Sorry I never anticipated this much when I started by now have gone this far I am going to finish so thanks and appreciate the patience and willingness to listen. Continuing from last slide & have retweeted that chain below.
Honor Board never saw a CV or approved the witness as expert so impossible to allow a “substitute” expert. Bringing up again how prejudicial allowing the deceased written testimony is to the student when not allowed to cross examine. In addition, the student explained an expert
was not needed to explain or discuss how software was supposed to work because everyone was familiar and stipulated to that fact. The
proposed “substitute” expert was not expericienced in programming, coding, problems with software, or changes made since problem happened. The
proposed “substitute” expert was not expericienced in programming, coding, problems with software, or changes made since problem happened. The
Honor Board then told the student and his attorney to go thru the Associate Dean Summary of Findings and provide them with a draft of what items we stipulate to because felt this process was taking forever. Student & attorney continue to point out they have not received a witness
list, if any additional evidence is to be introduced by Associate Dean, or what anyones testimony will be about with the Honor Board designated due date already passed. Now being asked to reduce witnesses, exhibits, honor Board not deciding on expert designation, if deceased
written testimony to be admitted and blindly stipulate to any of the
Deans Summary of Factual Findings was not fundamentally fair. The student & his attorney spend the next 1 1/2 hours completing what had been asked. Then all parties review Exhibit list and the Associate Dean
Deans Summary of Factual Findings was not fundamentally fair. The student & his attorney spend the next 1 1/2 hours completing what had been asked. Then all parties review Exhibit list and the Associate Dean
is asked for objections to any Exhibit student plans to keep. The Honor Board still has not come to decision on all objections surrounding evidence and experts, the Associate Dean shares with everyone he is only calling three witnesses and who they are. Additionally, the “sub”
expert will not testify to anything outside of the “four corners” of deceased report, no new evidence will be offered or provided, and no new theories introduced. Student objects to the written testimony of @ExamSoft employee included in the Deans Summary of Factual Findings
also designated as “expert”
testimony not to be admitted or allowed if the student was not going to be able to question or cross examine. Student stated the testimony was actually false and the Associate Dean used this information either not understanding it or knowingly with
testimony not to be admitted or allowed if the student was not going to be able to question or cross examine. Student stated the testimony was actually false and the Associate Dean used this information either not understanding it or knowingly with
malice to tack on additional charges of lying, manipulation of data, and access to materials prohibited during exam (computer files and/or internet) leading to his recommendation for expulsion. Honor Board took all under advisement and was going to discuss in Executive Session.
Since the student brought an attorney on in July his attorney had been asking to have a conference of all the experts to see if they could share info to determine the actual issue. Additionally, he had requested ADR to solve the problem. All requests were denied by the Associate
Dean. After the 2nd Hearing night the AD agrees and a retired Federal Court Job on faculty of law school is used. During mediation the AD shares with Judge he has “smoking gun” evidence proving students guilt. He plays a video for the Judge and the Judge asks if he has provided
the student a copy. The AD says no and he is not going to because he thinks the student is a liar, piece of shit, and no matter what result I’d hearing he will make sure the Student never becomes a member of bar. Previously the Dean has made reference to students age and has
called the student names to his attorney last calling the student a pugilist. The Dean has been clear from the outset about his feelings regarding students with hidden disabilities. Besides denying the student reasonable accommodations he previously had denied a proposal from SBA
for students being able to take additional absence for their Mental Health without penalty if needed. The Associate Dean rejected the plan because felt would lower the school Bar Passage rate and any students really needing mental health days should not be in law school. The
accused student had been publicly critical of that statement saying it came from the Associate Dean ignorance about Mental Illness. At this point any reasonable person can see this has moved from a search truth or justice into a headhunting expedition by the AD with pure distain
Or hate for student. Walking out of mediation in a tantrum to come back 1 1/2 hours later the student was offered a lesser charge of suspension for one semester instead of expulsion if admits to all charges. The student refuses saying “I have not lied or cheated to anyone about
anything during this entire process, AND I certainly am not going to start lying now to recieve a lesser charge for something I did not do to begin with.” After this rejection & consultation with Judge the Associate Dean decides to show the students attorney the “smoking gun”
Evidence under an “attorneys eyes only” agreement whereby the students attorney is not allowed to discuss, disclose, talk, share or tell the student anything about it. However, the only way he will agree to show it is if the student is willing to accept all the charges, expulsion
