Law Professor Wins Record Defamation Verdict For False Rape Claim

downloadUniversity of Minnesota Law School Professor Francesco Parisi has won almost $1.2 million in a defamation case against a woman who accused him falsely of rape.  It might be the largest defamation verdict in history for Minnesota. It is a rare such verdict in a rape case. However, the defendant was never charged with a false charge, a common practice of police even in some of the most notorious false rape cases like the Duke Lacrosse Case.  At the time, Morgan Wright’s false charge destroyed Parisi’s life, including a three-week incarceration which led to his not being with his mother when she died.

Parisi and Wright had a romantic relationship but, when they separated, Parisi sought to cancel an agreement to purchase a condo.  On the same day, Wright filed for a protective order.  The two fought over the condo for months until a court ruled for Parisi.  After that ruling, Wright accused Parisi of sexual assault.

download-2The criminal case collapsed but not until after Parisi was arrested and incarcerated.

The judge in the Hennepin County District Court ruled for Parisi after a bench trial in September, finding Wright’s “plethora of allegations against Parisi lack credibility.” Judge Daniel Moreno further concluded that her “accusations were false, made with malice. [She] injured Parisi as a direct result of her untruthful narrative crusade.”

Parisi received more than $800,000 of the award for economic losses and $325,000 to cover emotional, punitive and reputational damages.

The Parisi case is a rare example of civil liability.  As noted earlier, police rarely charge in these cases or individuals received relatively light sentences (here and here and here and here  and here and here and here and here) despite often ruining the lives of the falsely accused. There are exceptions of longer sentences.

Obviously, such charges could deter victims in coming forward, an important consideration for prosecutors. I have struggled with that dilemma through the years. However, these false allegations often result in the loss of liberty, employment, scholarship, and prospects for the accused.  Those are real harms and the civil litigation is often not a real option due to the lack of assets or other barriers. That often leaves the victims of false accusations with no remedy.

That is clearly not the case with Professor Parisi but even this large award does not cover the cost of his arrest and absence from his mother at her death. Yet, this is an important verdict in seeking to deter such false accusations.

Professor Parisi is a very distinguished academic who is teaching as both a Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a Professor of Economics at the University of Bologna, Department of Economics. He previously held a chair in Private Law at the University of Milan (Statale) and was appointed Professore Ordinario per Chiara Fama. He received his D.Jur. degree from the University of Rome “La Sapienza”, an LL.M. and a J.S.D. and an M.A. degree in Economics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Ph.D in Economics from George Mason University.

61 thoughts on “Law Professor Wins Record Defamation Verdict For False Rape Claim”

  1. Christine Blasey Ford and the criminal democrats showed the entire nation of women how it’s done. They really are destroyers, of everything. Maybe they weren’t in some prior to my life past, but they are now.

    1. The “criminal democrats” really are destroyers! They target anyone who is perceived as a threat to their radical agenda. They praised Dr. Ford as a brave hero and attacked anyone who looked at HER background. With Reade, they immediately label her as a liar and they pore over every detail of her life to destroy her, just as they did with Bill Clinton’s accusers.

      This is beyond dispute, it is done blatantly since the dems have the 100% support and complicity of the establishment media. They MUST support Planned “Black Genocide” Parenthood at all costs. They fund it generously and get back generous contributions to their campaigns. It is corrupt and it is evil.

  2. Cases like this make it more difficult for a woman who has really been attacked to get justice.

    1. The responsibility for telling the truth lies with women. If you falsely accuse someone of rape you are damaging every other woman.

    2. Absolute rubbish. If a claim is true it will stand up under examination, If not, it should not have been made.

      1. Funny how at a vid link I see the woman in question was caught out by a police officer as a liar, and he refused to forward the complaint to a prosecutor. So she went back six months later and tried again, and the next cop failed to read the prior report, so off to the races.

    3. bob: Maybe you used to get drunk when you were in your wenties. Maybe you arre 40 or 45. How do you defend yourself when some lady comes out of the woodwork 20 years later and alleges publicly that you didn’t. And who can rember where they were 20 some years ago. and maybe she has some friends who are willing to lie and say you are there? this “Believe All women” is nonsense. there after to be reasonable statutes of limitations especially on something like this! Please put yourself into this hypothetical and ask how you would feel and what you would do? (Maybe she also says when she accuses you publicly that she never reported it until now because you threatened to kill her.) and imagine her story is total BS!!??

