Men's Rights"Jackie" Being Held Accountable in U Virginia debacle - Watch This One (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by HeinousFu_kery

The Associate Dean pilloried in the (now infamously false) Rolling Stone article is suing the magazine, the reporter and is requiring that "Jackie" testify at the trial.

"Jackie"'s lawyers have argued that it would traumatize her by making her re-live the "ordeal" (that she fabricated in the first place). The judge in the case, Chief Judge Glen Conrad, is having none of it.

In a statement Tuesday, Ms. Eramo’s lawyer, Libby Locke, said that Rolling Stone “was dead set on portraying Dean Eramo (the plaintiff - ed) as a callous administrator who discouraged Jackie from reporting an assault to police, when, in fact, Dean Eramo took Jackie to the police, and it appears that Jackie knew that her tale of rape would not have stood up under real scrutiny and investigation.”

“Had Rolling Stone done the fact-checking and digging that they were legally and ethically required to do as journalists, Dean Eramo would not have been so wrongfully targeted,” Ms. Locke said.

Could this be a glimmer of hope for accountability? If nothing else, it cautions the press against simply taking the accuser at their word.

[–]Frantom 290 points291 points  (30 children)

since when is "re-living the ordeal" an argument to avoid court? How the fuck else is a court room supposed to work? The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable for her lawyers.

[–]neoj8888 78 points79 points  (4 children)

Not to mention you can't 'relive' something that never happened.

[–][deleted] 25 points25 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

that's so not fair to her. just leave the poor victim alone

[–]Leviticus59 46 points47 points  (3 children)

Now that the whole thing has been exposed as the massive hoax that it is, the players are all turning on each other in efforts to avoid culpability, and running like cockroaches when the light turns on. It's no wonder "Jackie" doesn't want to testify. A competent lawyer will likely eviscerate her on the stand. She's not a victim; she's a victimizer, and is now trying to play the vagina card to avoid accountability.

My worst fear is that it just won't matter too much. Even if a few people lose jobs or go to jail over this, the SJWs march loudly onward, undeterred and utterly convinced of the rightness of their crusade, even if they have to lie and invent "facts" out of whole cloth. Note that not a single member of the Duke Gang of 88 ever apologized or retracted their statements.

EDIT: added some stuff.

[–]HeinousFu_kery[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Defeating conspiracy theorists is a tough job. If they won't see what's in front of them, they surely won't agree with any secondary information.

[–]juliusstreicher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now that the whole thing has been exposed as the massive hoax that it is, the players are all turning on each other in efforts to avoid culpability, and running like cockroaches when the light turns on. It's no wonder "Jackie" doesn't want to testify. A competent lawyer will likely eviscerate her on the stand. She's not a victim; she's a victimizer, and is now trying to play the vagina card to avoid accountability.

My worst fear is that it just won't matter too much. Even if a few people lose jobs or go to jail over this, the SJWs march loudly onward, undeterred and utterly convinced of the rightness of their crusade, even if they have to lie and invent "facts" out of whole cloth. Note that not a single member of the Duke Gang of 88 ever apologized or retracted their statements.

Yep. Just read about Anita Hill. Busted for being full of shit, gets great post and becomes a spokesman, with fat speakers' fees.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A competent lawyer will likely eviscerate her on the stand

Turning or not, the court of public opinion is a much, much safer place than putting your head on the chopping block.

[–]1grubek 51 points52 points  (7 children)

The idea is not wrong on itself. Judges allow kids to testify behind a separator or even a different room to avoid having to face the accused. The problem is here is being greatly abused.

[–]FourNominalCents 33 points34 points  (0 children)

And while it's a nice way to help truthful children put scary bad guys in jail with a minimum of trauma, it's also a great way to ensure that a coached child sticks to the script.

[–]CollectivePsychosis 42 points42 points [recovered]

but what about feeeeellings?

[–]syf3r 3 points4 points  (1 child)

nothing more than feeeeeellings

[–]imadazhell 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In Camera, or In Chambers, is the legal term to describe a minor giving testimony in private to the judge overseeing a trial.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

when a lawyer has no case, they typically invent at least 3 metric tons of total horseshit that doesn't make a lick of sense, usually just to run up billable hours.

