Monthly Archives: May 2020

Red Flags Over Florida

It’s old news now, but on December 6, 2019, a Saudi airman in the United States for combat training opened fire on the U.S. personnel at the base where he was training, killing three and wounding several others.

Now, perhaps it’s just me, but I really wonder about our continued practice of bringing Saudi citizens to the U.S. for flight training, since there have been more than a few hiccups as a result.  Perhaps we should be grateful that this incident had only limited damage, since the pilot in question carried out his attack with a pistol rather than waiting until he was ensconced in the cockpit of an f-15, which might have been a bit more dangerous.  The practicality of training jihadis to pilot fighter jets aside, there are some interesting questions that arise from this shooting yet to be addressed.

U.S. “intelligence” in the F.B.I. was able to take enough time off from trying to overthrow the current president to determine that the pilot in question had been committed to Al Qaeda for at least five years.  Considering Al Qaeda pilots’ history with jet aircraft in U.S. airspace, and the prevalence of such individuals to be Saudi citizens, one would think that the feebs would be more diligent about checking these things out before shootings, but I suppose General Flynn presents a graver danger to U.S. security, and there are only so many wiretaps to go around.

Nevertheless, it’s also come out that the airman in question had already expressed his support for Al Qaeda to numerous of his fellows, who have been questioned but apparently not detained.  Once again, we must assume that with our limited feeb assault teams being unavoidably preoccupied with heading off the Roger Stone apocalypse there are simply not enough resources to do anything about this, still….

In 2018, Florida passed a “red flag” law, which allows courts and law enforcement to suspend citizens’ Constitutional rights in the absence of a criminal conviction.  Under this law an “ex parte” hearing with a sworn statement from a law enforcement officer (paging Peter Strozk, paging Lisa page) is sufficient for a judge to issue an order allowing a search and seizure operation of a citizen’s home.  At a later date, after his property has been confiscated, the citizen in question may appeal, although he must provide his own attorney if he wishes representation.  In Florida the police serve about five such orders per day, or about 1825 per year.

So, in Florida, if your ex wife thinks you’re a bit of a nutter (or at least will say so to the cops) you can expect to have your legally owned firearms seized.  If, on the other hand, you are a Saudi Al Qaeda operative training to use top of the line combat jets, no one will do a thing.  One does wonder at such.  And, just as an aside, the airbase in question was also a “gun free zone.”


Filed under Uncategorized

The Pence Principle is No Prophylactic Part II

In our previous post we discussed the bizarre case of Nebraska’s football coach, and how a woman you have never met can sue you sixteen years after the fact for an alleged rape which she does not even allege that you committed, or for that matter were even aware of, because you had previously been an employee of the university where she was a student when she alleges the rape occurred.  I move that in the future this will be known as the “Kevin Bacon Tort” since it brings a cause of action solely on the basis of being within six degrees of separation from the plaintiff.

Absurd as the Bacon Tort is, it is not even close to being the worst example of why men should not rely on the Pence Principle to protect them from accusations of sexual misconduct.  There are two young men whose cases we will examine next, and their cases are far more disturbing than that of Coach Riley.

First, consider Grant Neal, formerly of Colorado State University, a handsome and popular athlete attending school on football and wrestling scholarships.  Neal entered into a relationship with one of the teams athletic trainers, a young woman known only as “Jane Doe.”  The relationship became sexual, and continued for some time.  At one point Ms. Doe’s friend noticed that she had a hickey, and enquired as to its origin.  Upon learning that Doe was in a relationship with Grant, the unnamed friend (referred to hereafter as Karen) decided that the hickey was proof of sexual assault.  Karen dutifully reported this assumed assault to the school’s Title IX office, aka federally empowered man hating lesbian sex cops, for investigation.

Upon questioning, Doe repeatedly told her interrogators that the sexual contact between herself and Neal was entirely, completely, unabashedly consentual, and perhaps even hinted that it was enjoyable.  Nevertheless, the school’s grand inquisitor, one Jennifer Deluna, decided that Neal was a sexual predator, which resulted in the loss of his scholarships and removal from campus.  Not only did Neal lose his place at Colorado State, but he soon found no other school was willing to allow him to proffer him a scholarship or even allow him to enroll.

As an interesting side note, Deluna is Colorado State’s director of Inclusivity and Diversity or some such nonsense.  Yet in removing Neal from campus she got rid of a black man, apparently for the crime of having had sex with a white woman.  And to think I once believed Orwell was satire.

Mr. Neal eventually sued, and Colorado State eventually settled, although it took two years and cost Neal much of his most valuable window as an athlete.  The racist Mizz Deluna has apparently suffered no ill effects to her own career, despite costing her employer what must have been a rather large sum of money for her misconduct.  Nice work if you can get it.

A similar, and possibly worse case, is that of former USC football kicker Matt Boermeester.  Boermeester first gained fame when he booted a 46 yard game winning field goal to cap a comeback victory over Penn State in the Rose Bowl.  As befits a winner on such a stage he also had what appeared to be an extraordinarily happy relationship with one Zoe Katz, who was herself an accomplished athlete as a member of the USC tennis team.  Photos of the two online show an unusually attractive and apparently mutually adoring couple.  Unfortunately for the two young athletes, one of their neighbors allegedly did not see it that way.

One of Katz’s neighbors, who remains unnamed, believed he saw Boermeester “push” Katz.  The neighbor in question reported this to his roommate.  The unnamed roommate then approached a USC football coach with the allegation.  The football coach then forwarded the anonymous third hand complaint to the Title IX office, where, predictably enough, the federally empowered man hating lesbian sex police promptly suspended Boermeester from the team and the campus.