    4. Every criminal allegation has to be proven. Since justice requires proof, a jury should always regard the accuser as possibly telling the truth…or not.

      The fact that false accusers may remind a jury that a woman might not be telling the truth is a good thing, in a way. They should remember to look at evidence, and not judge solely on the basis of the accusation itself, or the gender of the accuser.

      People need to be reminded that justice requires proof. We don’t want jurors conditioned to mob justice, who may see a male defendant and think, “Hang ’em!”

      However, I do agree with you that a false accusation is a slap in the face to all the real rape victims out there, male and female. It’s like a form of stolen victim valor, claiming to be a survivor when in fact they are a predator.

      I visited a woman in the hospital who had been kidnapped and raped. The damage was so severe that if I had not been directed to her room, I would have walked right by her. I could not have identified her. She had a brain injury, and could not recall the entire day. Her head looked like a pumpkin. The doctors said she was so broken, it was like she was hit by a car doing 70. They thought perhaps she had been targeted by a biker gang initiation. The shock she felt was indescribable. She wasn’t connected to anyone like that. The men who did this to her could be right in front of her, and she’d have no idea. What can you say to someone going through that, when you can’t even hold her hand because it’s broken?

      I always think of her, and feel rage that any woman would lie about something as dead serious as rape.

  3. I am uncomfortable with the writer’s concerns about legitimate victims fearing coming forward because of these false accusation cases…

    …it seems I’m the only one on earth who understands this, but the purpose of punishment is simply TO DETER. it isn’t restitution, revenge or rehabilitation.

    something must deter lying heartless hateful women. was it right that any woman could get a black man lynched with a simple lie a century ago? women continue to have that unfair power.

    how about ramping up the consequences, big time? women insist they don’t want to be handled any more, so drop the double-standard that they are sweet mothering sugary spices.

    not only do bee-otches need deterrence, but so do Moslem suiciders, powerful democrats like the Hildabeast and Obamalinsky, and public school teachers indoctrinating kids with their leftist propaganda.

    otherwise, you see, they’ll keep on doing it. more deterrence, bwana. more deterrence.

    1. York: “the purpose of punishment is simply TO DETER. it isn’t restitution, revenge or rehabilitation.”

      I suspect revenge is also an underlying factor. The state administers punishment as a substitute for personal revenge. When the state fails people tend to seek justice personally, the ancient way. It is a factor.

    2. While I agree with you that a deterrent is a major component of punishment, I do think that justice is part of it.

      If someone killed your sister in order to get insurance money, but you were sure they would never do it again because they were caught this time, would that deterrent satisfy?

      In my view, justice requires some sort of punishment on behalf of the victims. Otherwise, the message would be that they can kill or maim whomever they want, as long as it’s a one time thing. Not only do you need to deter the perpetrator from re-offending, as well as others who are thinking about it, there needs to be some kind of recompense to the victims. That is often in the form of time served.

      I also agree with you that if nothing happens to a malicious woman who uses a rape accusation as a weapon, then there is nothing stopping her from targeting more men. The punishment itself is both a deterrent, and payment to the victims.

  4. The country needs there to be fewer false accusations. Big awards is likely to lead to more pushback by the innocent – and especially by the not-guilty but not really innocent, either. The Fake rape accusation in Duke was a total travesty – but the professors who wanted to deny due process should all be punished for being guilty of depriving the innocent of their rights. No punishment more than lip-moving apology, or less, means no changes.

    False accusations are a serious issue. As Trump said, when he claimed to be the target of many such, so also claimed to be supporting Biden.

    Feminists in general, but Dem Feminists in particular, need to be more consistent in believing women, or not, based on evidence in the allegation, NOT based on the popularity or not of the target. As long as the evidence hypocrisy continues by Dem Feminists, where Reps are guilty based on less evidence than Dems who are presumed innocent, such hypocrisy cries out for more and higher awards to those who suffer from false accusations.

    1. Feminists in general, but Dem Feminists in particular, need to be more consistent in believing women, or not, based on evidence in the allegation, NOT based on the popularity or not of the target. A

      No, they need to stop being feminists and start being ordinary people again. Feminism does not encompass a coherent understanding of social relations. It’s a set of rhetorical games meant to import the methods of unproductive domestic arguments into public life. None of it has any value at all.