[–]1Snivellious 1 point2 points  (7 children)

In general, it isn't. It's a shot in the dark by her lawyers, who has to have realized that they're up shit creek on this one.

Some plaintiffs don't testify because they're too traumatized, but they're not using a legal defense for that. They're the plaintiff, they don't have to testify unless called, and their lawyers don't have to call them. Crucially, its usually their own case that's being weakened.

Importantly, "testify" is a weird word for what's happening. The judge is requiring that she be deposed, it's not legal in America to force a defendant to take the stand in the actual trial.

[–]Noleman 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Depositions, just like in court, require the giving of testimony under an oath of truth and penalty of perjury. Testimony is simply the word used to describe what the deponent or witness says while under oath.

In America, a criminal defendant has a Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify. Occasionally, this comes up in civil lawsuits when the defendant is also accused of committing a crime. Here Jackie is a third party witness and while her actions were reprehensible, they were probably not criminal.

[–]HeinousFu_kery[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

They were certainly misdemeanors under Virginia statutes; "Falsely summoning or giving false reports to law-enforcement officials."

[–]Noleman 0 points1 point  (1 child)

was not aware that she had reported the "rape" to the police. I knew that she had been encouraged to do so but was not aware that her accusations were actually the subject of a police report.

[–]Horus_Krishna_2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I bet the cops would arrest her now but they don't know for sure he lied, they don't know for sure she told the truth either, plenty of proof she lied of course but burden of proof is tough, what if she did get raped but just was an idiot and thought one frat guy did it, he had an alibi and wasn't there, but she was at a different frat and did get raped, but lied about other parts of it.

[–]1Snivellious 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Thanks, this brings up another question.

OP points out that there were some criminal acts here (false police report) but as far as I know she hasn't been charged. Can you make a Fifth Amendment plea in a civil case to avoid potential future criminal charges? If not, can you get your deposition excluded from any criminal case against you that might arise?

[–]Noleman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is no requirement that there be a pending or even threatened criminal case to raise the Fifth Amendment.

A way around the Fifth Amendment, as happened in the Cosby civil case, would be for a prosecutor to grant immunity to the civil testimony, in which case the witness can be compelled to answer questions at a deposition. Absent an immunity deal, though, civil testimony can be used against a witness in subsequent criminal proceedings.

There is a serious ramification, though, to raising the Fifth Amendment in a civil deposition or court proceeding -- there is an "adverse inference" to be taken from your refusal to testify. For example, in a civil case, if asked the question "Did you steal $1,000,000 from my client, XYZ Corp" and the witness (who is also a defendant in that case) refuses to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds then the judge or jury can adversely infer from that refusal that that the answer to the question is "yes". The same adverse inference, of course, does not apply in criminal proceedings (where no inference is to be taken from a defendant's refusal to testify) and also does not apply where the witnesses is not a party (plaintiff or defendant) to the civil lawsuit.

[–]RedPill115 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure she can be charged for 2 reasons, though I haven't kept up with the case:
1. She didn't actually accuse any real people. Her story carefully made insinuations against people that couldn't possibly exist.
2. I don't think she ever reported it to the cops. I'm not sure what happened - the above quotes both said she was taken to the police but also that she didn't want to tell her story.

You can sue someone for lying in a way that defames you, but it is not a crime in the way that the police charge you and take you to jail for it.

[–]SunshineBlotters 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why didn't she re-live the ordeal when she made it a nationwide news story?

[–]thegeeseisleese 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it profited her to do so, now that she's called out its a horrible experience

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 110 points111 points  (31 children)

Could this be a glimmer of hope for accountability?

I'll believe it when I see a prison sentence

[–]prodigy2throw 26 points27 points  (1 child)

A registry of some sort would be nice too. I wanna know if one of these women is moving to my neighbourhood.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Absolutely - we need this information to avoid such women so that they can never make a false claim against us too.

