TxRainMkr said:

---

Lawyers love to sue entities who always settle.

---

Few cases ever wind up in court - settling without the terms tell us next to nothing

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

The suits were not over whether or not they were sexually assaulted, it was over whether or not Baylor complied with Title IX once the assault was reported. Given that that was the case, which it was, it was not possible to add the alleged rapist as a defendant, and, in addition, the allied rapist could not be designated as a third party defendant because the alleged rapist had no obligations under Title IX in regard to handling an alleged assault complaint.

---

I appreciate the effort. However a defense to failing to comply with Title IX would be that no sex occurred or it was consensual.

There can be no damage if there was no underlying tort.

Also, as a Plaintiff you can bring several causes of action in one lawsuit.

Again, good effort.

NoBSU said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

Do you know for a fact that any of the accused are not missing? We probably don't address a problem in the same manner.

---

I like the way you think.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

The suits were not over whether or not they were sexually assaulted, it was over whether or not Baylor complied with Title IX once the assault was reported. Given that that was the case, which it was, it was not possible to add the alleged rapist as a defendant, and, in addition, the allied rapist could not be designated as a third party defendant because the alleged rapist had no obligations under Title IX in regard to handling an alleged assault complaint.

---

You have to admit that it is odd that none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit.

Plus you should also acknowledge that an aggravated assault or homicide from a father would add a cherry to the top of this for the media. Maybe we could get Nancy Grace to do a book signing at Magnolia.

---

"...none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit."

Could more clarity be provided on what is meant in the above statement?

Well, if someone who has been sexually assaulted does not want to be identified, they would not want any of their family members to commit violence against the alleged rapist as that would ultimately lead to them being identified by proxy. That's why the occasional poster throwing out rhetorical questions in regard to why fathers don't commit violence don't really make sense.

---

If you filed a lawsuit, Dad probably knows.

I do have to wonder what kind of parents would not report their own daughter's rape to either the police or at the very least the judicial affairs office. Jim Barnes begged them to go to someone and they refused. What kind of parents are these to stand on such inaction? It's all our duty to protect society from these monsters.

To answer a former question, no, I do not have children, but was I to be a parent of an assaulted child I would do everything in my power to put those rapists behind bars.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

The suits were not over whether or not they were sexually assaulted, it was over whether or not Baylor complied with Title IX once the assault was reported. Given that that was the case, which it was, it was not possible to add the alleged rapist as a defendant, and, in addition, the allied rapist could not be designated as a third party defendant because the alleged rapist had no obligations under Title IX in regard to handling an alleged assault complaint.

---

You have to admit that it is odd that none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit.

Plus you should also acknowledge that an aggravated assault or homicide from a father would add a cherry to the top of this for the media. Maybe we could get Nancy Grace to do a book signing at Magnolia.

---

"...none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit."

Could more clarity be provided on what is meant in the above statement?

Well, if someone who has been sexually assaulted does not want to be identified, they would not want any of their family members to commit violence against the alleged rapist as that would ultimately lead to them being identified by proxy. That's why the occasional poster throwing out rhetorical questions in regard to why fathers don't commit violence don't really make sense.

---

If you filed a lawsuit, Dad probably knows.

---

It's unclear what this has to do with the quoted post, as the quoted post does not indicate or imply that anyone didn't know anything.

gobbeldygook said:

---

I do have to wonder what kind of parents would not report their own daughter's rape to either the police or at the very least the judicial affairs office. Jim Barnes begged them to go to someone and they refused. What kind of parents are these to stand on such inaction? It's all our duty to protect society from these monsters.

To answer a former question, no, I do not have children, but was I to be a parent of an assaulted child I would do everything in my power to put those rapists behind bars.

---

She claimed that never happened - very different than Barnes account. No way to know which is correct.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

The suits were not over whether or not they were sexually assaulted, it was over whether or not Baylor complied with Title IX once the assault was reported. Given that that was the case, which it was, it was not possible to add the alleged rapist as a defendant, and, in addition, the allied rapist could not be designated as a third party defendant because the alleged rapist had no obligations under Title IX in regard to handling an alleged assault complaint.

