Football team is in an uproar on Twitter because some gal has posted screenshots of texts from a girl who was mad Dom broke up with her so she accused him of rape. Explains why he was off the team last year. Shame ruined a promising career by having him get expelled.
Dom Silvels
- Thread starter etowncoug
- Start date
Time to bring down the hammer on the gal with a vengeance.
1. She should be immediatly expelled. Have amy financial aid award stripped.
2. What she did, if it isnt criminal, should be criminal, and if it is criminal, THROW the PROVERBIAL BOOK at her, and prosecute her, jail her, etc, to the FULLEST extent of the law.
3. Silvels needs to sue her for slander, defamation, for denying him a paid about 85k value college degree, and for maybe denying him a NFL career, and for making it harder for him to find, get, keep work, because of what she did to his reputation.
Unless until that is done on a regular basis to those women that do this, that kind of craap will continue.
Some women doing this(not all women(and some to most women who cry rape are probably either legitly crying rape, or think they were raped, and are not making something up to get at somebody whi dumped them, etc), DESTROYS, RAPES the lives of falsely accused men whether its Silvels, or the Duke Lacrosse team m, etc.
The only way to stop this is CREATE a DETERRENT.
That wont always stop it. Some will still do it. But less will do it.
Men that rape, deserve rhe punishments that they should get.
And women that falsely cry rape, etc, deserve the punishments they should get.
And if nothing is done and she gets away with it, she should be HARRASSED over, about it, for the rest of her time at WSU, by college students, professors, media.
She should become a pariah, a cast out, a exile, etc, at WSU, if nothing is done to, about her.
And if I knew who she was is, and if I were to see her at the store, game, at a class, etc, I would say "Oh its you, INSERT NAME, (point finger at, that falsely accused a WSU football player of Rape, getting him expelled, ruining his life to get back at him for dumping UGLY you. No wonder he dumped you.", right in front of professor, students, people, etc.
And if I knew her, I would bash her a lot all over social media, etc.
Basically I would crucify her in the court of public opinion.
And I would do that to MAKE A EXAMPLE out of her, as a DETERRENT to any other would be woman who would be, might be considering doing the same
I know this sounds harsh, extreme, but what she did was harsh, extreme, and is hurting men, and needs to be discouraged, deterred, stopped, etc.
I just read the entire thread on twitter where the girl admits to lying the school - it makes me want to Puke.
WSU - the school and athletic department need to do the right thing right now and reinstate Don immediately. Full scholarship until he graduates, no questions asked. If Don wants to play football, great - but first and foremost WSU owes it to Don to give him the opportunity to graduate.
WSU - the school and athletic department need to do the right thing right now and reinstate Don immediately. Full scholarship until he graduates, no questions asked. If Don wants to play football, great - but first and foremost WSU owes it to Don to give him the opportunity to graduate.
Civil lawsuit. Ruin her in the same way she ruined his career.
The girl has serious psychological issues. She was threatening to kill herself in some of the messages because she wasn't getting a response from Silvels. Didn't want to tell the truth to the school because it would make her look bad. Said she didn't care her actions made him cry or hurt him.
Destroying her life doesn't do much for me because she's someone who will likely do that without the help of others. The important thing is the school let Dom back and publicly vindicate him.
Young and in College ? Theses types rarely have a pot to peal a potato in. Civil suit most likely a waste of time.
I read that twitter thread as well. Do you remember Brian Banks? He was the high school player who was committed to USC. He was falsely accused of rape and did time in prison. I feel bad for Mr. Silvels. Thankfully, this has come out and he doesn't have to spend time in prison. Unfortunately, it likely ruined his career. I hope this does not ruin his life.
What pisses me off is college is what has made it so I own a house, a car, have a wife, pay the bills, pursue hobbies. It’s what made life much easier for me. Not so many people are as lucky to get a degree or two and a job and get ahead. His life trajectory could go from as high as a NFL, middle ground a college graduate with great job prospects, to a guy expelled from his opportunity to gain access to either of those futures. It significantly changes his life and he (by the optics of it all) did nothing wrong. It makes me sad and sick.