[–]Adolf_ghandi 17 points18 points  (0 children)

For at least a few years and no probation.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Equal or greater time required for a convicted rapist and the sex registry

[–]tsudonimh 9 points10 points  (25 children)

For what crime? 'Jackie' went to the Dean, the Dean took her to the cops. She told the cops her story, they investigated and quickly determined that 'Jackie' was full of shit.

Rolling Stone interviewed 'Jackie' and went full retard trying to push a narrative. The Dean got figuratively crucified, and the frat in question got all sorts of shit because of it. Now, RS is being sued and 'Jackie' is being forced to testify in the suit.

I suppose it's down to whether or not you think lying to cops is worthy of prison time.

[–]Sour_Badger 31 points32 points  (1 child)

Filing a false police report is a crime. Fraud by deception could fly with a good prosecutor arguing she was angling for a lawsuit or other financial motives. She will make a scene on the stand I bet too, so a future obstruction could be in play.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did she actually file a formal police report? I could be wrong because the public facts from the media are oversensationalized, but I was under the impression that she talked to the cops, was afraid of someone calling her on her bullshit, so she refused to actually put anything in writing.

Then supposedly that became the basis for the RS story where "the whole system was stacked against her ... Look the cops wouldn't even take her police report."

[–]HeinousFu_kery[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It will be interesting to see if "Jackie" is prosecuted for giving false information - there likely wouldn't be prison time, but they may make her (or her daddy) pay for it all.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 16 points17 points  (10 children)

For what crime?

For lying to the Dean, lying to the police, lying to the media, and defaming innocent men and ruining their lives.

it's down to whether .. lying to cops is worthy of prison time.

Of course it is. "Making a false statement" is a crime, so is inciting hate, etc.

[–]AvatarStinky 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Martha Stewart got 5 months in a federal penitentiary for lying to FBI agents. From Wikipedia: After a highly publicized six-week jury trial, Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators, and was sentenced in July 2004 to serve a five-month term in a federal correctional facility and a two-year period of supervised release (to include five months of electronic monitoring).

[–]HeinousFu_kery[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Martha Stewart got punked in a fight over K-Mart/Sears shares and board of directors, so nearly as anyone can tell.

[–]Gbcue -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

Lying to the police isn't a crime.

You can lie to police all the time.

"How fast were you going?"

"The speed limit" - even though you were speeding - that's lying.

You cannot lie to a federal agent, though.

[–]Horus_Krishna_2 3 points4 points  (1 child)

not quite same situation, the guy speeding and then lying didn't make a false accusation to another individual. And he does get punished for speeding if he did indeed speed.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gbcue -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

Only if you actually obstruct justice. Telling the cop you don't know what speed you were going (when in actuality you do) doesn't matter because they witnessed your speeding in the first place. They're just trying to get you to self-incriminate.

[–]juliusstreicher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wrong. Lying to the police IS a crime.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (10 children)

For what crime? Are you fucking kidding me? Lots of people's reputations have been tarnished by this woman slanderous fantasized claims. Either make women's testimony not count in court at all, or yes this woman should go to jail.

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]tsudonimh 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Ok, lets see. I asked what crime should she be jailed for.

You suggested false police report (did she file one? I know she talked to the cops at the dean's insistence which is not the same as filing a report. i have yet to see the actual report anywhere. If you could point it out to me i would apprreciate it.), lying under oath (which she hasnt done, the whole article is about getting her to testify under oath. We will see if she doubles down on her lies or comes clean), and slander (which is not a jailable offence)

So, I ask again, what crime has she committed that deserves jail time?

She is a despicable person, almost certainly mentally ill, and deserves to be sued into oblivion, but im not seeing what she has done that deserves a prison sentence. Filing a false report is the only crime I have heard her commit, but i havent seen proof and i dont know if it is a jailable offence.

All the bad shit that happened because of her story comes from the fallout from the RS article. Its the magazine and the reporter who need to have the justice hammer brought down swiftly on their nads.

[–]RedPill115 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think some people are confusing her with other girls who did accuse real guys to the cops. Other people accused real people, "Jackie" carefully created a story that could not plausibly link to any real people.

