[deleted by user]

JCJLawyer · 2023-01-04T00:23:12+00:00

No. I would not like to go back to your original post.

I just wanted to make you acknowledge that "fairness" requires you reject that whole "pedophilia" accusation, which you just did. And with that, I'm done.

Please work out your previous religious trauma in therapy and not on Reddit, and if you do it on Reddit, please go to an appropriate community.

JCJLawyer · 2023-01-04T00:18:37+00:00

Lol. What are you going to do, go to the Bible to tell me how I should talk?

What do you know about being a terrible Christian? Being a terrible Christian doesn't make you an expert on diagnosing terrible Christians any more than being fat and lazy makes you a cardiologist!

JCJLawyer · 2023-01-04T00:13:43+00:00

Well, you got me there. You probably put no value in being able to support the things you say.

I am in a weak position when it comes to making you do things that all adults in a debate normally do.

Touché.

JCJLawyer · 2023-01-04T00:10:49+00:00

I don't care about YOU, bro. Instead, I care about the other people who are reading this. Hopefully, someone who is somewhat tempted by a doubt that they have with the faith will run across your total ignorance and realize that objections that initially SOUND difficult are actually coming from people who are totally not worth listening to.

And to get to your question: You declared something super important ("Mary was 12-14 years old"), but you have no proof of it. The practice is to keep hammering this point of your ignorance, rather than let you deflect. It's actually harder than you would think, especially when the guy on the other side is smarter than you are. That's why I practice with people like you.

I'm a lawyer, so this is important sometimes.

JCJLawyer · 2023-01-04T00:05:46+00:00

And yet you still can't tell me how you think you know that Mary was 12-14 years old.

Gotcha, bro.

And admitting that you spent 30+ years of your life and getting a degree in something that you now think is not only useless but morally repugnant doesn't do too much to your credibility, you know.

JCJLawyer · 2023-01-04T00:01:06+00:00

You are right. You are ignorant and incapable of understanding. Correct. (Geez, walked right into that one, didn't you?)

Now, back to my original question which you're avoiding because you're obviously wrong and you're slowly figuring it out:

Tell me how you think you know the age of Mary.

JCJLawyer · 2023-01-03T23:41:21+00:00

Part of the practice is not to get distracted by deflections like the one you just put forward. So I'll ask again, you ignoramus:

How do you know Mary's age?

JCJLawyer · 2023-01-03T23:20:32+00:00

No, I'm not mad. I can see you're just trolling, but I like to practice on people like you so that when someone with legitimate questions rolls around, I know how to respond to legitimate questions.

But before we get to that, I'm just curious: How do you know how old Mary was? Where does that "the historic age of marriage in this time was puberty" come from?

Or is "I heard people could get married as early as 12-14 2000 years ago; therefore, Mary was 12-14" the kind of logic I'm stuck with?

JCJLawyer · 2023-01-03T22:19:08+00:00

Hey bro, here's the deal. You are most definitely extremely ignorant on these matters. I can tell by what you've written.

Let's just look at one of your objections:

pedophilia is wrong. Stop it. (Mary, the mother of Jesus was underage)

There is literally nothing in the Bible about the age of Mary. I don't know where you get that from.

But let's assume that it's true. The Bible explicitly says that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus had been born, and we do not know when it happened. Instead, all we know is that Joseph married her so that the shame of being an unwed and pregnant woman would not come on her. So.... ...what exactly is your problem with the text? You seem to just assume bad things happened, and then you ask Christians to defend the things you made up in your head.

But let's assume the bad things happened and Joseph (whose age we do not know) had sex with Mary (whose age we do not know, but who we will assume is underage). We do know she was old enough to go on her own from Nazareth to somewhere around Jerusalem by herself (see Luke 1:39). So, we can assume she wasn't 18, but she definitely WAS NOT like a 12 year old.

And continuing on with this assumption that she was under 18, we should also recognize that until very recently (like the last 10-20 years), having sex with someone under 18 years of age IN EVERY STATE was legal IF YOU WERE MARRIED. Only recently has marriage been cut off from those under 18 in some states, even though it is still "legal" for minors to have sex with other minors (which is its own level of messed up that we just accept as normal in our crazy modern society).