I am no attorney but seem to recall that filing a false claim is a crime. Probably a waste of time, as another poster has pointed out. to file a civil suit but this young lady could be in some legal trouble if the local district attorney sees fit to file charges. As far as Mr. Silvels is concerned, the school owes him an apology and a scholarship.
Edit: My mistake as I was under the impression that this had been reported to the police. Also under the impression- falsely- that the complainant was a WSU student and that the alleged crime occurred in the area of Pullman.
Another fine disregard for due process by the self-selecting SJWs on the Student Conduct Board. I hope that Schulz is paying attention to this as the current disciplinary procedure is an embarrassing, messy and expensive civil suit waiting to happen.
Edit: My mistake as I was under the impression that this had been reported to the police. Also under the impression- falsely- that the complainant was a WSU student and that the alleged crime occurred in the area of Pullman.
Another fine disregard for due process by the self-selecting SJWs on the Student Conduct Board. I hope that Schulz is paying attention to this as the current disciplinary procedure is an embarrassing, messy and expensive civil suit waiting to happen.
Last edited:
I'm not "going there," so to speak, re some of the points that have been aired, but does anyone know the particulars of how he was expelled? Was this the good old Student Conduct Board again?
Not a waste of time if this little turd gets a record that shows a history of falsely accusing so that the next time she does it she won’t automatically be taken seriously without any proof.
The university has no recourse against her, and if she never went to police, there’s no false reporting charge. A civil suit would be the only possibility, but it doesn’t sound like he’d be interested in pursuing that.
But, unless she contacts the university and recants, I don’t see anything changing. Screen caps of texts and tweets can be faked relatively easily, so the university has to have something pretty definitive and right from the source to reverse this.
And...does he want to come back? Or did the expulsion process sour him on WSU?
But, unless she contacts the university and recants, I don’t see anything changing. Screen caps of texts and tweets can be faked relatively easily, so the university has to have something pretty definitive and right from the source to reverse this.
And...does he want to come back? Or did the expulsion process sour him on WSU?
This is the 2nd time the student conduct board has screwed with a player.
And what the SCB has done to Dom is way worse.
Frankly I dont give a dam if they cant reverse it.
They think they got heat the last time with barber, wait until they the SCB gets HEAT this time.
If they the SCB doesnt apologize to Dom, and doesmt reverse this, and doesnt reinstate him, give him back his scholly, etc, it will be time to make a EVEN BIGGER STINK then what was made with Barber.
It will be time to BOYCOTT the games, WSU. as fans. And Rolo needs to give WSU a ULTIMATUM either reinstate Dom or Rolo leaves WSU. And the whole coaching staff, AD Chun, players, etc, need to do the same thing, boycott, refuse to play, speak up, out, etc, about this and put hardcore pressure on the SCB.
And DOM needs to SUE THE FCK out of the SCB, WSU if they dont apologize, reinstate hik, put him back on scholly, etc.
The SCB and WSU is FCKING EMBARRASSINGLY WRONG ABOUT THIS.
FIX IT, MAKE IT RIGHT NOW, PERIOD WSU, SCB.
IF YOU DONT I,OTHERS WILL CRUCIFY THE SCB ALL OVER SOCIAL MEDIA
SO FIX IT NOW MAKE IT RIGHT NOW OR GO FCK OFF.
And what the SCB has done to Dom is way worse.
Frankly I dont give a dam if they cant reverse it.
They think they got heat the last time with barber, wait until they the SCB gets HEAT this time.
If they the SCB doesnt apologize to Dom, and doesmt reverse this, and doesnt reinstate him, give him back his scholly, etc, it will be time to make a EVEN BIGGER STINK then what was made with Barber.
It will be time to BOYCOTT the games, WSU. as fans. And Rolo needs to give WSU a ULTIMATUM either reinstate Dom or Rolo leaves WSU. And the whole coaching staff, AD Chun, players, etc, need to do the same thing, boycott, refuse to play, speak up, out, etc, about this and put hardcore pressure on the SCB.
