Sexual Assault

248 petitions

Update posted 21 hours ago

Petition to Dr. Geert ten Dam, Dr. Jet Bussemaker, Mr. Ard van der Steur, Mr. Mark Rutte

Justice for Emily: Help rape survivor fight university’s institutional abuse and cover-ups

Highlights:   A rape survivor encounters abuse and discrimination by a professor at the University of Amsterdam The university dismisses all of her complaints based on untruthful and slanderous testimonies Soon afterward, the same professor impersonates the dean and sends a letter to the student forbidding her from conducting her graduation fieldwork project While she is appealing against the decision, the university invalidates all of her earned academic credits, stating she has made no progress in her graduation project Without her academic credits, she will lose her student visa and has to leave the Netherlands. Therefore, the university can circumvent the accusations altogether. Imagine you send your daughter to study abroad. One year later, she comes back with rape trauma without a Master’s degree. After spending three years overcoming her ordeal, she goes back to school to complete her studies. However, her past is held against her, and she is abused and discriminated against relentlessly by her professor. When she plucks up all her courage to speak up, she is confronted with lies, cover-ups and retaliation by university staff. This is what has been happening to Emily (pseudonym). She is a Master’s student at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Five years ago, Emily had to give up her studies and leave the country due to rape trauma. In September 2014, she went back to Amsterdam to complete her degree. She decided not to let rape define her or dictate her future. She started the semester just like other students and did not ask for any special consideration. She did not share her past with her classmates in order to have a normal student life. Emily was happy to be back and continued working hard to successfully complete her studies. However, in October 2014, the director of her program (the only person who knew her from the previous time and who belittled and tormented her five years ago), approached her in class and made impudent and condescending comments about Emily’s private matters and health in front of her classmates. A few days later, Emily’s thesis supervisor informed her that the director had excluded her from a project because of “a concern for her wellbeing,” and she had to choose another one from other available projects. Emily felt utterly violated; she was not expecting a stranger to bring up her private matters, let alone tell her what she was allowed to do or not allowed to do based on her personal painful past that she had never consented to sharing. Her supervisor stated “I fully sympathise [with] you feeling you’re not treated like other students and feeling offended by that. At the same time, however, I also understand that what has happened has not only shaped you, but also UvA staff and that they do give [sic, recte take] previous times into account.” Emily was never informed of any conditionalities when she was re-accepted into the Master’s program. The following week, the director of the program informed Emily that she was now allowed to participate in the project she was initially excluded from since budgetary issues were resolved. Now there was an additional position available. Realizing that her private information was not only inappropriately used, but also was exploited as a pretext for budgetary issues, she emailed her supervisor. She confirmed that the issue was indeed an administrative matter, stating “'using your rape experience against you for the sake of money' is not an accurate description of the decisions initially taken. Monetary issues played their part, but only b/c, in principle, the project had space for only two students. I.e. a decision had to be taken considering three students were interested.” After the series of events: 1. being publicly humiliated, 2. having her trauma exploited, and 3. being completely stripped of dignity and personal autonomy, Emily felt as though she was raped all over again. She filed complaints for harassment, privacy violations and discrimination. She specifically stated that she had never consented to disclosing her confidential information, let alone having it assessed or used for arbitrary and unilateral decisions by faculty members who had no medical qualifications. She requested that the university rectify the issues and ensure her that it would never happen again. In response to Emily’s complaints, the director relentlessly brought up Emily’s untruthful “mental problems” and undermined her credibility. The director claimed that Emily’s professors and classmates had reported that she had been “easily emotionally agitated” and expressed their concerns about her mental well-being at the beginning of the semester. The director used this story to justify her action in class. She claimed that she was not aware of the details of Emily’s private information, and therefore, was not capable of violating her privacy. She also claimed that there had never been a decision to exclude Emily from the project. Emily’s supervisor likewise testified that she had never told Emily that she had been excluded, and denied there had ever been such a decision. The University of Amsterdam officially supported all of the director’s claims and dismissed all of Emily’s complaints. Emily did not know what to believe after being told that her professors and classmates, behind her back, had reported her “mental problems”, which she herself had absolutely not been aware of. Moreover, Emily’s another professor, who had nothing to do with the complaints, showed up at the hearing in support of the director, thereby taking a stance against Emily, despite repeated pleas from Emily that the university handle the complaints confidentially and with sensitivity. Emily was also very puzzled by her supervisor’s testimony, especially since she had always shown sympathy for Emily’s trouble with the director. Furthermore, when Emily expressed her concern about her complaints putting her supervisor in a difficult position at the university, she responded “I would have