"The man as he converses is the lover; silent, he is the husband." ~ Honore de Balzac


The "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof.

Over at Minding the Campus, Brooklyn College Professor KC Johnson highlights a shocking c-ville (Charlottesville, Va.) 

interview with Wendy Murphy, discredited media pundit and adjunct professor of law at New England Law.

Johnson takes issue with the interviewer’s dereliction of duty, failing to note Murphy’s history of "repeatedly [making] false statements of fact about the [Duke lacrosse] case … coupled with myriad unsubstantiated claims and bizarre interpretations of law" with respect to the Duke lacrosse scandal in which Duke lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape and later exonerated.
Johnson also highlights this shockingly incorrect statement of law by Murphy, commenting on the April 4, 2011 "Dear Colleague Letter" and the "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof:
[In one case, d]espite finding [an accuser’s testimony] "credible and compelling," a panel ruled in favor of the accused, said Murphy. And that’s a problem.
"The preponderance standard is simple," Murphy said. "When [an accuser’s] accusations are deemed credible, and [a defendant’s] denials are not described with the same glowing terminology, [the accuser] wins."
As Johnson notes, Murphy is essentially arguing that "a failure to convict amounts to an OCR violation." Johnson writes that "[f]or the OCR even to consider [Murphy’s] absurd claim would be highly problematic."

Two further comments on why Murphy’s statement is legal error: First, looking at the context available from the underlying news item, it’s possible that the statements to which Murphy refers are intended to protect the feelings of the accuser while nevertheless stating that she has not sufficiently proved her case.

Such statements are not legally binding, and it is absurd for Murphy to suggest that they are or should be. Further, it would open up a huge liability for universities if Murphy’s reading were to be accepted. College lawyers would forbid administrators even to say "we understand where you’re coming from" for fear that such a statement would bind their decision-making. This would hardly be a positive outcome for accusers. 
Second, Murphy glosses over an important distinction between the credibility of accusations and the preponderance standard itself. The preponderance of the evidence standard recently mandated by the Department of Education for sexual assault proceedings on college campuses is already low—indeed, FIRE believes it is too low. Yet even if an allegation is deemed "credible" enough to proceed to a hearing, it will not inexorably lead to a guilty finding for sexual assault if the total weight of the evidence is nevertheless in favor of the accused. The University of Virginia Sexual Misconduct Policy, for example, requires the hearing panel to convict only when, by a unanimous vote, the panel "concludes that … Sexual Misconduct more likely than not occurred based upon careful review of all information presented." In other words, a guilty finding requires scrutinizing more than just credible allegations from the accuser, but weighing "all information presented." 
Indeed, this is why college disciplinary hearings generally separate investigation and hearings into two discrete phases, sometimes with two separate standards of evidence. For example, the Harassment and Sexual Misconduct Policy at Hamilton College notes that:
In all complaints, each party has the right … to a timely investigation (typically within two weeks) and appropriate resolution of all complaints of harassment and sexual misconduct deemed credible by the Chair and appropriate Senior Staff member and made in good faith to College administrators.
As another example, Georgetown University’s College Sexual Misconduct Policy notes that the accuser and accused both have "[t]he right to investigation and appropriate resolution of all credible complaints of sexual misconduct made in good faith to college administrators."
In both situations, "credibility" is the standard for determining when to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct, not when to find the accused guilty. If there were no difference between investigating and finding guilt, the Georgetown policy, for example, would provide "the right to investigation and conviction for each credible complaint of sexual misconduct." That would be a scary, and probably illegal, policy.
Murphy’s characterization of the preponderance standard would actually take us below the "50.01%" standard of proof and move us firmly into "guilty until proven innocent" territory. This is dangerous, and, thankfully, not what OCR is asking for.
Check out the rest of KC Johnson’s commentary here.

Source: Getting it Wrong on ‘Preponderance’ - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE

Why say NO to attorneys in the Legislature?

