Gallaudet under fire after official placed on leave over ballot signature

Status
Not open for further replies.
When she signed the petition, she didn't put down her job position or the name of the university, did she? So, she signed the petition as a private citizen, not as a representative of Gallaudet.
 
Foxrac said:
Based on criminal charge? Could Gallaudet University goes to prison? :ugh:
Click to expand...

Yes, and the new school uniform will be bright orange jumpsuits. The Bison will be a caged furry behemoth too :(

:roll:

/sarcasm

p.s. look at the bright side, the cafeteria serves prison food anyway, so that will remain unchained ..er ...unchanged.
 
Reba said:
When she signed the petition, she didn't put down her job position or the name of the university, did she? So, she signed the petition as a private citizen, not as a representative of Gallaudet.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Foxrac said:
Based on criminal charge? Could Gallaudet University goes to prison? :ugh:
Click to expand...
To sue someone means a civil charge, not a criminal charge. Civil penalties usually include something given in money or property, not incarceration. Criminal penalties can include both financial payment and incarceration.

Now if criminal charges are made (which in this case, I doubt), yes, individuals can go to prison. But that would be a criminal charge made by the government, not a civil suit made by an individual.
 
Reba said:
To sue someone means a civil charge, not a criminal charge. Civil penalties usually include something given in money or property, not incarceration. Criminal penalties can include both financial payment and incarceration.

Now if criminal charges are made (which in this case, I doubt), yes, individuals can go to prison. But that would be a criminal charge made by the government, not a civil suit made by an individual.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will go that far either. (and the Attorney didn't either) but, it is possible. If I were on the board, I would be asking questions about the faculty member that brought this to light. Regardless, there has been an effort to defund Gally,this situation certainly gives the "defunders" some ammo.
 
Reba said:
To sue someone means a civil charge, not a criminal charge. Civil penalties usually include something given in money or property, not incarceration. Criminal penalties can include both financial payment and incarceration.

Now if criminal charges are made (which in this case, I doubt), yes, individuals can go to prison. But that would be a criminal charge made by the government, not a civil suit made by an individual.
Click to expand...

It will make perfectly sense if it was civil case.

If someone criminally charge the Gallaudet University for violate the DC law and who will goes to prison? Gallaudet president?
 
Foxrac said:
It will make perfectly sense if it was civil case.

If someone criminally charge the Gallaudet University for violate the DC law and who will goes to prison? Gallaudet president?
Click to expand...
I don't think there will be any criminal charges at Gallaudet.

There are precedents of other college administrators facing criminal charges, such as in the sexual abuse of children scandals, or wrongful deaths of students. In those cases, individuals, such as college presidents, were named as defendants in criminal cases.
 
TXgolfer said:
Actually it is neither fact nor hearsay. It is the OPINION of someone who practices election law.
Click to expand...

someone who is not involved in such matter.... hence a hearsay.
 
Reba said:
I don't think there will be any criminal charges at Gallaudet.

There are precedents of other college administrators facing criminal charges, such as in the sexual abuse of children scandals, or wrongful deaths of students. In those cases, individuals, such as college presidents, were named as defendants in criminal cases.
Click to expand...

right.

an individual or individuals can be or would be named as defendants if they were made aware after the fact. not taking any action upon discovery of illegal activity is subjected to criminal prosecution and/or civil liability.

precisely why Gally President took action after a formal complaint was filed. if it had no merit, then whoever filed a complaint may or may not face, most likely, a civil lawsuit for defamation or whatnot.
 
Jiro said:
someone who is not involved in such matter.... hence a hearsay.
Click to expand...

That is not what "hearsay" means. An attorney would not need to be "involved in such matter" to express a legal opinion. :lol:
 
Reba said:
I don't think there will be any criminal charges at Gallaudet.

There are precedents of other college administrators facing criminal charges, such as in the sexual abuse of children scandals, or wrongful deaths of students. In those cases, individuals, such as college presidents, were named as defendants in criminal cases.
Click to expand...

Oh I see, that's interesting.

I think that situation will resolved or settled eventually, or could be today.