no problems whatsoever.” Because Emily fully trusted her honesty, she believed this must have been some kind of mistake, and decided to ask her about the testimony. Her supervisor refused to explain and dismissed Emily from her supervision. After that series of events, Emily felt as though everyone was against her, and nobody would believe anything she would say. She felt completely isolated, powerless, worthless and hopeless. When she finally talked with her classmates in June 2015, they were completely shocked and assured her that they had never reported anything about her to the director. They had not noticed anything unusual about Emily, and besides, they would not have bothered to report anything to the director even if a new classmate had come off as different. They were never informed of or consented to their “testimony” which they had never provided. They also agreed that it would have been impossible for professors to pay attention to and observe one particular student among more than 30 students and determine her emotional state during the first few lectures. They signed to confirm that they had never reported anything about Emily, and also wrote supporting letters describing her with words such as: conscientious, hardworking, friendly, passionate, responsible and kind, and called her someone with integrity, diligence, respect, intelligence and empathy, and strongly asserted that the university’s claims had inconsistencies.   In July 2015, Emily received a letter from the dean of graduate school, informing her that she was not allowed to conduct any fieldwork project out of “a concern for her well-being”. Once again, she was denied her right to education based on her private matters that she had never confirmed, never consented to sharing or having assessed or used by faculty members. She lodged an appeal against this decision. In response, the dean apologized for her feelings and misunderstandings, but denied any wrongful acts or discrimination. When she inquired about the letter, he informally admitted that the letter had actually been written by the director while he was on vacation, and therefore, he had not even read or approved the letter. When Emily asked him why he would not formally state so and why the director was not held accountable, he explained that it would affect his secretary because she helped the director send the letter. Emily has been contending that the dean’s explanations and excuses for “his decision” are pointless and nonsense especially since he is merely a scapegoat who has been cluelessly held responsible for the director’s actions. He is not capable of explaining “his decision” because he never made the decision to begin with. Emily is continuing to demand the issues be rectified based on the whole truth, with integrity, accountability and transparency. In September 2016, the university invalidated all of Emily’s earned academic credits stating that she made no academic progress in the past year. Emily could not make academic progress because the director forbade her from progressing. Furthermore, she was in the process of appealing against the decision, which has been taking significant amount of time and is still ongoing because the dean has been talking nonsense and refusing to provide the whole truth. Without her academic credits, she will lose her student visa, and will have to leave the country. In my opinion, this is whistleblower retaliation, which enables the university to remove her from the country and get rid of the accusations altogether. During the whole ordeal, Emily has been obliged to continue paying her tuition fees (14700 euros per year) even though she has been denied the education that she has been paying for. On the other hand, the university staff has been continuing with their lives and work without consequences, as if Emily does not exist. As Emily’s friend, I find the whole situation outrageous beyond what words can describe. Instead of reflecting on and rectifying their actions, this “educational” institution has been doing what it takes to cover up their misconduct and circumvent responsibility. Their actions make a mockery of not only Emily’s courage but also of the whole Dutch education system, whose members work hard to maintain a high standard of institutional diligence and integrity. Moreover, Emily went back to study and focus on topics such as human rights and education. The inhumane attitude and behavior of her professors, whose specializations include education rights, children’s rights and gender equality has been the ultimate betrayal to Emily’s hopes and desires to learn anything from these “experts”. After brutal rape, abuse, discrimination, injustices and retaliation, Emily has been through enough. She overcame horrific trauma she had never wished for. She decided to get her life back by finishing her Master’s degree. She stood up for herself only to ask to be treated like a normal human being. She continues to fight for justice, truth and integrity because that is what she believes in and stands for. She has done nothing to be ashamed of. She deserves justice and the completion of her Master's degree in an environment where her fundamental rights are not violated by university staff. Therefore, with this petition, I formally request the following.   Requests The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Government of the Netherlands: Conduct an independent, thorough inquiry into Emily’s original complaints, the university’s subsequent cover-ups and retaliation, and hold individuals accountable for their misconduct Immigration and Naturalisation Service, Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands: Ensure that Emily will not lose her student visa until her graduation The University of Amsterdam: Retract the invalidation of Emily’s academic credits and exempt her from paying tuition until the ongoing situation is resolved   When I saw Emily just before she left for the Netherlands, she was very vibrant and thrilled to finally complete her Master’s degree. I want to see her return with her same happy face with her diploma. Please imagine Emily is you or your loved one. If you are willing to support Emily, please sign this petition. Thank you.  #enoughbsUvA