---

I appreciate the effort. However a defense to failing to comply with Title IX would be that no sex occurred or it was consensual.

There can be no damage if there was no underlying tort.

Also, as a Plaintiff you can bring several causes of action in one lawsuit.

Again, good effort.

---

It's unclear what the the intent of this post was, as it does not dispute anything in the quoted post (i.e. the suits were over compliance, the alleged rapist could not be added as a defendant, and the alleged rapist could not be added as a third party defendant*), and, more importantly, Baylor has obligations once an alleged sexual assault has been reported that it cannot defend against by claiming that there was no actual sexual assault.

*Since everyone wants to pretend they are attorneys in regard to Baylor's legal issues, some background is needed so that they can have a little more information to base their interesting, but generally erroneous, claims off of.

The defendants in the 10 plaintiff case have two primary claims under Title IX:
1. The first claim was that Baylor was deliberately indifferent to their reports of sexual assault, which caused them further assault or harassment or creating a hostile educational environment. Baylor provided the three defenses below but none were effective:
(a) Baylor argued that the plaintiffs failed to allege that an appropriate person obtained actual knowledge of the sexual assault.
(b) Baylor argued that allegations of non-compliance with regulatory and administrative guidance from the Department of Education was insufficient to establish indifference (more on this in 2(d) below).
(c) Baylor argued that the plaintiffs have not stated plausible allegations that they ere subjected to further harassment after their reporting.

2. The second claim was that there was a "heightened risk" theory of sexual assault on campus that was caused by an official policy or custom of Baylor. This official policy or custom leading to a heightened risk argument is being supported by:
(a) Baylor misinforming the alleged victims of their rights under Title IX,
(b) Baylor failing to investigate reported alleged sexual assaults,
(c) Baylor discouraging those who reported alleged sexual assaults from reporting or naming the alleged perpetrators and
(d) Baylor reporting to the Department of Education that it had 0 assaults on campus during the time that alleged victims were allegedly sexually assaulted.

TxRainMkr said:

---

Lawyers love to sue entities who always settle.

---

The waco based plaintiffs attorney in this case is a sick and demented blood thirsty money grubber. He isn't defending - he's trying to exact a ransom. What a shame.

Brian Ethridge said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

The suits were not over whether or not they were sexually assaulted, it was over whether or not Baylor complied with Title IX once the assault was reported. Given that that was the case, which it was, it was not possible to add the alleged rapist as a defendant, and, in addition, the allied rapist could not be designated as a third party defendant because the alleged rapist had no obligations under Title IX in regard to handling an alleged assault complaint.

---

You have to admit that it is odd that none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit.

Plus you should also acknowledge that an aggravated assault or homicide from a father would add a cherry to the top of this for the media. Maybe we could get Nancy Grace to do a book signing at Magnolia.

---

"...none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit."

Could more clarity be provided on what is meant in the above statement?

Well, if someone who has been sexually assaulted does not want to be identified, they would not want any of their family members to commit violence against the alleged rapist as that would ultimately lead to them being identified by proxy. That's why the occasional poster throwing out rhetorical questions in regard to why fathers don't commit violence don't really make sense.

---

If you filed a lawsuit, Dad probably knows.

---

Would Clery, HIIPA, etc... block Dad from knowing?

---

KU claimed that with the female basketball player that was assaulted by a male basketball player then another male basketball player damaged her car. That may not be exact but it is close enough for this point. The ladies coach cut her PT. She claimed retaliation. Her dad tried to inquire about the situation and they would not discuss it with him. Clery is just a report to whoever compiles those stats for the school. Maybe medical privacy.

Reporter said:

---

TxRainMkr said:

---

Lawyers love to sue entities who always settle.

---

The waco based plaintiffs attorney in this case is a sick and demented blood thirsty money grubber. He isn't defending - he's trying to exact a ransom. What a shame.

---

As compared to being a sick, demented, blood-thirsty, other-peoples' money-waster (aka Baylor FOB Regent).