And DOM needs to SUE THE FCK out of the SCB, WSU if they dont apologize, reinstate hik, put him back on scholly, etc.
The SCB and WSU is FCKING EMBARRASSINGLY WRONG ABOUT THIS.
FIX IT, MAKE IT RIGHT NOW, PERIOD WSU, SCB.
IF YOU DONT I,OTHERS WILL CRUCIFY THE SCB ALL OVER SOCIAL MEDIA
SO FIX IT NOW MAKE IT RIGHT NOW OR GO FCK OFF.
I read the tweet trail tweets. The btch that did this to Dom, HAD a friend that was actually raped.
She at first believed the btch. But then she got the text, that exposed the btch, she a rape victim is the one who screen captured, shared the text proving Dom's innocence.
While it could be theoretically possible that if Dom had been the one to screen capture share the text, that he could possibly be faking the text, as he would have motive.
But it was not Dom that screen captured the text and shared them.
It was a friend of the btch, who had been raped herself, who was on the btch's side, that screen captured the text, shared the text, proved Dom's innocence.
No way is she faking the text. Whats her motive for doing so??? None.
Also the gal that screen captured, shared the text proving Dom's innocence, can also just give her cell phone, smart phone, etc, to the SCB, where they can see the actual text on the actual device.
No way she could fake the text on the actual phone itself, so the text seen directly on the phone itself, and not a screen capture, but directly seeing the text on the phone itself by holding the actual phone, and looking at the text on the phone, are the real non fake text.
And again would she have the knowledge, ability to fake it, and again why would she, whats her motive.
She is a college gal, she doesnt have the ability to fake it, and wven if she did, ahe doesnt have a reason, motive to fake it.
Because of that rhe SCB has to, should accept either the acreen captured shared text, or the phone with the text on it itself, combined with testimony by the girl.
Also the SCB is not a COURT OF LAW.
While a COURT OF LAW would need something more substantial like the btch admitting what she done, to reverse the decision.
The SCB is not a COURT OF LAW. So the SCB can go by screen caltured shared text, the phone itself with the text on it, testimony from the btch's friend, now exfriend, that got the text. That is enough or should be enoufh for the SCB to reverse its decision on Dom.
And if its not, more importantly its enough for me and others.
So if the SCB doesnt apologize, reverse its decision, reinstate, I and others will turn up the heat, pressure on the SCB, WSU until it does fix this, make it right, etc.
What does Title 9 have to do with any of this???
Its not like the btch is a student athlete at WSU. If the btch were, then yeah Title 9 would apply.
Its not like the btch is a student an or works, etc, at WSU. If she did Title 9 would apply.
But the btch is not connected to, associated with WSU in any shape or form, etc, except as a ex girlfriend that Dom a WSU student athlete football player dumped in the past.
So because of that Title 9 doesnt or shouldnt apply.
And if I am wrong, then how does Title 9 apply to this?
Sounded like it from the beginning. He was being investigated for something, but there was never any report of an arrest.
Title IX and the Department of Education regulations that go along with it is why the SCB exists. The burden of proof was shifted in dear colleague letters during the Obama administration.
According to the twitter trail of tweets, its clear that this was the SCB, student conduct board.
I will go thru the tweets again and see if I can find the SCB reference, and see if I can figure out how to either copy paste, share the tweet that references the SCB
If she made any submission under oath (I don’t know if she did) there is potential for perjury. The timing of this coming out now is interesting.
I have a dipshit brothers-in-law who is an electrical engineering professor at the University of Idaho. He is the same type of person who is on the committee that oversees the student conduct board - the simple fact is they hate all athletes and all athletics.
This is because growing up he was the nerd smart kid/band geek who was jealous of the attention and popularity the athletes naturally have in a school environment. This turd actually told my daughter a couple of weeks ago that the six (yes, six - two sports) varsity letters she earned at WSU as well as being a team captain would have zero impact on her applying to grad school or a for a future job.
The point is these type of jealous individuals will screw over any athlete to the fullest at even a hint of impropriety. Did I say that I do not like my brother in-law???? Total d-bag.....