[–]Paranoidexboyfriend -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

Slander isn't a crime. False reports and perjury are though

[–]Arlophone 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Why do we have libel and slander laws then?

[–]Paranoidexboyfriend 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Those tort laws form the basis of civil suits. I should mention I am an attorney. I have no idea why I was downvoted so significantly for providing true legal facts in the post you replied to.

[–]tsudonimh -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Because those facts go against the rage boner a lot of people here who are still stuck in the anger phase have.

[–]juliusstreicher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you even know what the anger phase is??

[–]Paranoidexboyfriend -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It would be terrifying if slander and libel were criminally punishable. Could you imagine how much even more power women would have to abuse if they could get a guy thrown in jail just by accusing them of ruining their reputation?

[–]tsudonimh -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The reputations were not tarnished because of the ravinga of a loon. They were tarniahed because those ravings were reported as fact by a mainstream magazine.

Slander is not, nor should it be a jailable offence.

[–]juliusstreicher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well put. I'd just like a retraction from RS, but, of course, they'll have some other 'victim' do a spread on how 'she' felt when nobody believed her story.

[–]strps 51 points51 points [recovered]

I don't know about accountability. What I do know is that the associate dean is a woman, and is thus being protected by the law from perceived slights to her honor. I wonder what would have happened were she a man in this case.

[–]HeinousFu_kery[S] 23 points24 points  (2 children)

I'm sure his life would have been ruined immediately and he would have sued ten times harder, though it might not have saved his career. In any event, I give this Associate Dean credit for reaming them a new one.

The fun part of this is that "Jackie", (Jackie Coakley), the journalist (Sabrina Rubin Erdely), and the Associate Dean are all women.

Edit: Guess who found her Beta. http://gotnews.com/tag/jackie-coakley/

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Always such a pain when all that due process is nonsense and #IBelieveVictims bullshit comes back around to bite you in the ass. This is why totalitarian societies suck ... just a matter of time before you too become the target.

The funny thing is that the Dean in this case, as a woman, is experiencing just a fraction of what men experience everyday in our legal system and gynocentric society.

[–]RedEyesBlueShades 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Gynocentric AND androphobic.

[–]Endorsed ContributorMeat-on-the-table 57 points58 points  (4 children)

Whether or not this actually does anything for falsely accused men is debatable. No doubt the feminist hamster will spin at full speed and apply the No True Scotsman fallacy to no end in order to keep their power.

That being said,my schadenfreude has been fully activated by this. Her lies have caught up to her, and now she has to make first acquaintances with the stranger known as accountability.

[–]RedPill115 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Frankly I was super relived at the whole story was blowing up.

Feminists were actually convincing some real people that it was a real thing - real was an "epidemic" (rather than going down like it actually is) and that women "never lie" about rape.

I almost want to send Rolling Stone a thank you card, no matter how hard they spin it, it really made the point to rational people that obviously some rape accusations are fake and make up, and that's why we shouldn't send anyone to jail just because a girl makes hysterical accusations against a guy she doesn't like...or a guy she hates for personal reasons...or because she slept with a guy but her mother freaked out when she found out her daughter was a slut so the girl had to accuse someone...or just because the girl has a few marbles loose upstairs.

I mean I do feel bad for real victims, but fuck if I'm going to live in a world where a girl can realistically say "it doesn't matter how crazy I am, you can't break up with me or I'll tell the cops you raped me and they'll have to believe you and you'll go to the jail".

[–]TerryYockey 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Can you elaborate on how the no true Scotsman fallacy would apply in this instance?

[–]Endorsed ContributorMeat-on-the-table 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Feminism will spin Jackie as being an aberration; say that she is one of the very few women who make false accusations.

Whilst she is certainly on the more extreme side of false accusers because of the scale of her lie, more liars exist than will ever be admitted.

So she'll be sacrificed as being an anomaly that isn't emblematic--even thought the truth is that the misandrist witch-hunts that have become sexual abuse procedures help to foster this kind of environment.