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

The suits were not over whether or not they were sexually assaulted, it was over whether or not Baylor complied with Title IX once the assault was reported. Given that that was the case, which it was, it was not possible to add the alleged rapist as a defendant, and, in addition, the allied rapist could not be designated as a third party defendant because the alleged rapist had no obligations under Title IX in regard to handling an alleged assault complaint.

---

I appreciate the effort. However a defense to failing to comply with Title IX would be that no sex occurred or it was consensual.

There can be no damage if there was no underlying tort.

Also, as a Plaintiff you can bring several causes of action in one lawsuit.

Again, good effort.

---

It's unclear what the the intent of this post was, as it does not dispute anything in the quoted post (i.e. the suits were over compliance, the alleged rapist could not be added as a defendant, and the alleged rapist could not be added as a third party defendant*), and, more importantly, Baylor has obligations once an alleged sexual assault has been reported that it cannot defend against by claiming that there was no actual sexual assault.

*Since everyone wants to pretend they are attorneys in regard to Baylor's legal issues, some background is needed so that they can have a little more information to base their interesting, but generally erroneous, claims off of.

The defendants in the 10 plaintiff case have two primary claims under Title IX:
1. The first claim was that Baylor was deliberately indifferent to their reports of sexual assault, which caused them further assault or harassment or creating a hostile educational environment. Baylor provided the three defenses below but none were effective:
(a) Baylor argued that the plaintiffs failed to allege that an appropriate person obtained actual knowledge of the sexual assault.
(b) Baylor argued that allegations of non-compliance with regulatory and administrative guidance from the Department of Education was insufficient to establish indifference (more on this in 2(d) below).
(c) Baylor argued that the plaintiffs have not stated plausible allegations that they ere subjected to further harassment after their reporting.

2. The second claim was that there was a "heightened risk" theory of sexual assault on campus that was caused by an official policy or custom of Baylor. This official policy or custom leading to a heightened risk argument is being supported by:
(a) Baylor misinforming the alleged victims of their rights under Title IX,
(b) Baylor failing to investigate reported alleged sexual assaults,
(c) Baylor discouraging those who reported alleged sexual assaults from reporting or naming the alleged perpetrators and
(d) Baylor reporting to the Department of Education that it had 0 assaults on campus during the time that alleged victims were allegedly sexually assaulted.

---

The intent was to mock you. I appreachiate the effort to play internet attorney. You do a great job.

However, you have yet to actually address the issue which leads me to believe you do not think I am an attorney. Keep talking around the edges but the underlying issue remains . . . A complete and total defense is that the sex never happened.

Do you not find it odd counselor that neither Baylor or a Plaintiff named a student as a party?

Brian Ethridge said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

The suits were not over whether or not they were sexually assaulted, it was over whether or not Baylor complied with Title IX once the assault was reported. Given that that was the case, which it was, it was not possible to add the alleged rapist as a defendant, and, in addition, the allied rapist could not be designated as a third party defendant because the alleged rapist had no obligations under Title IX in regard to handling an alleged assault complaint.

---

You have to admit that it is odd that none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit.

Plus you should also acknowledge that an aggravated assault or homicide from a father would add a cherry to the top of this for the media. Maybe we could get Nancy Grace to do a book signing at Magnolia.

---

"...none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit."

Could more clarity be provided on what is meant in the above statement?

Well, if someone who has been sexually assaulted does not want to be identified, they would not want any of their family members to commit violence against the alleged rapist as that would ultimately lead to them being identified by proxy. That's why the occasional poster throwing out rhetorical questions in regard to why fathers don't commit violence don't really make sense.

---

If you filed a lawsuit, Dad probably knows.

---

Would Clery, HIIPA, etc... block Dad from knowing?

---

No. Texas courts are open to the public.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

The suits were not over whether or not they were sexually assaulted, it was over whether or not Baylor complied with Title IX once the assault was reported. Given that that was the case, which it was, it was not possible to add the alleged rapist as a defendant, and, in addition, the allied rapist could not be designated as a third party defendant because the alleged rapist had no obligations under Title IX in regard to handling an alleged assault complaint.

---

You have to admit that it is odd that none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit.

Plus you should also acknowledge that an aggravated assault or homicide from a father would add a cherry to the top of this for the media. Maybe we could get Nancy Grace to do a book signing at Magnolia.