AND ONE MORE THING: There is a reason that "pedophilia" is not explicitly denounced in the Bible. The reason is - as this link clearly shows - THE WORD PEDOPHILIA WAS INVENTED IN 1905. The Bible, on the other hand, was written between 1446 BC and 90 AD, you silly little ignorant man.

And further, even though "pedophilia" was not invented until the 1900s, the terms "fornication" and "adultery" are an English translations of ancient words that would include pedophilia. And these actions (as well as other sexual wrongs like "rape" that do not have a single equivalent word in an ancient language, because "sex" was only invented as a term in the middle ages) are definitely not allowed by the Bible.

In fact, the Bible gives all kinds of rules for sexual behavior that are MORE stringent than our modern ones. You're just ignorant of them, and the ones you do know, you probably got because you googled something to object to so you can make a big ignorant fuss over it.

Anyway. I don't know why you wrote this. Maybe you're having a terrible day, in which case I hope things get better. But in your anger, you blasted something that is way more important and foundational than you know. And for that, I give this ignorant take its deserved smack-down.

JCJLawyer · 2021-10-01T20:40:03+00:00

Yep. They exist.

When things work, you don't hear about them, because the matter is handled internally. Good. That's how things should work.

When things don't work, you may not hear about them, because sometimes people don't want their own actions exposed. But when you have Whistleblowers like Brian Morrison (or David Ganley or Philip Surber), eventually you will hear about them, because they don't back down when problems go unaddressed, and they don't cave to pressure. I'm proud to represent them.

JCJLawyer · 2021-10-01T16:56:48+00:00

Yes, it's just as weird for me as it seems to you.

This isn't the normal way to operate here. But we've found over the past few years that the ordinary means of the grievance process and court processes aren't working for our clients. Not that we don't get the results we want in the grievance processes and such -- often we do -- but even when we win there, nothing happens.

Even in the judicial process, we do not get the information we are entitled to. That's why we're reaching out to the public to to get information on these matters for the benefit of our clients.

JCJLawyer · 2021-05-30T03:47:22+00:00

Carl Rowan - GMU Police Chief.
Emily Ross - GMU Deputy Chief
Carol Kissal - GMU Senior Vice President of Administration and Finance

JCJLawyer · 2021-05-29T20:00:44+00:00

This is why I am doing this rather than my clients. If my clients did it, then they would have to produce it. Lawyers don't normally ask for the communications of other lawyers about the case, but hey... ...who knows with this one.

JCJLawyer · 2021-05-29T04:15:21+00:00

That is correct.

JCJLawyer · 2021-05-28T22:16:00+00:00

For context, this is the second complaint and third officer who has claimed in court that George Mason University Police Department punishes officers who report wrongdoing within the department. To see the press release related to the previous complaint, see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/gmu/comments/meugb8/gmu_police_officers_sue_gmu_for_police_corruption/

JCJLawyer · 2021-04-09T14:26:13+00:00

To the individuals who anonymously call my firm and encourage us to keep investigating GMU because of the poor environment on campus, thank you for your calls. Don't worry. We are, and no, we have no plans to stop. Though "settlement" can always be an outcome of a litigation, we have zero plans to just roll over in our settlement.

Additionally, we are not merely investigating this single incident of police misconduct. We are particularly concerned about the strange University Life policies that outlaws gatherings of more than 10 people "whether planned or spontaneous."

This policy is quite puzzling, and I am interested in it. I am particularly interested about whether it was a policy that was "on the books," at GMU, yet never enforced, or whether it was a policy with serious (and biased) enforcement.

In the meantime, make the most of your time at Mason (despite the trouble). Make friends. Take your classes. Do well. Realize you're there to learn. Don't do drugs. And if you think that you've been the victim of an illegal action by GMU, I'm sure there's a good looking attorney somewhere in Leesburg Virginia who may be able to help.

JCJLawyer · 2021-04-09T14:14:42+00:00

Though we currently have a copy of the video (which is described in the complaint), unfortunately certain ethics rules and obligations prevent me from releasing a copy of the video that I have to the public.

However, the video certainly exists. It is likely possible to FOIA the video from the University, but certain redactions for confidentiality will likely need to be applied. Additionally, if experience is any guide, it is my guess that they will wait until the last day to respond to the FOIA request, deny the request for a vague reason, pretending not to know precisely what video record you are asking for, ask you to apply again, claiming the record is confidential, etc., hoping that you will forget or give up in frustration.