Justice for Emily
1,616 supporters
Update posted 1 week ago

Petition to State Supreme Court of Arizona, Pelander , Bales , Honorable Justice Timmer, Honorable Justice Pelander, Honorable Justice Bales, Honorable Justice Brutinel, Honorable Justice Bolick


      Judge - Impeach William J. O'Neil, Arizona State Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ).      Sign this Petition to Impeach William J. O'Neil (PDJ) by restoring public safety to the State of Arizona, Licensed Arizona Attorneys and their families!      Why Impeach O'Neil:    O'Neil (PDJ) is prosecuting (disciplining)  Arizona Attorneys without a valid "Oath of Office.       O'Neil (PDJ) shows Favoritism towards some attorneys, Disparate Treatment towards other attorneys and will prosecute cases not within his jurisdictional statutory authority.            EXAMPLES (HOW) JUDGE O’NEIL HAS SHOWED “FAVORITISM”  O’Neil's FAVORITISM TOWARDS AN ATTORNEY who killed a Woman while Driving Drunk – allowed to Practice Law from Prison      According to Sonoran News, “Christopher Perry - he's no longer a lawyer but just plays one in the judicial system. Perry, an attorney that assisted in #Judge O'Neil's mother in law's short sale that resulted on #O'Neil getting the property, was allowed to practice law while in prison for killing a person while Perry was drunk.               After the retroactive disbarment order, Perry is practicing law at Shapiro, Van Ess, Sherman & Marth, LLP, as O'Neil and the Arizona State Bar turn a blind eye. He continues to be listed as an active attorney. The website contains up to date information about their activities.” See Source  and scroll down to Christopher Perry at -   O’NEIL STAYED CRIMINAL CHARGES OF JUDGE GARY DONAHOE ($350 MILLION CRIMINAL COURT TOWER)         Former Judge Gary Donahoe was everywhere he isn't supposed to be! Gary Donahoe, who had criminal charges against him stayed by Judge O'Neil, then trial judge on his case, magically appeared on a probate case, finding the attorney for one of the parties in contempt of court. That attorney represented a party, Bill Lund, who used to be business partners with Conley Wolfswinkel but had a falling out. Donahoe was the same judge that picked up cases not assigned to him and ruled in Wolfswinkel's favor as well as stopped the investigation into Novak and others involved in the $350 million criminal court tower. See Source:                    O’NEIL’S SEXUAL EXPLOITATION FAVORS         O’Neil’s Sexual Exploitation Favoritism, towards Attorneys that he did “NOT” disbar.           O’Neil’s favored Attorneys, even admitted within Court Records: channeling the dead to communicate in exchange for Sex, admission of Sex with Clients, Oral Sex with Clients, among other actual Sex Exploitation  towards vulnerable legal clients and court clerks….          CHARNA JOHNSON        Charna Johnson is an attorney who was found to have had sex with a client, as well as channeling the dead to communicate to clients. The bar also reported, "Johnson represented her client in a divorce proceeding and drafted a will, leaving all the assets for herself." Despite the fact that "Five aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, submission of false evidence, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct and substantial experience in the practice of law," Johnson was merely suspended for one year. See Source:           JUDGE TED ABRAMS FELLOW JUDGE TO O’NEIL       O'Neil treated his fellow judge Ted Abrams. O’Neil merely suspended him for two years and barred him from being a judge. Here is Abrams’ extensive history of sexual harassment, as reported by The Arizona Republic:         During a 14-month period, the judge sent the unidentified public defender at least 28 voicemails and 85 text messages, many of which were sexually suggestive (at least one was, he admitted, “obscene,” and described a sex act he wanted to perform on her), repeatedly pressured her for sex, made slurping noises and at one point fondled her buttock. In response, the public defender said she wasn’t interested, repeatedly told him that it would be inappropriate for them to have a relationship because he was a judge, she worked in his courtroom and he was married. She called him “crazy and disgusting.”         Abrams, 47, also had a sexual relationship with another attorney, a private defense lawyer who appeared in his court, and he sent sexually explicit e-mails to a third attorney, an assistant city prosecutor who appeared in his court.         The state bar brief said the judge "victimized a young lawyer for his own personal gratification and when she did not enjoy, welcome or otherwise relent to his constant requests for sexual contact, he berated and humiliated her from the bench during a jury trial." The victim also said Abrams told her that it would not be good for her career if she rejected his advances. After the short suspension, it appears that he is about to be reinstated to the Arizona bar.  See Source:           MATTHEW SCHULTZ         Attorney Matthew Schultz admitted he had a sexual relationship with a client, and was just suspended for one year.    See Source:          ROBERT STANDAGE       Government attorney Robert Standage… actually did send sexual images and videos to an existing client. He was already on probation for a previous incident, but Judge O’Neil merely suspended him for two years. His attorney — no surprise — was Scott Rhodes.  See Court Case NO.: PDJ 2015-9007 – SBA File #14-0367 Filed 06-29-2015. Read Court Document Credit Above Sources Rachel Alexander         FRED ACKEL JUDGE PUNISHED BY ARIZONA SUPREME CT          Fred Ackel, another judge, was punished by the Arizona Supreme Court for his sexual misbehavior with a mere censure. Not even suspension, probation, etc.         A litigant who appeared in front of Ackel to stop a man from harassing her, was — ironically — so disturbed by the judge’s constant sexual remarks and attempt to have a romantic relationship with her, that she started tape recording him. His comments about sex were extraordinarily vulgar. Perhaps most disturbing, he told her in regards to the man harassing her, "If I have to raise some more hell, I'll have him arrested."       