---

"...none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit."

Could more clarity be provided on what is meant in the above statement?

Well, if someone who has been sexually assaulted does not want to be identified, they would not want any of their family members to commit violence against the alleged rapist as that would ultimately lead to them being identified by proxy. That's why the occasional poster throwing out rhetorical questions in regard to why fathers don't commit violence don't really make sense.

---

If you filed a lawsuit, Dad probably knows.

---

It's unclear what this has to do with the quoted post, as the quoted post does not indicate or imply that anyone didn't know anything.

---

Not sure how you can write this. Your point was that a scared female would not want to tell her father for any number of reasons. Yet this same scared woman files a lawsuit. By filing a lawsuit, everyone knows that the plaintiff is claiming she was sexually assaulted, including her family.

How many of you have daughters who get ripped at the bar until 2 am, go home with a guy and sit on his bed at 3 am, and then she is shocked when she wakes up and sobers up the next morning to find that she had sex, and can become a millionaire?

GrowlTowel said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

The suits were not over whether or not they were sexually assaulted, it was over whether or not Baylor complied with Title IX once the assault was reported. Given that that was the case, which it was, it was not possible to add the alleged rapist as a defendant, and, in addition, the allied rapist could not be designated as a third party defendant because the alleged rapist had no obligations under Title IX in regard to handling an alleged assault complaint.

---

You have to admit that it is odd that none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit.

Plus you should also acknowledge that an aggravated assault or homicide from a father would add a cherry to the top of this for the media. Maybe we could get Nancy Grace to do a book signing at Magnolia.

---

"...none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit."

Could more clarity be provided on what is meant in the above statement?

Well, if someone who has been sexually assaulted does not want to be identified, they would not want any of their family members to commit violence against the alleged rapist as that would ultimately lead to them being identified by proxy. That's why the occasional poster throwing out rhetorical questions in regard to why fathers don't commit violence don't really make sense.

---

If you filed a lawsuit, Dad probably knows.

---

It's unclear what this has to do with the quoted post, as the quoted post does not indicate or imply that anyone didn't know anything.

---

Not sure how you can write this. Your point was that a scared female would not want to tell her father for any number of reasons. Yet this same scared woman files a lawsuit. By filing a lawsuit, everyone knows that the plaintiff is claiming she was sexually assaulted, including her family.

---

Did you read the quoted post? Here is the relevant section reprinted:

"Well, if someone who has been sexually assaulted does not want to be identified, they would not want any of their family members to commit violence against the alleged rapist as that would ultimately lead to them being identified by proxy. That's why the occasional poster throwing out rhetorical questions in regard to why fathers don't commit violence don't really make sense."

The above says literally nothing about an alleged victim -telling- their father anything, and that fact may be causing some confusion for some posters since they apparently are reading that concept into the post. The fact that that confusion exists is particularly odd since the literal language of the quote implies that the family members would be aware of who the alleged rapist is, as, otherwise, they would not be able to commit violence against them because they would not know who they were.

Baylor has some obligations under Title IX and it cannot defend against claims that it did not meet those obligations by claiming that the alleged intercourse between the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator was consensual and any attorney can easily determine that that is the case, so anyone stating otherwise is not familiar with Title IX law.

The obvious example here is actually investigating a claim of alleged sexual assault.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

The suits were not over whether or not they were sexually assaulted, it was over whether or not Baylor complied with Title IX once the assault was reported. Given that that was the case, which it was, it was not possible to add the alleged rapist as a defendant, and, in addition, the allied rapist could not be designated as a third party defendant because the alleged rapist had no obligations under Title IX in regard to handling an alleged assault complaint.

---

I appreciate the effort. However a defense to failing to comply with Title IX would be that no sex occurred or it was consensual.

There can be no damage if there was no underlying tort.

Also, as a Plaintiff you can bring several causes of action in one lawsuit.

Again, good effort.