Both Boermeester and Katz denied that there had been any altercation.  Both suggested that the neighbor in question might have seen them engaged in “horseplay” as both were high level athletes.  Katz repeatedly, loudly, and to anyone who would listen insisted that Boermeester had never abused her in any shape, form or fashion.  Nevertheless the university moved ahead with his expulsion.  Boermeester and Katz may have thought this was the worst, but then the threats began.

Katz found herself on the receiving end of multiple threats as the case unfolded.  As it turned out, the threats were not from Boermeester, nor from any of his friends or teammates.  Rather, the threats came directly from the Title IX office.  When the grand inquisitors/predatory lesbians learned that Katz was publicly defending Boermeester they began threatening her with various unspecified “actions”, perhaps even including loss of her own scholarship and expulsion, if she did not cease and desist “discussing an ongoing case.”  The office of lesbian predation went so far as to forbid Katz from speaking to her own friends since she insisted on Boermeester’s innocence.

Unlike Neal, who at least eventually won a court case, Boermeester had the ill fortune to be attending school in California, whose courts have been far more reluctant to offer justice in such cases.  Katz eventually was abused, although not be Boermeester, but by the Title IX office which threatened her to protect her (intentional infliction of emotional distress, which in a sane country actually is a tort under the law).

Much has been made lately of the current Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos, working to roll back these types of abuses, which is all well and good, but if, however, Creepy Uncle Joe wins the November election (pray hard for deliverance) then you can rest assured the kangaroo courts will be back with a vengeance no second round of Xi TB could hope to match.

All of which begs the question…. How could either of these young men have protected themselves?


Filed under Uncategorized

The Pence Principle is no Prophylactic Part I

Much has been made of the “Pence Principle”, a strategy based on the tactical behavior of Vice President Pence vis a vis members of the opposite sex.  Namely he refuses to ever meet or be alone with any woman other than his wife.  While Pence has not said so explicitly, many men have assumed Pence does this to protect himself from allegations of misconduct.  My own thoughts on this are somewhat divergent; I believe Pence is a genuinely religious man who is working to prevent placing himself in the way of temptation, and if this protects him from spurious allegations so much the better.

While Pence’s penchant for protecting his honor and marriage are laudable, we should be cautious in recommending this behavior as a prophylactic against being accused, subjected to legal actions, disemployed, having your name dragged through the mud, and all the other assorted horrors that come with being named as a man guilty of sexual misconduct.  The first case I would like to examine is that of Nebraska football coach Mike Riley.

Riley’s name appeared in the national news in 2015 when he was named as a defendant by a woman suing over an alleged rape.  If we examine the details of this suit, we find that there is no amount of principled action which could have protected Riley from this attack.

First of all, the accuser never claimed that Riley assaulted her, or took part in assaulting her, or knew about someone assaulting her, or had any relation to her alleged assailant.  Instead, she accused Riley of creating a campus culture which allowed her alleged assailant to rape her.  I’m going to break this down piece by piece, it’s all out there on the web for anyone who cared to look it up.

  1.  The woman claims her attack took place in 1999.  There is no police record or report of any such event, and the allegation 16 years after the fact was the first Riley could have heard of it.
  2. Riley was not employed by Oregon State University, the school the woman was attending, at the time of her alleged attack.  He had left the school after the previous football season and was coaching in the NFL at the time of the alleged attack.
  3.  According to the alleged victim, the alleged assault did not take place on campus.  Her report was that it took place in an off campus apartment complex not under the control of the school.
  4.  According to the alleged victim, her alleged assailant was not a student at Oregon State; rather he was the cousin of a student.
  5.  The alleged victim admits she had been drinking; she claims, with no evidence, that her drink was spiked.
  6.  The alleged victim was a legal adult, but not of legal drinking age, at the time of her alleged assault.

Now at this point one begins to wonder what the school could have done, or even should have done, according to the complaint at hand.  Can the school refuse to allow students who are legal adults to leave campus?  Can the school refuse to allow students who are legal adults to party with non-students?  The list of questions goes on and on.  Short of Sharia law, or perhaps implementing the social policies of The Handmaid’s Tale, there appears to be little the school could have done to prevent the alleged assault.

Now, if Riley was no longer even employed at the school, why was he named in the complaint?  Well, first of all he has deep pockets.  As an NFL and top tier division I football coach of many years it’s safe to assume Riley is a multi millionaire several times over, and if you’re going to sue, you may as well sue the rich guy as the poor guy.

The specific legal theory the plaintiff pursued, however, is that Riley created a “rape culture” at Oregon State University.  How, one wonders, could Riley have done such a thing?  He didn’t rape anyone, he doesn’t condone rape, he’s never silenced a victim…. so what was his crime?

In 1998 a separate woman, Brenda Tracey, alleged she was gang raped by four men, including two players on Riley’s team.  The players were arrested, and Riley suspended them from the team.  The police investigated, and the prosecutor found insufficient evidence to charge anyone with anything, upon which all charges were dropped.  Learning that all charges against his players had been dropped, Riley re-instated his players after having given them a good tongue lashing for irresponsible behavior.

The woman who sued Riley in 2015 did so under the theory that since he had given his players due process, and since he re-instated them to the football team after the D.A. exonerated them, he had established a de facto rape society on that campus.

Which brings us to where we are today… Even if a man is exonerated, unless y0u act as a woman’s white knight and destroy the man she accused, then you are equally culpable and must be punished in a court of law.  What protection is the Pence Principle to this?


Filed under Uncategorized