TitleIX is ripe for reform

Tourism's only the world's #1 industry, at least the last time I saw such rankings. Hotel services are a fine niche in which to be. There are hazards, but being vigilant helps.

Wow! I was unaware of that. May Stanford's loss (Coach Leeth) be to Tarleton State's benefit. I don't see that information on this Stanford wrestling page, so you have really informed me.

There are also the independents who lean Left, such as RFK Jr. https://www.kennedy24.com/

I wonder what research topics are applicable to the hotel industry. I guess analyzing which costs are the most productive (i.e. profit maximizing), which markets are the most worth attending (depending upon one's preferences), and what closing, opening & checkout times are the most popular and profitable. Mortgage rate research also comes to mind. And if there's a restaurant included, well that's another niche with its own nuances (to put it lightly). What am I missing (besides maybe at least one screw upstairs)? Liability avoidance (or at least reduction) is also a likely field of interest. Some maids have reported (alleged) transgressions by occupants and they sue sue sue...

He also cooperated with the investigators and authorities. As a result, he'll get to live his older life outside of an institution. I vaguely recall that his sentence was for 2 decades or so. It could have been much worse. As for another's comment about his drinking habits... I don't know how he could have played for a top-ranked D1 lacrosse program (U.Va.) like that. I wasn't aware of such out-of-control daily drinking. Maybe during weekends. And maybe exaggerated to sound "cool". Either way, I wish him well with his ongoing rehabilitation. I gather that the jury was more interested in simply isolating him from others to whom he was a potential danger.

The U.S. Supreme Court (i.e. the "SCOTUS") is making preparations to rule before July of 2024 on whether or not folks must defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes, as long as the interpretations are "reasonable". https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4254920-supreme-court-adds-second-case-in-battle-over-chevron-doctrine/ I predict that the "Chevron deference" doctrine will finally be withdrawn by the high court in 2024 and it's an uplifting forecast. If this happens, it will give folks the chance to litigate Title IX and other statute-based interpretation matters in courts throughout the land, without having to defer to know-it-all bureaucrats in the Washington D.C. beltway. This pending breakthrough has the potential to enable us to get more college wrestling teams launched, ultimately enabling more women to wrestle, too, but without killing men's wrestling if women won't wrestle in sufficient quantities and / or if football has a healthy roster. Stay tuned, folks! Better times appear to be approaching for wrestling for members of both genders.

That is a funny quote. I'd not seen that before. Thanks for it, Ban. BTW, Groucho Marx reportedly said time flies like an arrow but fruit flies like a banana. On that note, good night to all.

The judge was prudently responsive to local interests who helped him get his job, and to those who pay his taxes. He was also responsive to the vote for the elected officials who handle his re-appointment and any grievances against him. Jordan Holm was an out-of-towner (and for that matter, an out-of-stater) and he might have been "hometowned". Meanwhile I did not slut shame Yeardley Love. It's common knowledge that the abovementioned discussion transpired. And as for George Huguely, surely there's a better use for him in society than what he justifiably got...a lengthy sentence. So I wish I could have met with him the day of the deed, hours beforehand, and helped him avoid doing what he did. Society needs folks with his energy & intellect. He's wasted where he is. But at least he is where the jury decided he needs to be to protect still others. I saw a jury interview afterwards, who mentioned having seen a confidential photo of Yeardley's black eye which was completely swollen shut by George Huguely. Tragic all around.

Regarding the importance of being leaders when fulfilling jury duty, here's the 12 Angry Men trailer:

I've seen time and time again how forensics labs have been found to be flawed, and sometimes even corrupt. I wonder if that could have played a role in the peculiarly isolated sample's existence on her inner thigh, but not on her private parts. Here's one of many examples of transgressions in forensics labs that have actually been discovered over the years: https://sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/why-did-annie-dookhan-lie/ Regarding Jordan Holm's case, could someone in the lab have behaved recklessly but not intentionally? Or could someone (if not a lab technician then maybe a police investigator) have sought notoriety and a promotion (and pay raise) by "discovering" the (planted) sample that put Jordan behind bars for 2,500+ days (while making him a sex offender and public enemy online throughout eternity)? We must remain ever-vigilant or any one of us could someday lose freedom while the rest of the wrestling community jeers, sneers and points fingers at the unlucky member(s) among us. Juries aren't always sufficiently awake or inspired. They don't wanna be there, by and large. We should all consider becoming jury forepersons, if we're picked to be on a jury, while subsequently refusing to allow the innocent to suffer. The movie 12 Angry Men comes to mind. The defendant didn't stand a chance...but then one jury member asked the others to please shed their prejudices for a few minutes and talk about the facts. The other jury members resented this and mocked the guy. He persisted courageously though. Perhaps he was a former wrestler. Wrestlers have been known for doing the right thing amidst adversity. Like the wrestler in Colorado who helped stop the (I believe it was the) Columbine H.S. shooting massacre. If anyone knows Jordan Holm, please invite him to participate in this thread if he likes. Please let him know that regardless of guilt or innocence, he has paid his (supposed but unwarranted or actually justified) debt to society and is eagerly welcomed back to the wrestling community. Every day one of ours could learn from what we learn from this thread... Folks potentially destined for incarceration could instead become adult heroes, like we hope more wrestlers will be.