        1. As a friend of mine likes to say, “How’d you like to call him ‘honey’?” Any woman with a lick of sense would run.

  5. “It’s Not Nice To Fool Mother Nature.”

    – Chiffon Margarine, 1971
    _____________________

    Unintended consequences continue to flow from antithetical 19th Dumbmendment. Most Americans inherently know that bit of hysteria and incoherence and #MeToo!

    The American Founders understood the rationale against the vote by women and the need for the function of women of bearing, nurturing and developing Americans in numbers and quality sufficient to defend and grow the nation. Representative self-governance was to be accomplished as a restricted-vote republic with the vote retaining its import and power, and representation beginning in the home with family members influencing the head of household voter.

    The vote is out of control. America is out of control.

  6. “It’s Not Nice To Fool Mother Nature.”

    – Chiffon Margarine, 1971
    _____________________

    $22+ trillion spent on General Secretary Lyndon Johnson’s wholly unconstitutional “War on Poverty” since 1964.

    What kind of “lawyers” passed that bit of illegal communism?

  7. In regard to the left’s treatment of Dr. C. Ford vs. the treatment of Tara Reade, the blatant hypocrisy of the left is on full display. Leland Keyser has stated that she was threatened by members of Team Ford to lie in support of Ford’s lies. Keyser was ostensibly one of Ford’s “best friends” at the time of the alleged assault. Keyser never confirmed Ford’s allegations and did, in fact, undercut them. Ford ended up with essentially NO supporting evidence for her allegation, yet she was protected by the left from questions about HER background that have been welcomed and encouraged in the case of Reade.

    Further, I am not aware of a single leftist that has apologized to Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two young daughters – all of whom were subjected to a corrupt conspiracy and slandered and smeared in the most public way possible. Not one apology.

    The treatment of Tara Reade has been reminiscent of the treatment of the many women who were targeted, slandered and smeared simply for attempting to tell the truth about chronic sexual predator Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton was a leader of the “Bimbo eruptions team” tasked with destroying those women.

    The left has a long history of targeting and attempting to destroy their perceived political enemies, a history that was institutionalized and streamlined by the Obama/Biden Administration, that weaponized multiple gov’t agencies to target and destroy political enemies: from Joe the Plumber, Tea Party leaders, True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht to Gen. Flynn, Carter Page, George Papadopoulus and, of course, Donald J. Trump.

    The underlying motivation of this decades long fraudulent campaign of personal destruction is the love of a radical leftist dogma, especially the perverted devotion to the practice of killing and dismembering tiny, innocent human beings unfortunate enough to be found in utero in this corrupt, demonic age. Only lately, is Planned “Black Genocide” Parenthood being exposed for what it truly is.

  8. Jonathan: The case of Professor Francesco Parisi underscores the fact that there are no real winners when someone is falsely accused of rape. This brings us to the case of Tara Reade’s allegation that Joe Biden raped her. Reade’s credibility has been questioned because of revelations she lied about obtaining a bachelor’s degree from Antioch University and then lied again when she applied to Seattle University to get her JD degree. On her resume Reade claims she was a “legislative assistant” and worked on the Violence Against Women Act. In fact Reade was “staff assistant”, a lower position, and did not work on the Act. Now her attorney, Douglas Wigdor, has dropped Reade as a client with no apparent explanation. And when asked Reade could not recall what language she used on her 1993 complaint with the Senate personnel office. All of this may be immaterial to Reade’s allegation against Biden but I’m sure you would agree it requires further investigation.

    In previous posts you have taken Lisa Bloom and Katha Politt to task for their “blind loyalty” to Biden and accusing Democrats of “hypocrisy”. And you say “I have repeatedly said that I still fear that the record strongly favors Biden” (5/22). Why use the word “fear” unless you actually believe Reade’s unproven allegations or you are pursuing an anti-Biden agenda? In your two posts about Bloom and Politt you make only passing reference to Donald Trump who uses crude language about women and has a long history of sexual assaults. We all recall Trump’s infamous remark on the Hollywood Access tapes: “When you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy”. This is not the only time Trump has used the “p” word. When Tucker Carlson commented on FOX about Trump’s hair the then TV star replied in a message: “It’s true you have better hair than I do, but I get more pussy”. It’s very unlikely Biden would use such crude language but your focus appears to be on the one unproven allegation by Tara Reade to try to discredit Biden as a candidate– while ignoring Trump’s sordid sexual past, his crude language and paying off former porn stars to keep them quiet. Despite this most Republicans will still vote for Trump in November. Now that’s real “blind loyalty” and hypocrisy”! But why hold Biden to one standard while giving Trump a pass? I’ll leave that to your followers to sort out.

