien had his perjury convictions reversed based on hair-splitting -- his statements about his education were not as 100% false as in this case -- he misstated his university and whether he had a medical specialty vs an area he studied in.
That's not the same as claiming a degree you just don't have... but those 'misstatements' were enough to piss of the trial judge and the State of California, so I can only imagine the kerflufle this sort of thing would cause.
It should be noted Tara Reade worked in administration briefly for Antioch giving her the opportunity to fabricate paperwork with official letterheads.
I think Seattle University needs to be contacted to find out what evidence was provided of her undergrad degree.
ERA is the only site I've ever been on where people constantly shame moderators into banning people.The stringent moderation is indicative of the hostile environment of this site. If the mod team didn't clamp down on rationally skeptical posts in the past weeks, they get blasted for "siding with rape apologists" and creating an "unsafe environment for survivors."
They typically do. We don't accept any transcript unless it comes directly from the school. We also can access the Nationa Student Clearinghouse to verify any school a student attended but didn't report on their application.You'd imagine colleges and the fucking justice system woild veto people properly ibstead of just giving away positions like that...
What a mess...
Again, ganging up on the moderation team that tries their best to facilitate the needs/desires of the Era climate of any given instance is the wrong take-away.
Stop blaming moderation. The stringent moderation is indicative of the hostile environment of this site. If the mod team didn't clamp down on rationally skeptical posts in the past weeks, they get blasted for "siding with rape apologists" and creating an "unsafe environment for survivors." There was literally no course of action, where they win, with how ridiculously fractured Era is over these cases. Just take a second to think before unironically jumping into another premature blame game.
This site's discourse around allegations needs to change on a fundamental level, if we want to make Era a better place for all participants. I feel like pointing fingers at the moderation team is by far the worst course of action.