This is because growing up he was the nerd smart kid/band geek who was jealous of the attention and popularity the athletes naturally have in a school environment. This turd actually told my daughter a couple of weeks ago that the six (yes, six - two sports) varsity letters she earned at WSU as well as being a team captain would have zero impact on her applying to grad school or a for a future job.
The point is these type of jealous individuals will screw over any athlete to the fullest at even a hint of impropriety. Did I say that I do not like my brother in-law???? Total d-bag.....
If he's serious about his education, he can go to JC and then transfer back to a 4 year and whatever "record" he has should get left behind, I would imagine since no charges were filed to the police.
That being said, I've been in his shoes but luckily it was a story only told to the guy who *ahem* came after me with said girl, and she spun a yard to protect his ego is the only thing I can imagine. He knew it was bs because we were previously friends and he was aware of mine and the girls relationship when it happened. I ended up running into him at our class reunion and he admitted to knowing it was bs, despite telling anyone he could her version of the story while he was with her (15 years prior to the reunion). I can only imagine having a lie affect your life the way it has Dom's.
True, if she submitted a form that explicitly states that it’s a sworn statement. The online report form for reporting sexual assault or harassment to WSU includes no such statement.
On the plus side, apparently hearsay evidence is admissible in student conduct hearings (and these screen caps would be hearsay). But, they’re still easy to fake, and should carry less weight than a direct statement from the alleged victim.
On the negative side, there does not appear to be a mechanism for reconsideration of a decision more than 21 days after a final decision is reached. That should not prevent an immediate reversal in this case if the statement is recanted, but is another thing that needs to be remedied. There has to be a provision for how to react when new evidence comes to light.
Your daughter sounds like an ass kicker. When she lights up the real world after college your BIL will probably be pissed she’s not paying 60% taxes.
I don't think that's the way it works. Getting expelled or suspended is a scarlet letter. The admission application will be denied.
If the SCB followed the Rules of Evidence (which they don't) the messages from the girl appear to be an admission by party opponent and not hearsay by definition.
That would be inherently false for grad school. I went to law school with a number of former student-athletes. It helped them. For the job market, it certainly gets my attention when someone is a former student-athlete.
Which letter exactly? Does the SCB have to refer to any precedent or law? I'm thoroughly confused.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf
During the Obama administration, the DOE's Office of Civil Rights sent one or more "Dear Colleague" letters to universities guiding them on the burden of proof and persuasion for student conduct matters. That letter or letters (I don't recall if it was one or more) basically said that a complainant's allegations should be taken at face value and must be disproven by the accused. The due process procedures in these types of hearings is considerably less than what applies in the courtroom. For instance at WSU, the accused was not allowed to ask direct questions of the complainant, even for matters involving potential expulsion or suspension (this came out during the Robert Barber matter). The system is basically set up for a presumption of guilt with the ability to defend yourself restricted.
The SCB is required to follow its own rules, the Administrative Procedures Act and the Constitution. The Superior Court booted the SCB decision for Barber because the SCB did not follow its own rules on preserving the record on appeal (that's the best of my recollection). In this type of adjudication there are lower standards for due process. Barber was not going to go to jail or pay a fine if he was found guilty. He was looking at expulsion. His life would go on, just with no degree from WSU. If you get a speeding ticket in Washington, you don't get a full blown trial if you contest it, because you're not going to jail.
I am of the opinion that there is a property right, or some kind of right that accrues in a student's education (otherwise students would not be paying and WSU would not be charging over $10,000 a year for tuition) that requires far more due process in a SCB hearing where expulsion or suspension is at stake. I believe the Court of Appeals decision involving the grad student made that clear and WSU was supposed to be developing new rules for the SCB.
This is intended to help, but I realize there is a lot here.
Last edited:
I'm reading that it were "more likely than not" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt". Not to add further fuel to the fire, but, once again- blacks are said to be guilty at a disproportionate rate.
"Five years later, American higher education has gotten the message that the White House and the Department of Education were sending — and a lot has changed.
But still there are questions. What is an adequate solution for the dark and persistent threat of sexual violence on campus? And what should colleges and universities expect from a very different administration, headed by a president who has himself been accused of sexual assault?