---

It's unclear what the the intent of this post was, as it does not dispute anything in the quoted post (i.e. the suits were over compliance, the alleged rapist could not be added as a defendant, and the alleged rapist could not be added as a third party defendant*), and, more importantly, Baylor has obligations once an alleged sexual assault has been reported that it cannot defend against by claiming that there was no actual sexual assault.

*Since everyone wants to pretend they are attorneys in regard to Baylor's legal issues, some background is needed so that they can have a little more information to base their interesting, but generally erroneous, claims off of.

The defendants in the 10 plaintiff case have two primary claims under Title IX:
1. The first claim was that Baylor was deliberately indifferent to their reports of sexual assault, which caused them further assault or harassment or creating a hostile educational environment. Baylor provided the three defenses below but none were effective:
(a) Baylor argued that the plaintiffs failed to allege that an appropriate person obtained actual knowledge of the sexual assault.
(b) Baylor argued that allegations of non-compliance with regulatory and administrative guidance from the Department of Education was insufficient to establish indifference (more on this in 2(d) below).
(c) Baylor argued that the plaintiffs have not stated plausible allegations that they ere subjected to further harassment after their reporting.

2. The second claim was that there was a "heightened risk" theory of sexual assault on campus that was caused by an official policy or custom of Baylor. This official policy or custom leading to a heightened risk argument is being supported by:
(a) Baylor misinforming the alleged victims of their rights under Title IX,
(b) Baylor failing to investigate reported alleged sexual assaults,
(c) Baylor discouraging those who reported alleged sexual assaults from reporting or naming the alleged perpetrators and
(d) Baylor reporting to the Department of Education that it had 0 assaults on campus during the time that alleged victims were allegedly sexually assaulted.

---

The intent was to mock you. I appreachiate the effort to play internet attorney. You do a great job.

However, you have yet to actually address the issue which leads me to believe you do not think I am an attorney. Keep talking around the edges but the underlying issue remains . . . A complete and total defense is that the sex never happened.

Do you not find it odd counselor that neither Baylor or a Plaintiff named a student as a party?

---

GT - The sex was consensual may be a defense if the charge is rape. Baylor is defending Title IX claim not rape.

I should be able to stop there. But your last statement in your post says no.

If she wanted to sue her accused rapist, then it would not be for a Title IX violation. She can't attach him to the lawsuit. Title IX is an education law. The violation is Baylor not acting to not let the rapist impede her education. Once she accused him/them Baylor had to act to keep him/them separated and a few other items that avoids the liability of a lawsuit.

I work in higher ed and am not an attorney. I had good training (several states away) before this event ever happened. I guess Baylor didn't. The sad part is that you probably know and exhibit more about Title IX best practices today than Baylor appeared to know five years ago.

Thee University said:

---

Do either of you Einsteins have a daughter?

---

Yes, three actually, and I can guarantee you they wouldn't be hanging out in some jocks apartment drinking with "a group". Good God Thee, get a grip man. We had some very bad dudes. We had some very stupid women. Talk about a powder keg.

And the response by your BOR was to "cry". Sheesh.

Brian Ethridge said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Thee University said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I get the sentiment....but as CMR correctly pointed out last year...sexual assault should be equally offensive whether or not you have daughters.

---

You don't understand unless you have spent 18 years raising a daughter or two or three and sending them off to BU.

---

I have two. If either is raped, they know to go to the police, not the guidance counselor.

When my car was stolen, I didn't call Triple A and then file a lawsuit because nothing happened to get it back.

Also, as a father, I would find the boy and have a "conversation." Note how there were thousands of rapes yet not one father was involved?

Seems odd.

Also, you notice how none of the lawsuits name the actual rapist as a defendant? And Baylor never designates as a responsible third party the rapist?

Seems odd.

---

The suits were not over whether or not they were sexually assaulted, it was over whether or not Baylor complied with Title IX once the assault was reported. Given that that was the case, which it was, it was not possible to add the alleged rapist as a defendant, and, in addition, the allied rapist could not be designated as a third party defendant because the alleged rapist had no obligations under Title IX in regard to handling an alleged assault complaint.

---

You have to admit that it is odd that none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit.

Plus you should also acknowledge that an aggravated assault or homicide from a father would add a cherry to the top of this for the media. Maybe we could get Nancy Grace to do a book signing at Magnolia.

