txwharfrat said:

---

GMP said:

---

txwharfrat said:

---

GMP said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Is nobody wondering how she went from going to an expensive private school in Brentwood, flying on private jets to XC meets, travelling through Asia and Europe, vacationing in Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons, all while staying at the Ritz and Four Seasons to suddenly becoming a poor college student? Her family must have had fallen on some serious hard times or something in the past year...either that or college students these days have it wayyyyyy better than I did.

---

It's probably been "wondered" in this thread a dozen times. I don't think it's very relevant.

---

It is SIGNIFICANTLY relevant as it establishes her behavior of lying. This is HUGE for any legal defense. In the same statement where she claims she was abused she also claims to be a poor college student. If she lied about finances then it begs the question: what else is she lying about.

This is 100% relevant and important. Don't dismiss it like that.

---

Relevant, perhaps. But people are assuming she's paying for it. What if she's not? There are lots of other explanations for how she's taking these trips besides, "She lied about being a poor college student."

People saying, "Aha! She's lying!" on this are getting ahead of themselves.

---

Dude ... the woman has been on trips to Greece, France multiple times, beaches all over the US. By the time she was 21 she had been to MANY destinations I have only dreamed of. Someone is paying...

---

Yes. Someone is paying. You don't know who that is. Neither do I. So, again: you can't draw any conclusions from it.

txwharfrat said:

---

GMP said:

---

txwharfrat said:

---

GMP said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Is nobody wondering how she went from going to an expensive private school in Brentwood, flying on private jets to XC meets, travelling through Asia and Europe, vacationing in Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons, all while staying at the Ritz and Four Seasons to suddenly becoming a poor college student? Her family must have had fallen on some serious hard times or something in the past year...either that or college students these days have it wayyyyyy better than I did.

---

It's probably been "wondered" in this thread a dozen times. I don't think it's very relevant.

---

It is SIGNIFICANTLY relevant as it establishes her behavior of lying. This is HUGE for any legal defense. In the same statement where she claims she was abused she also claims to be a poor college student. If she lied about finances then it begs the question: what else is she lying about.

This is 100% relevant and important. Don't dismiss it like that.

---

Relevant, perhaps. But people are assuming she's paying for it. What if she's not? There are lots of other explanations for how she's taking these trips besides, "She lied about being a poor college student."

People saying, "Aha! She's lying!" on this are getting ahead of themselves.

---

Dude ... the woman has been on trips to Greece, France multiple times, beaches all over the US. By the time she was 21 she had been to MANY destinations I have only dreamed of. Someone is paying...

---

I wasn't even a poor college student and I couldn't even dream of eating at the places that she's been eating at while in school.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

The Obama guidance to universities (recently reversed by Devos) massively tipped the scales in favor of alleged victims and eliminated due process for the alleged wrongdoers. This was explicitly the intention and beyond dispute.

---

You have a tendency to say a lot of things are "beyond dispute" (or using similar language) when making a claim that would very much be disputed. For example, above you seem to think it's "beyond dispute" that Obama wanted to eliminate due process. Really? That's beyond dispute?

I'm not taking issue with the rest of your argument about University policies for adjudicating sexual-assault claims. It does seem that it's been quite a mess in some cases. I would just advise against making these kinds of absolutist claims; it taints the rest of your evidence.

---

I am basing what i said on the statements of the people who wrote the guidance as well as the fact that over 100 courts have determined that the rules implemented in light of Obama's guidance did not provide sufficient due process. The drafters/proponents of the guidance didn't hide their intention to tip the scales in favor of the "survivors"

Specifically, they changed the standard of proof to the preponderance standard most favorable to complainants despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the clear-and-convincing standard is appropriate for those civil proceedings where "particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake."

They also advocated for a variety of policies that eliminated or severely limited the right to discovery, of cross-examination, the the right to have representation of counsel, the right to have a neutral judge, etc. These are facts - and all of these reduced or eliminated well established due process protections for students (and others) accused of wrongdoing. These policies were widely adopted (if not universally)

I also note that Obama/Catherine Lhamon did this without following any of the typical rule making procedures (i.e., proposing rules and allowing public comment, etc.). That may seem trivial, but I'm sure you are outraged when Trump does similar things.