Why say NO to attorneys in the Legislature?

Check it out!



"So live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and its purpose in the service of your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide. Always give a word or a sign of salute when meeting or passing a friend, even a stranger, when in a lonely place. Show respect to all people and grovel to none. When you arise in the morning give thanks for the food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason for giving thanks, the fault lies only in yourself. Abuse no one and no thing, for abuse turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision. When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." (Tecumseh).

American Fathers Liberation: ALL Men’s Rights are Human Rights. ’nuff said http://bit.ly/1JgMgEm

Posted by American Fathers Liberation Army on Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.


Abuse Administration for Children and Families Adversarial process Adversarial system Alimony American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy American Bar Association American Civil Liberties Union American Psychiatric Association Asbury Park Bad Judges Bad Lawyers Best interests Bill (law) Blogger (service) Broward County Carver County Chief judge Chief Justice John Marshall Child Child abuse Child and family services Child custody Child development Child protection Child Protective Services Child Support Child Support Agency Children Children's rights Circuit court Civil and political rights Civil Rights Class action Closed-circuit television camera Communications Decency Act Constitutional right Contact (law) Contempt of court Coparenting Court Contact Denial Court Corruption Court order Dads Daughters Declaratory judgment Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Divorce Domestic Disturbance Domestic Violence Due process Elections 2016 Equal opportunity Equal Protection Clause Equal Rights Amendment Equal Shared Parenting Erin Pizzey Event Facebook Facebook Page False accusation False Allegations of DV Falsifiability Family (biology) Family court Family Court Contact Denial Family law Family Law Reform Family therapy Father fatherhood Fathers Fathers 4 Justice Fathers' Rights Fathers' rights movement Fathers4Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Trade Commission Feminism Florida Florida Attorney General Florida Circuit Courts Florida Department of Children and Families Florida Department of Health florida lawyers Florida Senate Foster care Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Fraud Fundamental rights Gender equality Good Family Law Lawyers Good Judge Government And Politics Healthy Children Human rights Human Rights And Civil Liberties Joaquin Sapien Joint Custody Joint custody (United States) Judge Judge Judy Judicial Accountability Judicial misconduct Judicial Reform Judiciary Law Law And Order Lawyer Legal abuse Legal Abuse Trauma Legal Abuse Trauma/Syndrome Legal Proceedings liberty and the pursuit of happiness Life Linda Gottlieb Mark Castillo Marriage Men's rights movement Mental disorder Miami Miami-Dade County Minnesota Mother Murder of Nubia Barahona National Fatherhood Initiative National Organization for Women Natural and legal rights New York City courts Non-Custodial Parent Non-governmental organization Noncustodial parent Pam Bondi Parent Parental Alienation Parental alienation syndrome Parental Rights Parenting Parenting Differences Parenting time Parents' rights movement Phyllis Schlafly Physical Custody Political Issues Posttraumatic stress disorder Pro se legal representation in the United States Pushing for reform in the equality between men's and women's rights Pushing for reform in the equality between men's and women's rights. Race And Ethnicity Restraining order Richard A. Gardner Rick Scott Self Representation Separation Of Powers Shared parenting Single parent Social Affairs Social Issues South Florida State court (United States) Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of the United States The Florida Bar The Huffington Post The Kids Title IV Trial court Troxel v. Granville Turner v. Rogers United States United States Constitution United States Department of Justice Visitation Disputes

Freedom of speech in the United States

Freedom of speech in the United States
Congress shall make no law...

The BEST Parent is BOTH Parents!

Dads Matter - 2016 Family Law Reform

Parent and Child Contact Denial is Child Abuse

Civil Rights in Family Law


American Fathers

The “Best interest of the child” (BIOC) policy or doctrine is clearly unconstitutional.

Contact Denial is Child Abuse

South FL Family Law Reform

Follow Us on Pinterest

Contact Denial = Child Abuse