[–]Gbcue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's the mattress girl too. See how the liberals spun that, the'll follow suit in this case.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Imagine everyone uses the "I don't want to relive the ordeal" cop out to avoid cross examinations, there would be shitloads of innocent people going to jail. "I'm sorry officer, I don't want to relive the ordeal, can you just arrest that/any person for robbery/assault/theft/etc., without any testimony?"

I see this as a good start to get the discussion going that not all victims are believable. I hope this will be the beginning of feminazis fucking themselves over with a big black dildo.

[–]Letsbeserioushere 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Glimmer of hope aside, grab your popcorn fellas and get ready for some crocodile tears. Justice is just so oppressive!

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (8 children)

Question, why does everyone refer to this girl as "Jackie" instead of by her real name?

Hers should be a household name so she can never get a job/man.

[–]ChairBorneMGTOW 33 points34 points  (7 children)

Jackie is her name.

Jackie Coakley. It's in the public domain now

[–]The__Tren__Train 7 points8 points  (4 children)

should be an RP 'saying'.




[–]2niczar 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Just a heads up, reddit admins would probably take that as "doxxing". It is ridiculous but it could get you banned, and they could eventually also use it to justify banning this subreddit.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Huh, I assumed "Jackie" was a fake name.

Thanks for that.

[–]buttsecksyermum 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And let's not let it be forgotten.

[–]garlicextract[🍰] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

“Had Rolling Stone done the fact-checking and digging that they were legally and ethically required to do as journalists, Dean Eramo would not have been so wrongfully targeted,” Ms. Locke said.

Interesting. I suppose the 'legal' aspect falls under libel committed by the magazine. Why has there not been a libel charge brought against them?

[–]HeinousFu_kery[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The administrator is filing a "defamation" suit which is roughly the same thing, but goes after the irresponsible journalism and dissemination of false information rather than the person making the false statements - Rolling Stone has much deeper pockets and is more likely to pay up.

This may have to do with the jurisdiction, and IIRC libel/slander/defamation suits in the US are very hard to bring because of first amendment issues, which the article states (I'm not a lawyer).

[–]tsudonimh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

RTFA. Seriously, it's not that long. The whole thing is about the Dean suing Rolling Stone magazine for libel. 'Jackie' is just being deposed in the case, she is not being sued.

[–]Themooseconnection 21 points22 points  (9 children)

Madonna applauded for groping 17 year olds on stage while Bill Cosby gets dragged over the coals for consensual sex 25 years ago.

There is no hope for the west

[–]sendmepicsofyourbutt 22 points23 points  (8 children)

While I don't think it's okay, the 17 year old called it the "best moment of her life" and the legal age of consent in Australia is between 16-17 years of age depending on where you are.

Bill Cosby on the other hand, admitted to getting prescription Quaaludes to give to women he wanted to have sex with. Whether he did or didn't rape those women is something we'll never know because there will never be a criminal trial, but comparing him to Madonna is apples to oranges.

[–]skiff151 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Cobsy raped those women. Rein it in buddy.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

What ordeal? She was lying.The ordeal never happened!

[–]juliusstreicher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No ordeal??? Have you ever fabricated a story like that, and gone to YOUR assistant dean and even told the police about it??? Don't you think that she knew the meaning of fear when the dean suggested her taking it to the police??

Don't you tell me about "no ordeal" until YOU have fabricated a story like that and gone through what she went through!

[–]Evileddie13 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Relive a trama that never happened. Lol.

[–]dt8933 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can certainly understand why Jackie does not want to relive the traumatic experience of lying about serious charges and getting called out for it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Thought she could pussy pass her way out of this deal, no fucking way you cunt.

Enjoy the social shaming poison you worked so hard to use against those frat kids, it's not going to be a fun ride.

[–]antariusz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pussy pass doesn't protect you, when you harm women (the dean). Women have no qualms about destroying a woman that attacks them.

[–]xSerenadex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im not sure what you mean by "Could this be a glimmer of hope for accountability?". People are real good at crucifying shoddy rape claims and anyone that might have been damaged from the ensuing fire. Rolling Stone didnt wanna put in the effort to verify the story? They gon' pay for that.