The changes were so clear and unambiguous infringements on due process, that even liberal Harvard law professors objects - this article lists many of the specific issues.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/15/28-harvard-law-professors-condemn-harvards-new-sexual-harassment-policy-and-procedures/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.454723f9ed30

https://www.weeklystandard.com/kc-johnson-and-stuart-taylor-jr/overruled-campus-kangaroo-courts-get-schooled

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2016/03/04/yet-another-good-reason-to-abolish-the-department-of-education/#5e2cd73716db

---

Again, I think you have a good argument here. I just think you shouldn't lead with statements like "beyond dispute." Lay out your case and let people decide after they've heard your points.

TheFiatLux said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

oskioski said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

flounder said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

I'm sorry but I didn't read any further after she said she met a man at midnight who she felt was a sicko and stocking her. Its nonsensical. No woman would do that. I'm not saying she's lying but I had to reread it three times before simply moving on.
I did read a snippet somewhere else where she said she's dealing with mental illness, now that might explain why she went there for her mental illness would not allow her to think clearly and she was processing information wrong, either way don't they do background checks and wouldn't it not say somewhere that she's dealing with mental issues thus a high profile employer would probably not hire her.

If she's definitely got mental issues then I definitely side with her for it makes everything worst for she had the same ability to make major decisions as a child thus why she kept making wrong ones. Her mental illness actually makes this quite worst than simple Sexual Harassment.

Who hired her without talking to her fellow players I bet they knew based on her openness to admit it now.

based on the info she gave I'm betting its a former WR coach.

---

i agree, she sounds like an absolute nut job based on her decision to go to the hotel room and to the party. she is an adult and chose to start drinking the tequila. what kind of sane and rational adult would go to a party filled with people she feels uncomfortable around and starts binge drinking.

that being said, hopefully wilcox and knowlton did what they are legally and morally required to do.

---

If you look at her profile on social media and the multitude of scantily clad and suggestive pictures she is still posting you will see she is seeking attention. Amazing to see her also using social media to troll for her coming lawsuit, is that what what plaintiff sexual harassment lawyers really encourage now?

---

There is absolutely nothing inappropriate or attention-seeking in her Instagram. Unless it's being judged by an extreme religious conservative. A young SoCal woman in a bikini? Oh, the humanity!

---

you're kidding, right?

---

P.T. Barnum was right. Every darn minute.

---

And some of the usual suspects here lapped it up.

---

I'm going to wade in here. I like all of you, but you, GMP, Fyght all look pretty bad here. This is not a fake - I have heard on good authority from people who know this person that this was hers. You guys have done what you wrongly accused OskiOski of doing and in doing so you're actually calling yourselves out. You should apologize. I've heard from several people, who I find very credible, who know her who told me about their encounters with her that made me question this.

Jussie Smollet just happened. Nathan Philips just happened. This isn't ancient history. Both of those narratives were so preposterous, that the only way people could believe them or "lap it up" is if they wanted to believe it (for whatever reason). This is the exact same. There is so much about what she wrote that just beggars all belief, added to the fact that someone who took the time to write all of this on Facebook - ie on social media - wouldn't also include a screen capture, unless you just want to believe it, you'd think twice about its credibility.

Some of you owe OskiOski an apology.

---

I obviously don't expect you to name names, but I'm wondering who you heard from. Like her peers? Family? And did they specifically validate the veracity of this specific post (ie: they saw the instagram story themselves) or are they verifying that 'paigefinstacorn' was indeed her finsta? Because if you heard from someone who absolutely doubles down on having seen this story themselves then we can put the argument to rest definitively IMO. Also knowing when this would've been posted would also be relevant to the accusation as a whole.

pingpong2 said:

---

Is nobody wondering how she went from going to an expensive private school in Brentwood, flying on private jets to XC meets, travelling through Asia and Europe, vacationing in Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons, all while staying at the Ritz and Four Seasons to suddenly becoming a poor college student? Her family must have had fallen on some serious hard times or something in the past year...either that or college students these days have it wayyyyyy better than I did.

