Judge James Robart’s “so called” decision

February 12, 2017

GorsuchRobartsWe interrupt this episode of the “Donald Trump is single handedly destroying the Constitution” from the Elizabeth Warren Broadcasting Corporation to bring you a previously unaired episode of “The law is what I feel it is” starring Seattle District Court Judge James Robart.

Our series recap is provided by KC Johnson, history professor at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York Graduate Center writing in mindingthecampus.org June 9, 2015:

Amherst expelled a student for committing rape—despite text messages from the accuser, sent  immediately after the alleged assault, (1) telling one student that she had initiated the sexual contact with the student she later accused (her roommate’s boyfriend); (2) inviting another student to her room for a sexual liaison minutes after she was allegedly raped.

Amherst, on grounds that the accused student (who, per college policy, had no attorney) didn’t discover the text messages until it was too late, has allowed the rape finding to stand, even though the college’s decision relied on the accuser’s credibility (which is now non-existent). Amherst faces a due-process lawsuit in the case…..

..The incident dated from the early morning hours of February 5, 2012, when the accused student (who filed the suit pseudonymously, as John Doe) was a sophomore. After a night of heavy drinking by Doe, he accompanied the accusing student (who I’ll call AS) back to her room, where she performed oral sex on him. (Doe had no recollection of the sexual encounter, a claim that even Amherst’s tribunal found “credible.”) When news of her having hooked up with her roommate’s boyfriend got around, a former friend recalled that AS (unsurprisingly) “lost her group of friends.”

Not until two years later with a new group of victims’ rights friends did AS decide to go to Amherst administration with the claim that John Doe had raped her. As is all too common on university campuses today, Mr. Doe was denied due process, his accuser summarily believed and he was promptly expelled.

In an attempt to regain his life, Mr. Doe filed a due-process lawsuit against Amherst and discovered the texts KC Johnson refers to. As part of that lawsuit Mr. Doe sought to subpoena AS (Now Sandra Jones in the lawsuit) regarding the texts and numerous other issues surrounding that night.

Unfortunately for Mr. Doe, Ms. Jones has since moved to Washington State so his request for subpoena wound up in front of President Trump’s “so called” judge, James Robart. A request that in his ruling of November 16, 2016 Judge Robart quashed in entirety.

While it is fair to point out that Doe’s initial request was broad, Judge Robart could have narrowed it in scope and allowed Mr. Doe to proceed in his quest to get to the truth of that night and restore his reputation. But Judge Robart didn’t narrow, he destroyed.

Rather than supporting due process and the rule of law, Judge Robart instead sided solely with Ms. Jones because (in his own words): “The deposition would force Ms. Jones to relive a night in which she asserts Mr. Doe sexually assaulted her.”

The circuitous logic of Judge Robart’s decision is amazing for the federal bench. There has never been a conviction, there has never even been a trial with evidence presented, just a he said/she said Amherst tribunal that in itself is suspect, but that’s enough for Judge Robart to deny the accused Mr. Doe the right to depose his accuser in person.

We can agree or disagree on whether a President of the United States should be criticizing members of the judiciary, but how anyone could deny that Robart’s “She asserts, therefore I must deny” legal reasoning is anything but beyond “out there” when it comes to an accused receiving equal justice before the law is beyond me.

Something to keep in mind as the media meltdown regarding Trump’s “attack” on Judge Robart continues ad nauseam.

Tags: , , ,

Comments are closed.


December 2021
« Jul