Touché. But the thread's about A.J. Ferrari's alleged sexual assault. The sub-topic's relevant for this thread. A.J. deserves to go through life with folks' being open-minded about the allegations that remain against him online. Meanwhile others here deserve to go through life without unintended consequences for behavior that they had no idea would be legally problematic. Again, in theory (and depending upon the state) one can go to jail even for taking liberties with a drowsy spouse. It seems that Iowa's relevant statute says so. And California has the somewhat new "yes means yes" statute nowadays. And as we have seen with Jordan Holm, wrestlers of high caliber beyond A.J. Ferrari can run into major problems even when they deny wrongdoing. And minute details about how one handled the traumatic accusation process can be magnified and weaponized against one even when the details were innocently involved. May Jordan Holm's future be as bright as circumstances allow... Society can't afford to make perpetual underachievers even out of released convicted people. Plus... what if he truly is innocent?

I know nothing about him and I had never heard of him until you mentioned him. I see he's had at least 10 complaints filed against him, though, even as he's young. In the absence of being famous and / or wealthy, it's not easy understanding why so many women would line up to falsely accuse him. Neither notoriety nor a money stream would result, after all. So I'm suspicious of the guy, without knowing more. But then again, it's easy for folks to find one another due to cyberspace. I wish I had time this afternoon to read up on him as your post warrants a thoughtful reply. As for Holm, I've not looked at the 2005ish appellate denial since last night. I can say, though, that his deciding abruptly to get a lawyer and to exercise his Miranda rights to remain silent after initially saying he would talk with the investigator does not seem suspicious. Being inside a police station and hearing a few jail door locks slam shut (among other factors) can be eye-opening and mind-awakening. The cold rudeness that he likely endured was not what he was accustomed to in the university setting (where things are more supportive). A few years later we saw what happened to George Huguely who went ahead and opened up to the police without a lawyer after a (most regrettable) murderous beat-up of his ex-girlfriend Yeardley Love. In the past I've dreamed of getting to travel back through time to get to tell George to resist the temptation to get revenge on her despite how she'd just slept with one of his rivals. I can't travel back through time though. But I can alert folks here to the need to exercise an abundance of caution, even with their spouses. If just one person avoids jail, and one Yeardley Love's life is spared the misery of a violation, I've done a good deed in life. To me that's what counts: helping the world get better than it would otherwise be, or at least failing in that endeavor but having tried. As for witnesses supporting the purported victim vs. Holm though, again I've not read the court opinion since last night but from what I recall, they didn't testify about an alleged sexual assault. They testified about matters leading up to, and following Holm's life-altering entry into that bedroom. Meanwhile one witness testified about the purported victim's character and reputation (which isn't easy to get to do in a rape trial). (S)he said the purported victim's nickname included a word such as "scheming" (I seem to recall). As for the DNA... OK, I'm gonna reopen that file now to see what his alibi was for that (even as I'm juggling other tasks today). Here's a significant excerpt from the opinion: At trial, Dr. Robert Benjamin testified for Holm as an expert witness in the field of forensic DNA. He testified that he would expect to find Holm's DNA in the swab of Lindsay's vagina if Holm had performed oral sex on her. Dr. Benjamin opined that the small amount of Holm's DNA from the swab of Lindsay's thigh was likely the result of incidental transfer from Lindsay's hand, after touching Holm's head, to her thigh. Dr. Benjamin further testified that vaginal fluid is quite viscous and would likely be visible on Holm's face, even if dry. Because Lindsay was at the end of her menstrual cycle at the time of the incident, Dr. Benjamin felt it would have been even more apparent. No witness testified to seeing anything on Holm's face following the alleged attack. OK, so Jordan didn't initially testify to having been touched by her, but later on (at trial, I think I saw) he did testify as such. Maybe it wasn't relevant for him to focus on that matter initially, so he refrained. Or maybe he tried to protect himself early on by denying entering that room. It's one thing to perjure one's self, or simply to let the trauma of the ordeal give one some memory blocks. It's another to commit an actual sexual assault. If I remember correctly from my reading last night, the court's opinion's basically saying that the trial judge's factual conclusions weren't unreasonable, but not that they're the only way of viewing the reported facts of the case. I.e. the burden's on the defendant (i.e. Jordan Holm) to show the judge was wrong, not merely that an alternative way of viewing the facts existed. That's a tough burden even for an innocent person to satisfy. Now then.. as for the DNA sample of him on her inner thigh... if she touched him when awakening to this unknown guy Jordan who was in the room with her when she was naked (albeit accompanied), that's conceivably a way to get his DNA onto her inner thigh. She did subsequently use that same hand to get dressed, and perhaps to scratch herself or dry herself upon relieving herself in the restroom. Jordan may very well be innocent. Or he may be guilty. I really wish I could travel back through time to have a talk with him the afternoon BEFORE he fatefully visited that house and all Hell broke loose.