---

https://www.seeking.com/sugar-baby-university

https://www.seeking.com/sugar-baby-university/usa

edg64 said:

---

It can now be said;







Paige Elizabeth Cornelius is Amy

---

?

Ahhh Gooo you were not around in the days of "Amy" the troll, someone on the board with more knowledge/information will have to explain it.

going4roses said:

---

Ahhh Gooo you were not around in the days of "Amy" the troll, someone on the board with more knowledge/information will have to explain it.

---

Got ya

Thank you, Troll On You Bears, for the very warm welcome - much appreciated!

Goobear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Ahhh Gooo you were not around in the days of "Amy" the troll, someone on the board with more knowledge/information will have to explain it.

---

Got ya

---

They went by AMythicalProgram (in other words U$C)..... hence the Amy reference....

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

The Obama guidance to universities (recently reversed by Devos) massively tipped the scales in favor of alleged victims and eliminated due process for the alleged wrongdoers. This was explicitly the intention and beyond dispute.

---

You have a tendency to say a lot of things are "beyond dispute" (or using similar language) when making a claim that would very much be disputed. For example, above you seem to think it's "beyond dispute" that Obama wanted to eliminate due process. Really? That's beyond dispute?

I'm not taking issue with the rest of your argument about University policies for adjudicating sexual-assault claims. It does seem that it's been quite a mess in some cases. I would just advise against making these kinds of absolutist claims; it taints the rest of your evidence.

---

I am basing what i said on the statements of the people who wrote the guidance as well as the fact that over 100 courts have determined that the rules implemented in light of Obama's guidance did not provide sufficient due process. The drafters/proponents of the guidance didn't hide their intention to tip the scales in favor of the "survivors"

Specifically, they changed the standard of proof to the preponderance standard most favorable to complainants despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the clear-and-convincing standard is appropriate for those civil proceedings where "particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake."

They also advocated for a variety of policies that eliminated or severely limited the right to discovery, of cross-examination, the the right to have representation of counsel, the right to have a neutral judge, etc. These are facts - and all of these reduced or eliminated well established due process protections for students (and others) accused of wrongdoing. These policies were widely adopted (if not universally)

I also note that Obama/Catherine Lhamon did this without following any of the typical rule making procedures (i.e., proposing rules and allowing public comment, etc.). That may seem trivial, but I'm sure you are outraged when Trump does similar things.

The changes were so clear and unambiguous infringements on due process, that even liberal Harvard law professors objects - this article lists many of the specific issues.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/15/28-harvard-law-professors-condemn-harvards-new-sexual-harassment-policy-and-procedures/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.454723f9ed30

https://www.weeklystandard.com/kc-johnson-and-stuart-taylor-jr/overruled-campus-kangaroo-courts-get-schooled

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2016/03/04/yet-another-good-reason-to-abolish-the-department-of-education/#5e2cd73716db

---

It's an administrative procedure, not a criminal trial. You're not going to jail; you're just getting kicked out of UC Berkeley. They're not remotely comparable.

The procedural protections present in criminal trials are designed to stack the deck *against* the prosecutor. He can't just prove that you "probably" raped someone. He has to prove that you almost certainly did it. This means that lots of people who actually did commit crimes are getting off (or just not being prosecuted in the first place because the prosecutor doesn't think he can win) - ie, there's a lot of Type II error. And we accept that, because we consider the possibility of someone who actually didn't rape someone going to jail - ie, Type I error - totally unconscionable. Because they're gonna be locked in a metal cage for years on end.

But we don't have the same concerns in, say, expulsion proceedings, and intuitively, you probably understand that.

For example, I don't think we'd bat an eye at the idea of someone being kicked out for plagiarism, even if we didn't have totally dispositive proof that the person knowingly copied passages from another journal, rather than just like, innocently forgot to put quotation marks around it. We wouldn't say, "oh, you need to prove with 99% certainty that the person did it, and you have the right to appeal over and over again, and you have the right to a government-provided counsel," and so on. That's ridiculous. It makes it impossible to expel someone despite the fact that the consequences - you're kicked out of a prestigious school, and that's literally it - are honestly...pretty minor? The same is true of Title IX complaints.