The same day that Biden spoke at UNH, the education department's Office of Civil Rights sent a 19-page document that would come to be known as the “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges and universities.
The letter contained new guidance about Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting sex discrimination “under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
The letter read: “If a school knows or reasonably should know about student-on-student harassment that creates a hostile environment, Title IX requires the school to take immediate action to eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects.” And it added that the department’s definition of harassment explicitly includes sexual violence.
Alexandra Brodsky cofounded “Know Your IX" while on campus at Yale Law School; today it's a national student group that supports students who challenge their college or university to prevent "sexual or dating violence." She is clear about the source of that obligation — it's Title IX: “The Obama administration didn’t invent these rights; these are our rights under law.”
The particular legal foundations of the “Dear Colleague” letter date back to 1977, when female students sued Yale over, for example, professors offering an “A” for sex — or a “C” for refusing it. The plaintiffs in Alexander v. Yale argued that sexual harassment was itself a form of sexual discrimination.
They lost their case on a technicality, but the court accepted the legal reasoning: that a university’s failure to adequately confront a hostile climate of sexual harassment could represent a Title IX violation in itself.
“What the [Obama] administration has done,” Brodsky added, “is, for the first time, to hold schools to account through their own enforcement.”
The "Dear Colleague" letter includes a long section on best practices: administrators should inform students reporting an assault of their options, and allow them to speak to police. They should conclude investigations promptly — ideally, within two months. And hearing officers should decide cases of sexual harassment not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but by a “preponderance of evidence” standard — meaning hearing officers don’t need to be convinced that an incident occurred, only that it is more likely than not.
But the critical paragraph comes at the letter's end — an offer most institutions of higher learning can’t refuse:
"When conducting Title IX enforcement activities, OCR seeks to obtain voluntary compliance from recipients. When a recipient does not come into compliance voluntarily, OCR may initiate proceedings to withdraw Federal funding by the Department or refer the case to the U.S. Department of Justice for litigation."
The loss of federal funds could bring many of the richest research universities, public or private, to their knees.
So as the OCR began to announce investigations into the mishandling of reported sexual harassment and violence — 344 since 2011, by the count of the Chronicle of Higher Education — colleges and universities began to change their ways, sometimes dramatically.
It’s that change that makes Alexandra Brodsky describe the Obama administration’s OCR as a “tremendous ally of students and civil-rights activists."
But the Obama approach has its critics. Harvard Law professors Jeannie Suk and Jacob Gersen say it resulted in a “sex bureaucracy,” placing more and more ordinary behavior under federal oversight.
And feminist legal theorist Janet Halley, their colleague who has contested the OCR's process in the Harvard Law Review, describes the “Dear Colleague” letter as a case of “administrative overreach.”
Halley, who has participated in sexual-violence cases at Harvard, has had concerns about their fairness from the beginning.
She took pains to say that she cares deeply about sexual assault, but she worries about an overcorrection, prompted by OCR, that moves universities from ignoring the rights of accusers to trampling on those of the accused.
“Just imagine if you were asked to go in to explain why you didn’t commit a sexual assault,” Halley said. With no information as to what you’re accused of, who’s accusing you, or when it allegedly happened, “you’re required to start explaining yourself. And you’re 18 years old, and no one is helping you."
Halley describes the new system as all but designed to produce “false positives” — innocent students wrongfully punished — both because of the looser evidentiary standard and because of Title IX officers’ desire to produce numbers that show they're taking sexual violence seriously.
In her own experience, Halley says, that has meant that a disproportionate share of those accused, and those punished, are men of color and those who have less access to family resources and legal help."
For those interested in learning more about the "Dear Colleague" letter and the upcoming rule changes being promulgated by the Trump administration, FedSoc has an outstanding debate.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fedsoc-events/id207414471?i=1000483427437
Edit: Better link with video:
https://fedsoc.org/events/debate-we...hey-result-in-fairer-disciplinary-proceedings
Even in that debate, those strongly opposed to the new rules admitted that the Obama era rules were lacking and needed stronger protections for the accused.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fedsoc-events/id207414471?i=1000483427437
Edit: Better link with video:
https://fedsoc.org/events/debate-we...hey-result-in-fairer-disciplinary-proceedings
Even in that debate, those strongly opposed to the new rules admitted that the Obama era rules were lacking and needed stronger protections for the accused.