Any update about Gallaudet University?
 
Jiro said:
ah good! I'm glad you understood.

btw - Hearsay | Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Exactly! That is why this is not hearsay as you described. It is an attorney expressing an opinion on a hypothetical set of circumstances. Perhaps you missed the "unless."

It appears you have difficulty understanding hypotheticals and qualifiers. This has been an issue in this thread and in others as well so let me explain for you. For example, "if" presents a stipulation thus creating a hypothetical scenario. A statement beginning with "if she is fired", in no way means that "she has been fired" nor a belief that she will be fired. The words establishing the hypothetical and are not intended to be factual.....they are unknown. Similarly "unless" adds a stipulation to a statement. There was no rumor or gossip in the attorney's statement.....simply a legal opinion based on a hypothetical situation. Hope that helps.
 
TXgolfer said:
Exactly! That is why this is not hearsay as you described. It is an attorney expressing an opinion on a hypothetical set of circumstances. Perhaps you missed the "unless."

It appears you have difficulty understanding hypotheticals and qualifiers. This has been an issue in this thread and in others as well so let me explain for you. For example, "if" presents a stipulation thus creating a hypothetical scenario. A statement beginning with "if she is fired", in no way means that "she has been fired" nor a belief that she will be fired. The words establishing the hypothetical and are not intended to be factual.....they are unknown. Similarly "unless" adds a stipulation to a statement. There was no rumor or gossip in the attorney's statement.....simply a legal opinion based on a hypothetical situation. Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

again.... a hearsay. no difficulty in understanding at all on my part.

you are creating an opinion based on political discrimination when in fact there isn't any. you are reinforcing yours and steinhauer's opinion with that attorney's opinion when in fact attorney, steinhauer, and you are not directly involved in investigation.

again.... all hearsay. best to sit and wait for tomorrow as McCaskill will explain at press conference. an election attorney? really? lol! way off his league.
 
Jiro said:
again.... a hearsay. no difficulty in understanding at all on my part.

you are creating an opinion based on political discrimination when in fact there isn't any. you are reinforcing yours and steinhauer's opinion with that attorney's opinion when in fact attorney, steinhauer, and you are not directly involved in investigation.

again.... all hearsay. best to sit and wait for tomorrow as McCaskill will explain at press conference. an election attorney? really? lol! way off his league.
Click to expand...

The bold....You are incorrect. The opinion is based on a hypothetical....not currently known facts.

You are still not understanding. My statement as well the attorney's is based on a hypothetical...not rumor. That is not hearsay.

Also, election law is VERY applicable in this hypothetical. If ( note the if) McCaskill's only "wrongdoing" is to have participated in the political process (signing a petition for ballot initiative) and she has been placed on leave due to a compliant based on that participation, it is very likely a violation of election law. Whether or not such a case would end up being prosecuted is another matter.
 
Jiro said:
again.... a hearsay. no difficulty in understanding at all on my part.

you are creating an opinion based on political discrimination when in fact there isn't any. you are reinforcing yours and steinhauer's opinion with that attorney's opinion when in fact attorney, steinhauer, and you are not directly involved in investigation.

again.... all hearsay. best to sit and wait for tomorrow as McCaskill will explain at press conference. an election attorney? really? lol! way off his league.
Click to expand...

In this "investigation" Gallaudet administrators are attempting to hunt down "victims" of Dr. McCaskill's private action of signing a petition in her church.

Can students now claim to be embarrassed, or intimidated, by a professor that fails them? What about a professor that threatens to fail a student the first day of class?
 
Foxrac said:
There is only recent update - Gallaudet official not 'anti-gay,' lawyer says - baltimoresun.com

If people don't have problem with gay and lesbian people, but oppose to gay marriage, so it is indeed anti-gay, based on HRC, that's not my opinion but HRC is.

Don't like to labeled - get a deal or ignore.
Click to expand...

The petition called for the issue to be put to a ballot and let citizens decide. As I have pointed out before, there are gays who are against gay marriage, so the opinion of the HRC carries very little weight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top