I stayed at the Cornell Club (hotel) in NYC. It was certainly adequate and economical. Maybe Cornell's students and recent graduates were doing internships and / or externships there.

I never meant to convey an agreement with that assertion about his being found guilty (instead of liable) of a sex crime (instead of a legal standard that isn't criminal in nature).

Thanks. I didn't know that various programs receive state funding. That doesn't preclude Ivy League membership? Do any other Ivy League schools receive it? My take is that nearly ALL private universities receive tax dollars, while also being tax exempt. So the Ivy League does well not to nit-pick and exclude Cornell (of Ithaca, not Iowa) on those grounds.

I gather that the agriculture & life sciences school is publicly owned, correct? That would explain the more lenient admissions standards that I gather exist for it. But once one's enrolled there, approximately how many credits in other undergrad. divisions may one take? Or is one pretty much restricted to agriculture & life science coursework, save maybe for a language requirement from arts & sciences?

My guess is that the defamation charges included one involving his saying she's lying about his alleged sexual mistreatment. Calling someone a liar can be a type of defamation, according to some. But he was not found liable for defamation regarding saying she's lying about having been actually raped. That said, I've not read the complaint against Trump so I'm just speculating. Also, in civil court one is typically "liable" for a transgression, not "guilty" of committing it. The guilty word's more relevant for criminal court. Hopefully these opinions & insights help demystify the process for you and others who are interested but puzzled. Top notch, experienced legal thinkers get perplexed about these legal principles sometimes, too. What matters is that you care, are interested, open-minded, and willing to admit when you might feel like you're puzzled. Such traits make not only for better voters but also better members of a future jury. Keep at it, for society's sake.

I do not believe that the majority of folks here is inclined to insult, then to wind up subsequently failing at being able to provide a rational basis as justification when challenged to provide one. That others here don't want to attract such gnats to themselves by offering commentary opposing gnat rants is not surprising. I notice another unifying trend among the gnats, though: they don't seem interested in discussing wrestling when they can insult, instead. I prefer to stay more on topic than that, so if you'll excuse me, I'll be moving on to more productive endeavors than seeing a few here claim that others should actually care about their unsubstantiated opinions. Fair enough, Pepe Le Pew?

One could say the same to you with equal impact. What's more interesting is who is behind trying to get a few (nonrepresentative) folks to gang up on the messenger while acting frantically and nonrationally in ways that would lead to one's getting pinned if actually on the mat. The lack of logic and justification seems to be a unifying thread, pointing to a catalyst...quite likely an individual one. Hardly a monument to why our sport purportedly deserves more support. That said, I wish A. J. Ferrari well and hope he'll avoid being overly trusting in the future. Some "friends" do not mean others well even when they pretend otherwise. Some folks are jealous of A.J. and to deny it is to disregard the greatness of an NCAA individual wrestling title. Again, though, I have no ties to him or his family, other than the overall wrestling family.

In civil trials, the burden of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. more probable than not). It's not beyond a reasonable doubt which is what's usually applicable in criminal court. The latter's considerably harder to prove. So there's not a criminal conviction regarding the abovementioned case involving Donald Trump. He didn't even show up to the civil trial, or acknowledge knowing the accuser. Is she merely money-motivated? Only she and hopefully Donald Trump know.

In other words, you have no explanation to offer, just conclusory statements meant to insult in a broadsweeping way. I get it.

In other words, you have no explanation to offer. BTW, Holm's rape appellate opinion mentions something everyone here needs to remember. One can get into trouble for performing a nonconsensual act on one's spouse, too.... And if the spouse is drowsy or on medication, consent's in doubt if not nonexistent. I've never been inside of a jail but I gather that 3 days in one is awful. How about 2,500 like what Mr. Holm spent? Spend 3 days in jail and then comment on how fair (or not) 2,500 is...

Presumably that's because nobody innocent has ever been convicted in the USA (said no informed person, ever)... https://innocenceproject.org/

Would you care to explain rather than merely offer a conclusory statement not grounded in fact or logic?