Seems like even under the existing rules this was wrong. According to state regulations and the student handbook, the accused is supposed to enter the proceeding with the presumption he or she didn’t commit the act in question. If a preponderance of evidence indicates it was more likely than not he did commit the act, the student conduct board can then apply sanctions. In this case, if it actually was as others have described, there is no way a reasonable person would or should conclude that a single email from a non student that was denied by the accused would constitute a preponderance of evidence. So if I were Dom, I think I would be inclined to sue the university and the student conduct board for failing to follow their own procedures and state regulations.
Of course there is also a possibility there is more to the story than we know.
The btch will probably never ever recant. And she will probably DENY that she sent those text to her friend that was raped, who then screen captured shared the text, PROVED Doms innocence.
AGAIN WHY WOULD THE GAL FAKE RHE TEXT??
SHE HAS NO MOTIVE TO FAKE THE TEXT.
And she probably doesnt have the ability to fake the text.
If this was Dom, then the text coukd be questioned, questionable.
But they were not screen captured, shared by Dom.
It was the girl who has no apparent motive to fake the text.
ALSO
the girl can just give the SCB her phone, along with HER TESTIMONY, to the SCB, so that the SCB can see the actual text on the phone to where the SCB can have EXPERTS determine whether the text are fake or not.
The SCB is not bound by the same rules of a COURT OF LAW. If they were the SCB would not have been able to EXPEL Dom using the HEARSAY evidence from the btch that was used.
The SCB only listened to, only used what the BTCH said(HEARSAY)
whats good for the goose us good for the gander.
Since HEARSAY was used to EXPEL Dom by the SCB, the SCB can, and should use HEARSAY reverse the HEARSAY expellation.
Dom should never have been expelled by HEARSAY, by the SCB, when there was NO ARREST, NO CHARGE, etc.
because of that the SCB OWES IT TO EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE to reverse that even if by using more hearsay.
And thats if its hearsay. It may not be 100% proveable FACT, etc, but it is more then HEARSAY.
ITS CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE that more then hearsay.
The text by the BTCH is not hearsay. Whether the BTCH actually confesses out loud in person to the SCB, etc, or whether the BTCH texts WSU SCB, etc, or whether the BTCH text her girlfriend who has been raped, that is from the SOURCE, THE BTCH. that is not HEARSAY.
And the girl screen captured that FROM THE SOURCE text to her, and SHARED IT.
thats not HEARSAY. THAT IS CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE.
A court might or might not consider, use that, but a SCB can, should use it, especially in this situation where the SCB just only used what the BTCH said, when, where no arrest, no charge, no conviction, etc.
Also it doesnt matter how late it is.
The SCB, WSU, needs to, should, owes, better, etc, FIX THIS NOW, APOLOGIZE, REINSTATE, ETC, PERIOD, NO ANDS, IFS, BUTS, ABOUT IT PERIOD.
DO IT SCB, WSU
If they dont there will be consequences. They will lose students. Tbey will lose fans. They will lose donors, donations.
They will be CRUCIFIED on public media, court of public opinion.
They will face HEAT, PRESSURE.
THEY WILL BE BOYCOTTED
WHATEVER IT WILL LEGALLY TAKE TO FORCE WSU, SCB TO COMPLY.
And if thats not enough, and if the SCB, WSU wont give what they OWE DOM, then WSU, SCB, CAN GO FCK OFF THEMSELVES.
THE SCB, WSU BOT GIVING WHAT THEY OWE TO DOM IS INEXCUSSABLE, UNACCEPTABLE, INTOLERABLE, ETC, ETC.
If they dont give what they owe Dom, they, WSU, SCB, SHULTZ, ETC, CAN GO FCK OFF THEMSELVES