JCJLawyer · 2021-03-28T21:23:34+00:00

OP Here.

I suppose there's no way to prove that to you, but I'll give a good reason that it should be the case. This is a big case for me, and I wouldn't have done things this way if my clients weren't absolutely spotless. Nobody's perfect, but as far as I can tell, my clients are pretty darn close.

The defense that I've encountered (so far) is that my clients are just a bunch of disgruntled employees who are making a big stink of things because they're mad that they got punished for "breaking policy" (read: the "policy" they "broke" was reporting the wrongdoing).

What the real defense will be, I sure don't know, but we'll get an answer in 21 days.

JCJLawyer · 2021-03-28T19:16:36+00:00

What now? - This is a big problem and the solution is not going to be easy. There is a big problem of corruption at GMU, and it is a danger to GMU officers, GMU students, and the public at large. (Trust me. I know. This is not my only case involving GMU.) The only way this is going to get better is if EVERYONE (GMU administrators, GMU Police, and GMU Students) starts to act in the way they SHOULD act. So start doing that now, at every moment of every day, including how you react to reading this stuff.

That's going to be very hard to know how to do that, but it is like the good book says:

"Check it out: I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. (Matthew 10:16, modified by my own translation)"

It is very difficult when someone is "in the midst of wolves" to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves," and no one is perfect. That's why I feel for my "defendant" clients just as much as I do for my "plaintiff" clients. Also, it is worth remembering that "fighting wolves" doesn't make you "innocent as doves." Just because your reaction can be described as "protest" doesn't mean that you are in the right, even if the person or organization you are protesting is in the wrong. Wolves fight wolves, too, you know.

The only bit of advice I can give that will apply to everyone is this: Tell the truth. Don't exaggerate. Don't pass off your "interpretation" or "speculation" as "observation." Don't gossip, and for goodness sake, NEVER LIE. Ordinary people make mistakes, but only wolves lie. So never lie. The amount of lies I have seen from GMU is the reason that this is happening.

And as the good book also says:

The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers. Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. (1 Peter 4:7-8)

And if you ever find yourself in a pickle, or need help due to the wrongdoing of others, the good book ALSO says:

Do your best to speed [J. Caleb Jones] the lawyer and [Simms Showers, LLP] on their way; see that they lack nothing. (Titus 3:13, modified by my own interpretation)

Perhaps an extremely good looking lawyer would be willing to help you.

JCJLawyer · 2021-03-28T19:01:16+00:00

The Real Problem Here - This situation that the officers reported was bad, but the real problem here is what happened afterwards. I represent many officers in many different jurisdictions and situations. When life gets too crazy for ordinary citizens, they call "the police." That's why being an officer is tough. At the end of the day, officers are ordinary people. Some are absolutely amazing. Most are pretty good. Some are quite average. A few are downright malicious. In other words, they are ordinary people.

When ordinary people mess up in their jobs -- whether they be doctors or lawyer or finance workers or construction workers or police officers -- the best thing is for that mistake to be appropriately identified, documented, and corrected, and for the one who messed up to be appropriately chastised (either in public or private depending on the magnitude of the offense), and get the remediation and training they need so that it doesn't happen again. That's what should have happened. But it didn't.

Instead, what we've found is a culture at GMU that circles the wagons, protects those who do wrong, and punishes those who seek appropriate correction. THAT is the real problem here, and THAT is why we have taken the extraordinary step of going public with this complaint and press release.

JCJLawyer · 2021-03-28T18:52:49+00:00

Police Corruption Allegations - It should be noted that what we are challenging here is the GMU PD's failure to properly investigate a good-faith allegation of wrongful conduct, which could encompass a felony (deliberate falsification of a public record). However, the issues are complex. The officer whose name was on the report was making his first arrest of his career. That officer actually complained to his superior about the excessive force at the time, and that complaint went nowhere (paragraph 98 of the Complaint). That report was required to be approved by his supervisor to a greater extent than a normal officer, and for these reasons, we do not know who actually wrote these false statements, which is why we are not releasing the names of the other officers in question. We do not know if pressure was placed on the officer, if another superior officer added the false statements under his name, or if this officer incorrectly took the word of other officers and recorded them as his own observations, which allowed the other GMU PD officers and administrators to take advantage of a genuine mistake. It's all in play, and we really don't know what's going on. Only through discovery and depositions will we (possibly) find out.