    1. Dennis McIntyre, what does your wholly immaterial indulgence of prevarication have to do with proving or disproving the rape of Tara Reade by U.S. Senator Joe Biden?

    2. @Dennis.

      There is strong, credible evidence to support Tara Reade’s claim that Joe Biden assaulted, and likely raped, her. Biden and his office retaliated against her for reporting the assault, her mother was on Larry King the next month, she told numerous friends at the time, and the devastating effect that the incident had on her were detailed in court filings in San Luis Obispo in 1996. None of which were uncovered by the “thorough” investigations done by Obama’s team, the DNC, and the New York Times. All while Biden plays hide the ball on the old personnel records. And as the Times said until Biden’s campaign pressured them to change it, they could find no evidence of a pattern of sexual misconduct by Joe ‘serial assaulter’ Biden, other than the long pattern of misconduct we already know about. Of course, Biden supporters would vote for him even if he boiled babies and ate them.

      Since credibility is at issue, we need to remember Biden’s lifetime of dishonesty. He accused the truck driver who was at fault in horrible accident with his first wife of being a drunk driver to score political points. He plagiarized a law review article for a paper in his first year of law school. He lied about his law school record. He was forced out of the 1988 presidential race for plagiarizing a Neil Kinnock speech. He falsely claimed that he opposed the Iraq war. He and his son are up to their eyeballs in corruption in the Ukraine. Last week he falsely claimed that the NAACP endorsed him every time he’s run. And, of course, he denies Tara Reade’s allegations.

      Woe to a woman that dares to speak out to a prominent Democrat.

      1. First, insofar as “perspective” matters so much to so many, let me say that I am not a member of either party, as, by and large, members of both have done their jobs well, which is to get one half of “us” to hate the other half….the foundation for “control”

        That said, then, and respectfully, what you are talking about is not “strong credible evidence”. To this point, it is at best, “anecdotal”.

        I am not saying it does not deserve scrutiny, as the alleged behavior is a serious charge. I am even almost inclined to accept that many “leaders”, most of whom are heavy egocentrics or they would not want to lead in the first place, are capable of such behavior.

        To wit, isn’t, in the end, the constitution supposed to be a bulwark against egocentricity (which engenders love of power, etc.)?

        I have even thought that one of the reasons that some legislators, especially on the federal side, vote for this, that and the other thing, is that they have been compromised by governmental and private (intel) entities who have discovered the unsavory parts of their “egocentric” lives and are literally blackmailing them.

        Again, this is not a political statement on my part. I just literally wonder if there is not many such threads in the fabric of government, as it is so easy to surveil people and discover what they do rather than what they say.

        Biden and all the rest of such ilk are certainly monumental hypocrites. One would have to be blind or dead to fail to see that. He and they deserve the political fallout for betraying their original position, which is that “all women are to be believed”, that “position” also being nothing more than another piece of hysterical nonsense.

        That said, Reade appears, more and more, to have some serious credibility issues, but even if that were not true…or it isn’t true……claims of such assault after a quarter or more of a century, have to be viewed with serious scrutiny, as do, indeed, any “convictions”, in either court or public opinion, based on one eyewitness to anything….but especially as such claims as in this case are so easy to make.

        After all, it is not like “murder” where you need evidence that someone is dead.

        I get that this is a very murky area. Being a real victim can distort judgement and memory. It is natural, and with sexual assault matters, that has to be part of the whole picture…and Reade may well be telling the truth.

        But it is also easy for people to make assertions that are simply not true….just recently, as reported here, an academic had a 7 figure defamation win in court because of the falsity of the allegation…..and even if there is some truth to assertions of assault, it is also easy for memory to change over time, as our minds are not tape recorders, but rather, fragile trace evidence.

        Indeed, there is a reason that bad eyewitness testimony is the top cause of wrongful conviction, as the facts are that people see what their filters allow them to see and virtually never see the light as it actually is, by the time it is refracted through their filters. It does not mean they are intentionally dishonest. It simply means they are human.

        Nothing can stop it. Not cross examination or anything else, as if such techniques were completely successful, we would never have wrongful conviction.