---

"...none of the accused are educational institutions and subject to a Title IX lawsuit."

Could more clarity be provided on what is meant in the above statement?

Well, if someone who has been sexually assaulted does not want to be identified, they would not want any of their family members to commit violence against the alleged rapist as that would ultimately lead to them being identified by proxy. That's why the occasional poster throwing out rhetorical questions in regard to why fathers don't commit violence don't really make sense.

---

If you filed a lawsuit, Dad probably knows.

---

Would Clery, HIIPA, etc... block Dad from knowing?

---

Didn't the parents meet with coaches and other Baylor officials?

Wouldn't that mean they know?

TxRainMkr said:

---

How many of you have daughters who get ripped at the bar until 2 am, go home with a guy and sit on his bed at 3 am, and then she is shocked when she wakes up and sobers up the next morning to find that she had sex, and can become a millionaire?

---

Drunk or not, No Means No.

YoakDaddy said:

---

TxRainMkr said:

---

How many of you have daughters who get ripped at the bar until 2 am, go home with a guy and sit on his bed at 3 am, and then she is shocked when she wakes up and sobers up the next morning to find that she had sex, and can become a millionaire?

---

Drunk or not, No Means No.

---

And as sad as this sounds, multiple men could be consensual but no to the last guy means no.

Guess we need to post this weekly

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

TxRainMkr said:

---

How many of you have daughters who get ripped at the bar until 2 am, go home with a guy and sit on his bed at 3 am, and then she is shocked when she wakes up and sobers up the next morning to find that she had sex, and can become a millionaire?

---

Drunk or not, No Means No.

---

And as sad as this sounds, multiple men could be consensual but no to the last guy means no.

---

Bump, Set , Spike Baby!!!! If you don't have a formal invitation to the gangbang, you are a rapist. Baylor Volleyball millionaires for $1000, Alex!

Loaded4Bear said:

---

NoBSU said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

TxRainMkr said:

---

How many of you have daughters who get ripped at the bar until 2 am, go home with a guy and sit on his bed at 3 am, and then she is shocked when she wakes up and sobers up the next morning to find that she had sex, and can become a millionaire?

---

Drunk or not, No Means No.

---

And as sad as this sounds, multiple men could be consensual but no to the last guy means no.

---

Bump, Set , Spike Baby!!!! If you don't have a formal invitation to the gangbang, you are a rapist. Baylor Volleyball millionaires for $1000, Alex!

---

80s !

Reporter said:

---

TxRainMkr said:

---

Lawyers love to sue entities who always settle.

---

The waco based plaintiffs attorney in this case is a sick and demented blood thirsty money grubber. He isn't defending - he's trying to exact a ransom. What a shame.

---

Yet neither his clients nor he appear interested in settling, at least at this point.

Walls closing in?

canoso said:

---

Reporter said:

---

TxRainMkr said:

---

Lawyers love to sue entities who always settle.

---

The waco based plaintiffs attorney in this case is a sick and demented blood thirsty money grubber. He isn't defending - he's trying to exact a ransom. What a shame.

---

Yet neither his clients nor he appear interested in settling, at least at this point.

Walls closing in?

---

or Baylor does not appear interested in offering anything

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Do either of you Einsteins have a daughter?

---

Yes, three actually, and I can guarantee you they wouldn't be hanging out in some jocks apartment drinking with "a group". Good God Thee, get a grip man. We had some very bad dudes. We had some very stupid women. Talk about a powder keg.

And the response by your BOR was to "cry". Sheesh.

---

I wasn't talking to you. My post was to the Einsteins posting by the screen names Timmy and Cowboy.

I agree 100% with your first paragraph. I think "MY" BOR was a little bit more than crying.

Keyser Soze said:

---

canoso said:

---

Reporter said:

---

TxRainMkr said:

---

CLawyers love to sue entities who always settle.

---

The waco based plaintiffs attorney in this case is a sick and demented blood thirsty money grubber. He isn't defending - he's trying to exact a ransom. What a shame.

---

Yet neither his clients nor he appear interested in settling, at least at this point.