& sign off he will not sue the school IF after his attorneys sees the evidence feels the student is lying & cheated. The Student agrees stating there is absolutely no way he can show any evidence that cheated because it is not true. Associates Dean justification for not showing
evidence to student is it will be rebuttal evidence. At hearing all AD witnesses allowed to testify and written evidence allowed with no opportunity to cross. Students privacy rights under FERPA and Iowa Privacy Act violated with his disabilities, accommodations, & disability
related absences disclosed and discussed with his classmates. Also allowed over objections to introduce information never previously provided as exhibits to the student. Another privacy violation the AD provided the students grades for all of his course work trying to state the
cheated out of necessity and fear of probation if he failed exam. Student requested to ask additional questions of witnesses after his attorney. After the Honor Board conferred, referenced the Code of Conduct, and voted it was determined students right and allowed. However, after
the first witness & break the Chair stated in the interest of time only the student or his attorney may ask a question. During his case-in-chief the Associate Dean offers an Exhibit the student had never seen or heard before. Since student was going to ask questions on cross for
this witness he objects stating never been provided. The Associate Dean states it just came up last week and he allowed the students attorney to view the evidence. Bound by the mediation confidentially agreement and attorney eyes only the student’s attorney also objects unable to
discuss all the details makes an argument and 3rd time in the hearing the Dean offers evidence never shown to the accused student. The Associate Dean never had a plan to use this as rebuttal evidence that was just his excuse to explain his unethical decision to a retired Federal
Judge. And regarding the Associate Dean comments about the expert witness testimony that was also false. Three of the four charges against the student required that he never launched the testing software and he indicated. One of the early questions asked by the Associate Dean of
his own “ExamSoft Expert” was to asked in his opinion what happened. The “substitute” expert who was going to stay within the “4 Corners” was not on the same page because for the 3rd time in this process espouses a new theory as to what happened. His testimony is chalked full of
statements and answers he was not an expert about the software other than how it was supposed to run. Interestingly when directly asked by the Associate Dean did his answer mean the software was not launched? The expert stated, “No, I would not say that.” Okay that means three of
charges are not accurate. The witness also pointed out many of the same things the accused student had previously stated about the deceased report including numerous errors and assumptions that entirely inaccurate. This is what the Associate Dean used to determine the Student’s
guilt originally which is what the student had stated on numerous occasion and in his briefs. Since the Associate Dean statement regarding the witness testimony was not accurate, the student was not provided any summary or conclusions about the tesitmony, and the Dean was not
truthful about no new evidence would be introduced, and the Dean purposely hid and did not share relevant evidence equating to trial by ambush the student listened to what he now was accused of doing for the first time before he was to cross examine the witness. After the Video
“Smoking Gun” evidence allowed to be admitted and shown the student now realizes what attempting to prove. The video was from four days before the Hearing the expert tested what Knudsen and expert expert reports he had submitted several months previous stated felt had happened.
The student asked the witness when the Associate Dean contacted him and he got involved with the hearing. Just days after the other University employee committed suicide. Another example of the Associate Dean above board and ethical conduct waiting six weeks to disclose this
substitute expert just three days before the start of the hearing even though the students counsel inquired on several occasions. The student was denied any type of discovery when inquired about copy of the exam (BTW C+ Grade Earned) wireless logs, ExamSoft reports and as
previously stated blank copies of an exam to have his experts show the problem with the software. The Student stated it appeared that was filmed 4 days before the Hearing using version 2.6 of @ExamSoft which was concurred. When the expert was asked what version the student used
He did not know. The student shared it was version 1.9 and their had been six separate updates since then and then when asked what changes had been made to the software in those updates which the witness had no idea. The student shared with the Associate Dean & ExamSoft
seven days after he was accused of cheating what had most likely happened. The student had met with a technical expert that day walking thru what happened and was told it was most likely a software incompability with one or both of security software on his computer. The reason
the student attorney did not feel he was lying or cheated after watching fhe video was because after being hired the student explained the @ExamSoft had already made some changes in an update from what he discovered that no longer allowed one of the security programs to work.