        So what does all this mean? You can think that Biden is a sludge bucket and I would agree with you. The man is disgusting, never mind that I literally believe he is mentally challenged at this point.

        But that does not make Reade, at least, certainly, to this point, accurate or truthful, no matter what, even if she did say something to someone else…or ten someone else’s…… decades ago. All that is, is an indication that she thinks something is this or that.

        I am not saying she is lying. I am simply saying that before one joins one or the other half of assertions that allegations are or are not true, one might want to consider waiting for more information.

        neil

        1. ps ……………….or accepting that in some instances, real proof will never exist…and life is not perfect…and sometimes we just won’t ever have a real answer, especially with “he said, she said” kinds of assertions.

          Sure, it is ugly, as sexual assault is a very nasty business and can mark victims with a lifetime of mistrust, among other serious issues.

          But at the same time, there is a bigger picture to be considered.

          1. In my younger, cuter days, there were many totally inappropriate advances that were made. It’s up to the women to control their surroundings and get themselves out of situations, like a grownup. I have no sympathy for women who give in to men to further their own careers and then join the “me too” movement years later. I’m not including those who are actually raped. Go to the police and have a rape test done! Even in those situations, a diabolically evil woman (and yes, there are some), could manufacture a situation.

            That being said, remember “cast your bread on the waters….”,it’s kinda comical that this is being done to Biden after what he did to Judge Clarence Thomas, in those hearings with Anita Hill. He did everything he could to bring dishonor to Judge Thomas, and humiliate him.

            This ones for you, Judge Thomas 😁

            1. if i put this in my own words, I would agree that in the largest senses, we have long ago become a nation of wimps.

              that said, anyone who looks at this as you indicate you do, and more or less, I do….is already one who is in command of one’s own space and could not imagine ever letting anyone hurt them in that way.

              but as there are many (both sexes) who, under the right duress, will, for one example, cop to a crime they never committed (roughly 15% of all wrongful convictions), and that unfortunately, millions do not have such a mindset/luxury of such personal space command, for a variety of reasons not even necessarily of their own making.

              accordingly, while each of us should be (and in many ways, like it or not, “is”) responsible for his/her own behavior, there still have to be good attempts to make perpetrators and not genuine victims, responsible for certain behaviors……………………..and no, I am not talking about the hysteria around harassment, such as telling a stupid joke or touching someone on the shoulder and calling it “battery”…and that being a law enforcement matter before all is said and done.

              we are so many generations into people accepting that kind of nonsense that many could not even imagine life without someone else being responsible for their predicaments.

        2. you serious? all accusations are ‘anecdotal’. look more deeply into it? like, there was a third person standing unnoticed behind a fake tree in the hallway, who can be located?

          maybe the Russkies have a secret recording of Biden munching and slurping on a Reuben sandwich that can be edited to include female moans and protests…

          or there’s a geriatric housefly somewhere who was there at the time, who can be subpoenaed.

          anyway, all this bruhaha over nothing: Joe was just fishing around for a quarter.

          1. “more deeply” implies that there will either be a definitive reckoning based on real provable evidence, or there won’t be.

            1. ps “anecdotal” is “evidence” that is more casual and which relies primarily on personal testimony.

              not all hard evidence ends up as just anecdotal, by any stretch. that is what the justice system is supposed to determine….never mind that it fails so often to do that, in large measure, these days, as the system has been “hystericalized” by such dangerous nonsense as “victim’s rights” or “believing all women”….and/or anything else which takes away from the calm deliberation in which laws and responsibilities for breaking them are supposed to be decided.

    3. Biden if I remember dropped the t bomb on national television. If Biden is the best the Democrats have, so be it. I am more worried about his mental capacity, than the usual Democrats hypocrisy. Oh by the way when President Trump made the grabbing comment, think Kamala Harris… He was right again.

  9. We need lie detector tests. Perhaps have an Irish setter fog listen to the story. He will bark and nod yes if you ask him if she lied.

    1. Actually Lie detector test are not good.. they do not hold up in court because a person can easily fail if they are nervous or sweating.. what really needs to happen is the police really need to do the job and investigate accusations

      1. Oh yeah. Lie detectors definitely don’t work for all the guilty people you are acquainted with. I can see how a lie detector could be a problem. Personally, I would take a lie detector every time without variance or fail because I know the truth will out and honest people are never afraid of the the truth. Don’t enter the results into evidence, enter the results into the Lame Stream Lying Media for all the imbecilic “indoctrinateds” to see. Give one to Christine Ballsey Ford while you’re at it.