Walls closing in?

---

or Baylor does not appear interested in offering anything

---

Maybe these cases are absolutely bogus so the ambulance chaser grouped them together for shock value. Perhaps the Baylor legal team knows they are not really victims thus they are willing to fight them in the courtroom to expose them. Maybe the Baylor legal team settled with the real victims because it was the right thing to do and they are fighting this group of 10 because they are not going to be held hostage by frauds that are represented by a shyster.

Keyser Soze said:

---

canoso said:

---

Reporter said:

---

TxRainMkr said:

---

Lawyers love to sue entities who always settle.

---

The waco based plaintiffs attorney in this case is a sick and demented blood thirsty money grubber. He isn't defending - he's trying to exact a ransom. What a shame.

---

Yet neither his clients nor he appear interested in settling, at least at this point.

Walls closing in?

---

or Baylor does not appear interested in offering anything

---

Exactly. Dunham has nothing on baylor and they know it.

Amarillobear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

canoso said:

---

Reporter said:

---

TxRainMkr said:

---

CLawyers love to sue entities who always settle.

---

The waco based plaintiffs attorney in this case is a sick and demented blood thirsty money grubber. He isn't defending - he's trying to exact a ransom. What a shame.

---

Yet neither his clients nor he appear interested in settling, at least at this point.

Walls closing in?

---

or Baylor does not appear interested in offering anything

---

Maybe these cases are absolutely bogus so the ambulance chaser grouped them together for shock value. Perhaps the Baylor legal team knows they are not really victims thus they are willing to fight them in the courtroom to expose them. Maybe the Baylor legal team settled with the real victims because it was the right thing to do and they are fighting this group of 10 because they are not going to be held hostage by frauds that are represented by a shyster.

---

Or maybe Baylor's lawyers didn't want evidence to become public only be used by attorneys representing the 10.

Thee University said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Do either of you Einsteins have a daughter?

---

Yes, three actually, and I can guarantee you they wouldn't be hanging out in some jocks apartment drinking with "a group". Good God Thee, get a grip man. We had some very bad dudes. We had some very stupid women. Talk about a powder keg.

And the response by your BOR was to "cry". Sheesh.

---

I wasn't talking to you. My post was to the Einsteins posting by the screen names Timmy and Cowboy.

I agree 100% with your first paragraph. I think "MY" BOR was a little bit more than crying.

---

And I will ask again for the 3rd time. What in any of my posts had been critical of the victim?

Posting a link to a news article and pointing out that Baylor settled another lawsuit is not negative, mean, victim shaming or any other type of attack towards the victim. It was nothing but providing facts. I said nothing about the victim. So man up and answer the question of why you have felt to include me in your attack.

cowboycwr said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Do either of you Einsteins have a daughter?

---

Yes, three actually, and I can guarantee you they wouldn't be hanging out in some jocks apartment drinking with "a group". Good God Thee, get a grip man. We had some very bad dudes. We had some very stupid women. Talk about a powder keg.

And the response by your BOR was to "cry". Sheesh.

---

I wasn't talking to you. My post was to the Einsteins posting by the screen names Timmy and Cowboy.

I agree 100% with your first paragraph. I think "MY" BOR was a little bit more than crying.

---

And I will ask again for the 3rd time. What in any of my posts had been critical of the victim?

Posting a link to a news article and pointing out that Baylor settled another lawsuit is not negative, mean, victim shaming or any other type of attack towards the victim. It was nothing but providing facts. I said nothing about the victim. So man up and answer the question of why you have felt to include me in your attack.

---

I asked a simple yes or no question. You never answered the question. Who said anything about being critical of the victim?

Attack? You called asking that question an attack? I'm playing softball with you.

Let me ask the question one more time without generously labeling you with the Einstein monicker. I obviously made an assumption you guys were intelligent. Do you and Timmy have a daughter?

cowboycwr said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Do either of you Einsteins have a daughter?

---

What in my post was critical of the victim?

Nothing.

I simply pointed out that baylor cut another check and the truth stays buried. That has no bearing on the victim so to direct your statement towards me is just stupid.

---

What truth is buried?