Were we to impose those incredibly defendant-friendly proceedings, schools would just decide not to expel people in all but the most insanely over-the-top circumstances. There'd be Type II error.

Unfortunately, you're getting your wish. The Trump administration has promulgated new rules rolling back the Dear Colleague standards. The standards the new administration has proposed create greater protections for the accused--heightened evidentiary standards, a presumption of no guilt, right to cross-examination, and greater appeal rights--than you'd get in basically any other administrative proceeding, for basically no other reason than that they presume the people making complaints are liars.

The upshot of this is that it's going to be essentially impossible to kick someone out of school for sexual harassment/assault. People won't want to bring complaints, the school won't want to go through the hassle of bringing a case, and a lot of terrible young men get to keep being awful.

Don't take it from me. Take it from my fianc. She was drugged and raped at an Ivy League grad school during the Dear Colleague years, brought a Title IX complaint. The "accused" still graduated. And the police told her they'd never get a conviction.

tigertim said:

---

But we don't have the same concerns in, say, expulsion proceedings, and intuitively, you probably understand that.

---

Don't give him more credit than he deserves.

GMP said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

oskioski said:

---

you're kidding, right?

---

I know it was just 'my gut' and all but there you go...more to the story, and a much more nuanced story at that. Just as I predicted.

---

*eye roll*

Confirmation bias. You didn't spend more than 3 seconds wondering if this was real.

---

I've never been an Instagram user, but for what it's worth there is no paigefinstacorn account on Instagram.

freshfunk said:

---

GMP said:

---

No, of course not. (1) That's not her username; (2) "paigefinstacorn" is obviously fake (finsta); (3) It even says "meme".

---

I don't know if it's real or just but I want to clarify a few things.

1) A user can change their Instagram username at any time.

---

This is true, but if she was going to change her fake Instagram account name, she probably would have changed her Facebook and real Instagram account names as well and made the real Instagram one private. Privacy does not appear to be one of her life priorities.

The other thing (wading into the pool of Instagram posts), you don't see captions like this over people's photos. You have the photo and then the comments are off to the right.

Yogi Bear said:

---

freshfunk said:

---

GMP said:

---

No, of course not. (1) That's not her username; (2) "paigefinstacorn" is obviously fake (finsta); (3) It even says "meme".

---

I don't know if it's real or just but I want to clarify a few things.

1) A user can change their Instagram username at any time.

---

This is true, but if she was going to change her fake Instagram account name, she probably would have changed her Facebook and real Instagram account names as well and made the real Instagram one private. Privacy does not appear to be one of her life priorities.

The other thing (wading into the pool of Instagram posts), you don't see captions like this over people's photos. You have the photo and then the comments are off to the right.

---

plenty of meme-foucused Instagram accounts out there

http://mediakix.com/2018/03/instagram-meme-accounts-best-funniest/#gs.2plbk3

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

It's playing out.
Real or not they're obviously now in the hands of people who will decide this.

I know who I'm betting on.

Fair enough, but then why is the finsta post still up?

NY Post

https://nypost.com/2019/03/21/ex-cal-student-football-coach-threatened-to-fire-me-if-i-didnt-have-sex-with-him/

Alkiadt said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

It's playing out.
Real or not they're obviously now in the hands of people who will decide this.

I know who I'm betting on.

---

Yup

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

At the same time the finsta post was left up. Once you choose to censor it puts YOU in the position of power. You should be careful.

BTW, I agree with you taking it down. I suspect it is something you did not want on your site, but be quite cautious with censorship

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

At the same time the finsta post was left up. Once you choose to censor it puts YOU in the position of power. You should be careful.

BTW, I agree with you taking it down. I suspect it is something you did not want on your site, but be quite cautious with censorship

---

There is no such thing as censorship on a private site.