The court said in its opinion, "We agree with the Commission that Ackel's conduct toward Randall constituted willful misconduct." The court also noted that he'd had six prior complaints — and one they considered an aggravating factor, where he had called a female attorney during a pretrial conference "darling," and commented on her legs. In fact, the court found a second aggravating factor, "Ackel's regular use of endearing terms toward and physical contact with women." See Source  FORBES Sunday, October 30, 2016          “The article the Arizona Bar doesn't want you to see - they got it removed from Forbes after two hours!…It's gotten so bad that one of the former members of the Bar's Board of Governors wrote an op-ed for Forbes recently exposing it. Well, within a couple hours after the article was posted here on the Forbes site, it was removed… We've learned that the Arizona Bar disciplinary judge William O'Neil "is a member of the Barnett family, which is basically a one family crime syndicate that everyone in Pinal County knows." …Click on Link Below to read, [T]he Article Arizona Bar doesn’t want you to see… Source:   DISPARATE TREATMENT AGAINST COMMUNITY RESIDENT (MARK DIXON)         According Arizona Central to Divorce case stirs ethics allegations about judge.         This is not a story about a dog or a divorce, but that's where it begins. After Mark Dixon and his ex-wife, Carol Johnson, terminated their marriage in late 2009, they got into a custody dispute over Shiloh, an Australian shepherd. On Dec. 2 of that year, Dixon was pulled over by three plainclothes Pinal County sheriff's deputies with semiautomatic weapons, according to the incident report and court records.         Dixon alleges he was ordered to surrender the dog or face immediate arrest, so he acquiesced. A civil complaint he filed in federal court against a group of Pinal County deputies and Dixon's ex-wife says he argued that the disagreement with his wife was a civil matter and that deputies "did knowingly and willingly criminally extort property" by threatening arrest if he did not give up the dog. His lawsuit accused Pinal County officials of conspiracy.         In a court motion, Dixon asserted that his ex-wife, who then worked for a credit union, had assisted Pinal County Superior Court Judge William J. "Bill" O'Neil in obtaining a $300,000 loan prior to the canine-custody dispute…        In a court motion filed last month, suspended Phoenix attorney Jane O. Ross asked that O'Neil be removed from Bar disciplinary proceedings against her because of "a pattern of corruption, failure to uphold the due-process rights of disciplinary respondents, failure to acknowledge conflicts of interest, abuses of discretion and power, dereliction of judicial duties and knowingly making false statements."...      The motion to remove O'Neil contains allegations of criminal and unethical behavior. It relies heavily on information gathered by Dixon and includes an affidavit from him sworn under penalty of perjury. See Source:       Furthermore, O'Neil (PDJ's) Oath of Office fails to meet the requirements pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38-231(E);      O’Neil, (PDJ) has not been sworn the same Oath as required by the Arizona State Constitution, in order to be a lawful officer of the Arizona State Supreme Court, position of Presiding Disciplinary Judge      Any officer or employee who fails to take and subscribe to the oath or affirmation provided by this section within the time limits prescribed by this section is not entitled to any compensation until the officer or employee does so take and subscribe to the form of oath or affirmation prescribed by this section,” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38-231(B); ...and     Consequently, O’Neil (PDJ) is a public safety threat to the State and any State Licensed Arizona Attorneys who are faced with  being disciplined by O'Neil (PDJ).                   Sign the Petition to have William J. O'Neil (PDJ) Impeached.     Sign the Petition, to also Demand that  Honorable Justices within the Arizona State Supreme Court review all cases prosecuted by O'Neil (PDJ), in order to uphold their fiduciary duty to protect even Arizona Attorneys, who are inclusive of said  public.     Sign the Petition, to Demand that all Honorable Justices within the Arizona State Supreme Court review all O'Neil (PDJ), cases for consideration to rescind - Rulings, Orders and Decisions, issued by O'Neil PDJ, because they are possibly "Null and Void," due to O'Neil (PDJ) not having a valid "Oath of Office," among other issues. Except, Arizona Attorneys convicted of criminal cases not necessary for review by Honorable Justices of the Arizona State Supreme Court.     More importantly, sign the Petition to Demand after the Honorable Justices within the Arizona State Supreme Court have done their careful review of the facts and decipher there is substantial evidence, they send the issue of O'Neil (PDJ) on to the Arizona House of Representatives for a formal Impeachment Trial against O'Neil (PDJ).      If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.     We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them." US Supreme Court Case cases/federal/us/449/200/case. html      In another, not unrelated context, Chief Justice Marshall's exposition in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821), could well have been the explanation of the Rule of Necessity; he wrote that a court: "must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by, because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them." SOURCE: cases/federal/us/449/200/case. html      Conclusion: We thank you in advance for signing this Petition, to stop the "High Jacking of Justice" by William J. O'Neil, Arizona State Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge, a Judge Gone Wild!       Please also visit the following sites:  