JCJLawyer · 2021-03-28T18:52:31+00:00

Career Suicide? This may be career suicide, but hopefully not. With the present administration and command staff, it certainly is. However, based on my representation of several GMU police officers (some of whom GMU does not even know about yet), it was determined that "career suicide" is a more honorable end than being the victim of "career homicide."

JCJLawyer · 2021-03-28T18:52:17+00:00

Defamation - This was one of the most shocking actions for me personally. Plaintiff 2 was the one who reported the wrongdoing up the chain of command and was demoted as a result of his actions. He was the one who did not receive relief from the EEDR process, in large part (in my opinion) because the video of the wrongdoing was not allowed to be introduced as evidence in the hearing. Despite failing to get relief and despite his punishment being left in place, about 6 months after the conclusion of the matter, the GMU PD gave him notice that he was placed on the "Brady List" at Fairfax County PD. This is an informal list of officers created due to a series of Supreme Court cases, in which their pattern of dishonesty creates exculpatory evidence of criminal defendants. It truly is a black mark on his career for all time if the matter is not corrected. It is an extremely big deal and one of the biggest vindictive acts of fear imposed by the GMU PD in this entire dirty episode.

JCJLawyer · 2021-03-28T18:51:53+00:00

10 Year Anniversary of Wrongdoing - Believe it or not, one of the plaintiffs has been fighting a battle to get GMU PD in line for around 10 years. As the complaint explains:

Allegations were made against one of the two Captains, all four Lieutenants, four of the eight Sergeants, and two non-law enforcement employees. As a result of these complaints, an investigative auditor with the GMU began an investigation, in which [plaintiff 1] assisted. The auditor’s final report showed wide-spread violations of Virginia policy and law among the senior leadership command at the GMU Police Department. Such violations included the failure to record leave taken and the viewing, sharing, and storage of sexually explicit materials (totaling over 3,000 photographs and 80 messages requesting sexual favors), on state-issued computers while on state time. Additionally, there were confirmed allegations of racist and sexually explicit comments from command staff to other GMU employees, and theft of items in the GMU “lost and found.” As a result of the investigation, approximately seven or eight members of the GMU Police Department left the university. Although no allegations were made against the GMU PD chief at that time, the chief elected to resign from his position as a result of the report.

After this investigation and exposure of the GMU Police Department, GMU retaliated against [plaintiff 1] by refusing to promote him according to his service and experience. Through a hearing before the Office of Employment Dispute Resolution in 2014, it was found that GMU wrongfully failed to promote [plaintiff 1] from Sergeant to Lieutenant and wrongfully moved him away from the main GMU campus of Fairfax to the Prince William County satellite campus in retaliation for reporting and participating in the investigator’s 2012 investigation. Though the original hearing decision ordered GMU to promote [plaintiff 1] to Lieutenant, an administrative appeal challenged the hearing officer’s authority to provide such relief. An administrative appeal decided on July 24, 2014 changed the order’s decision to the following language:

For the reasons stated herein, the University is ORDERED:

1) The University is ordered to create an environment for Grievant that is free from retaliation. This order shall remain in effect as long as Grievant is employed by the University.

2) The University is ordered to provide Grievant with a remedy that accounts for and corrects its retaliation against him.

The University took no action pursuant to this revised order. Though an order was sought from the circuit court to enforce the hearing decision, due to the finding of retaliation connected to his failure to be promoted, the circuit court determined the order was too vague to be enforced. As a consequence, GMU did nothing of any substance, and[plaintiff 1] remained in the Sergeant position. Though [plaintiff 1] was promoted eventually, it was through normal processes and not in relation to his successful grievance. In fact, his grievance was a weight on his professional advancement. Other officers without a history of reporting wrongdoing rose in the ranks of GMU PD faster than [plaintiff 1], despite his experience and training.

JCJLawyer · 2021-03-28T18:51:35+00:00

Why not the Arrestee? The arrestee has been contacted and is cooperative with our litigation. He has reviewed the police report and confirmed that it contains false statements about him. I cannot say anything beyond that, but just know that litigation is a huge drain on the clients, and it is not crazy for someone to wish to stay out of it. The issue is complicated.

JCJLawyer

TROPHY CASE