The student had extensive IT experience & knowledge previously being responsible & in charge of IT departments, owned his own companies with extensive IT systems over multiple locations & even had sold IT equipment to large corporate clients. Student stated had zero knowledge of
any type of programming, coding or hacking stating his 21 year old son handles that around the house as he understands & much smarter about it than he was. What the Associate Dean was not aware of is after the AD stated in the Student Interview he had undeniable
proof from ExamSoft server side logs that show the student never launched the exam. When the AD asked the student to explain this the student said it made no sense whatsoever because he did launch the exam and has no way to explain what happened other than what he had. Student
was not allowed to see the evidence when requested. When the Summary of Findings came out the Dean states this in the document but provides no exhibit or evidence of this. The student was very frustrated when his inquiry was not even being responded to about this evidence. Not
able to find an actual and legitimate @ExamSoft Expert, the company not willing to talk directly with the student, the Associate Dean not following up on any injury requested, the student signed up for certification training with ExamSoft to became an expert. Through this the
was provided all the training materials, podcasts, videos, information, testing and ability to ask questions of the company. Thru this the student learned what the Dean was staying was again inaccurate and the reason these were not produced is because they do not exist and his
report was obviously false on purpose. When the “Substitute Expert” was asked about the one and only thing that could prove the student had launched the exam called a “ping and release” report he was not familiar with it and no concept it existed. Throughout his testimony said
Many things incorrectly or offered his opinion based on speculation not based in any fact. The Dean rested with no one ever stating the student never launched the exam required by three of the charges and presented ZERO evidence or proof of the last charge. The student’s attorney
was ready to rest stating the Associate Dean has proven NOTHING much less came anywhere near the “clear & convincing” standard required. The student felt uneasy about resting without the members of the Honor Board being able to ask him any questions they wanted. The student also
felt important to bring their expert witnesses to quash anything that was said. Numerous discussions back & forth regarding burden of proof & not being required to prove his innocence the day of the hearing he agreed that only he would testify. Having already being put in a
position forcing him to spend over $20K defending these false accusations he was happy not to pay several more thousand for testimony. The student testified, was cross examined, and answered any questions the board had for him never once wavering from his answers from the day he
accused five months previous. Closings and two days later the students attorney calls in disbelief that somehow in a split decision the majority found guilty and all four charges so you are to be expelled. What? How is that even possible...his own expert did not even agree that
Or could state I never launched the software during the hearing when asked. What did they base their decision own? What Evidence? WELL THAT IS WHAT IS ODD THEY DID SAY OR PROVIDE ANY INSIGHT INTO THE DECISION. Nothing? NO FINDING OF FACT OR CONCLUSION. So what the hell is the
faculty supposed to review on appeal? AFTER WHAT I JUST SAW AND THAT DECISION I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING..YOU MOST CERTAINLY GETTING RAILROADED. Devasted at the decision the student appeals over the weekend to the entire law school faculty. After the Administration realizes there is a
problem of how the faculty was supposed to review under a clearly erroneous standard outlined in the Student Code of Conduct. The code did not permit the faculty to remit back to Honor Board for furtherer explanation only allowing to sustain or vacate the decision. Without the
Entire appeal process to appear more of a SHAM than already was the Dean & Associate Dean had a meeting later that week and Su Sponte changed the Law School Student Code of Conduct now allowing the Associate Dean to provide a Brief as well and both student and Associate Dean
Now provide provide oral arguments. Additionally since the hearings were audio recorded the school was now going to have the recordings transcribed for Professor s to review. When the student inquired why the appeal proceedings outlined in LSCSC were being changed the Dean said
he felt the new procedure would be fairer to me as student. The student stated he would prefer the previous written procedures, he had no concept of how the Dean could expect the student to believe for one second this was done for his benefit. Dean told his prerogative if did not
To provide the faculty with an oral presentation, but the Associate Dean would still be providing one & this is the way the appeals hearing would be handled. The Dean provided the student and his attorney a high level outline of what evidence had been provided to the Faculty for
Review and the student request access to the drive was denied. In the following days the student would learn he or his attorney were not allowed to listen or be in the room during the Associate Dean oral argument and the appeal hearing was not going to be audio recorded. The
Requested that the appeal hearing be recorded and was denied. On the day of the hearing the student became aware that not all the evidence or entire full and accurate record had been provided for review. The Dean also stated he was not going to have the faculty sign anything they
@threadreaderapp please unroll