Star Moffatt, Co-Owner Moffatt Law Firm
271 supporters
Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Michigan State House, Michigan State Senate, Rick Snyder

Eliminate the Statute of Limitations for ALL Cases of Child Sexual Abuse

A hole in Michigan law is letting child molesters walk free. Randall Doctor admitted to authorities that he had sexually molested boys throughout the 1980s.  Eight victims have come forward (so far) & shared horrifying stories of his abuse. Randall Doctor is now in prison, but the Judge was only able to sentence him to two years in prison on a gun charge and 30 months in prison on drug charges. [1] Randall Doctor can’t be brought up on child sex abuse charges because at the time the sexual assaults occurred, Michigan had a statute of limitations on child sex crimes. The Bad News:  The case of Randall Doctor in NOT unique.  Thousands of victims do not have an opportunity for justice, as child molesters are being protected by statute of limitation laws. The Good News:  The law has been changed & the statute of limitations on child sex crimes in Michigan was removed in 2001 (way to go Legislators! Woot-woot!) The Bad News: The law was not made retroactive, so many victims abused before 2001 cannot get their day in court.  Even if a pedophile admits to abusing children - prosecutors are unable to pursue these cases & child molesters walk free.   The Good News: A bi-partisan group of Michigan Legislators has introduced HOUSE BILL No. 4133 to close this loop hole & retroactively eliminate the statute of limitations on all cases of child sexual abuse. Please, sign this petition and tell Michigan Governor Rick Snyder & all of our Michigan legislators to eliminate the Statute of Limitations for ALL cases of child sexual abuse. Tell them that children deserve protection, victims deserve time, and sex offenders deserve punishment.  Let prosecutors decide which cases to pursue, not clocks.   "Currently, we're barred by the statute of limitations from pursuing any criminal sexual conduct charges against him (Randall Doctor).  But for the statute of limitations, we would have charged him."- Muskegon County Prosecutor D.J. Hilson [2] #STOPTHECLOCK   Citations: [1] [2]  

Jeffery Clark
123 supporters