[–]privatejohngarrett 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why is this woman's name still being protected?

[–]Johnny_Tempest 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Jaquline Coakley is a massive whore for doing what she did.

[–]Reginleifer 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Could this be a glimmer of hope for accountability? If nothing else, it cautions the press against simply taking the accuser at their word.


I doubt that we want Jackie to talk at trial, right now the court is about 2 parties, Rolling Stone and the Dean. Jackie talks and sure the person who made the accusation is forced to confess under penalty of perjury either looking like an ass or going to jail, but the journalists at RS may get to go scot-free.

It's in every male's interest that RS and other journalists think twice before publishing these stories.... and if that takes Jackie getting off the hook? Is it that bad? (Jackie hasn't committed a crime anyways if I remember correctly.)

[–]HeinousFu_kery[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

The usual criminal charge seems to be giving false information to police or similar. The penalty could be quite a bit - jail time plus costs of the investigation - but the not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity argument is going to permeate the entire affair.

Frankly, all "AWALT" RP vituperation aside, this woman is nuts and needs to be in treatment and out of circulation. If she can stand as a warning to not make false accusations, and for female journals ts to not reflexively publish them without due diligence, so much the better.

[–]Reginleifer -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Did she file a police report? I thought she didn't and that was the point of contention between RS and the Ass. Dean. The Dean trying to get her to file one and RS running a lie by Jackie that said the dean tried to stop her.

She could be liable for the cost of investigation though.

[–]HeinousFu_kery[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

From the article in the above link, not only did she not file, she "... refused to cooperate with their investigation." but I'm not clear if she would be liable if she caused an incident to be investigated without directly filing a report.

So it may be that she could be held liable by the local LEO but they probably won't bother.

[–]batfish55 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could this be a glimmer of hope for accountability? If nothing else, it cautions the press against simply taking the accuser at their word.

Misogynist! /s

Seriously tho, even if I hold out hope that one day society pulls its collective head out of its ass, did you ever hear the phrase, "You can wish in one hand and shit in the other, and see which fills first"? Kudos for your optimism tho.

[–]F_Dingo 0 points1 point  (1 child)

it appears that Jackie knew that her tale of rape would not have stood up under real scrutiny and investigation.

That's all we need to know, it fully explains the bullshit thrown by her lawyers - "But she would relive her 'traumatic' experience!"

They know and she knows that her case has zero merit to it. The cogs of justice may be slow moving, but it shall always prevail.

[–]RedPillScare 7 points8 points  (0 children)

No, they don't always prevail.

Whether Jackie is held accountable remains to be seen, and other perpetrators of false rape claims have been rewarded either attention for their efforts.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

And what about the accused? Does anyone have info on them? Do the frat guys have their own law suit?

[–]Endorsed ContributorRunawayGrain 3 points4 points  (1 child)

If memory serves, the frat guys were suing the hell outta rolling stone too. If the dean here wins, it should help them out.


The thing is, I would like to hear about how many of the SJW crowd that formed a lynch mob on these guys ever apologized. My guess is that it's a nice round number.

[–]HeinousFu_kery[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SJW goes Conspiracy Theorist in a real hurry with this stuff.

"Oh, they do things like that all the time, it's just that they got away with it this time"

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Accountability? With what is she being charged?

She's being dippsed. Half the adults in America have been diposed at some point. Deposition is far from a one way ticket to prison.

[–]imadazhell -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“§ 18.2-209. False publications. Any person who knowingly and willfully states, delivers or transmits by any means whatever to any publisher, or employee of a publisher, of any newspaper, magazine, or other publication or to any owner, or employee of an owner, of any radio station, television station, news service or cable service, any false and untrue statement, knowing the same to be false or untrue, concerning any person or corporation, with intent that the same shall be published, broadcast or otherwise disseminated, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.”

“Code 1950, § 18.1-407; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1978, c. 359.”

[–]RedEyesBlueShades -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A glimmer of hope indeed. Faint, but real.

This made my day... Thanks for sharing!!!

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

FHRITP! If you get this I salute you