        These tests should enter court to be impeached, if possible.

      2. Chanta, I had to take a lie detector test once. first, they make you lie. then they see how the machine reacts. then they ask questions.

        it is not really true that being nervous or sweating can let a guilty person fool the test. legally, that’s a safeguard due to possibility, but you can try it yourself:

        take 5 playing cards. shuffle, then extend. have your friend pull one, face down, and look at it, then replace it in the mini deck.

        then tell your friend to say the word ‘no’ to each question. then show one card at a time, asking ‘is this your card?’.

        it’s a fun parlor game. the subject is forced to lie. even sociopaths and democrats have a hard time trying not to reveal the truth.

        so yours is ‘common wisdom’, but my experience is that it isn’t true.

  10. I’m a woman myself and not the #metoo woman, what gulls me is that the courts always jump to punish the men first before investigating and after all the damage is done- incarceration, loss of work, credibility, destruction of life- they find out the woman lied and there’s no recourse.
    OMG, women should be held responsible for destroying people’s lives, they should serve time in prison to know that these types of allegations are not a joke.

    1. Good for him. This woman was such a liar. Similar rulings should occur for the Duke LaCrosse action, Tawana Brawley, and others. At a minimum it might mitigate future baseless claims. Are you speaking from experience when you say that?

  11. In some states you can keep rolling the judgment and keep her working for minimum wage the rest of her life, regardless of what she is actually paid.

  12. Again, people, valid analogies only.

    1. This man proved (at least by a preponderance of the evidence) that his accuser lied and that compensatory and punitive damages were due.

    2. There is ample reason to believe Paula Corbin Jones is an unscrupulous person, but an unscrupulous person telling the truth. She received an out of court settlement from another unscrupulous person who lies routinely

    3. Tara Reade is a mess of a woman who made allegations you cannot readily prove or disprove. The one thing we know is that she didn’t make them up six weeks ago. She’s been telling others for 27 years about an incident in Biden’s office, and Biden’s staff is playing hide the ball with the records. We also know that Biden is Mr. Boundary-Violations, and he does creepy stuff even when the cameras are rolling.

    4. Christine Blasey Ford made allegations which are unprovable, and offered a mess of details auxilliary to those allegations which have been discredited. She provably lied about ancillary matters. The DNC press agency called The Washington Post was able to locate people Roy Moore had dated 38 years earlier, but they couldn’t come up with one person or one piece of documentary evidence which put Christine Blasey in the same room with Brett Kavanaugh or Mark Judge any time any place anywhere. There was nothing about their patterns of residence and association to lead you to believe they would have ever met. Occam’s razor suggests it was a complete fabrication.

    5. E. Jill Carroll and her defenders can demonstrate that she and her husband once met the Trumps on a receiving line. That’s it. Her tale of having been raped in a dressing room at Bergdorf-Goodman’s appears to have bee cribbed from an episode of one of the Law & Order franchise, broadcast in 2012.

    1. Your statements about Christine Blasey Ford are not true. The so-called investigation was extremely limited from the WH. The FBI was told who they could talk to and no one else. They found additional witnesses but what they had to say was blocked. The witnesses are still out there.

      1. Your statements about Christine Blasey Ford are not true.

        Every statement I made is true and Kavanaugh has passed through a half-dozen FBI background checks since 1990. That aside, it would be a piece of cake for the DNC media to find someone who could attest that Kavanaugh or Judge knew Blasey at the time, but they failed. Occam’s razor suggests that’s because no one can make such an attestation.

        Stop lying.

    2. Add into the fact that Ford was a politically active card carrying leftist and per her attorney her motive was to keep off Kavanaugh off the court due to his position on abortion. This accusation was without a doubt a politically hit job.

      Reade was and is a proud Democrat and voted for Hilary Clinton. So no political motive.

  13. I just finished “Boys and Sex” by Peggy Orenstein, based in her in-depth interviews with high-school and college-age young men. About half of our teen boys are being thrust into a hyper-masculinity contest, deeply interwoven with the 21st-century ethos of the on-line lifestyle where pair-bonding and sexual activity is now consumed as public entertainment among friends. As a result, social standing becomes the predominant factor, and unemotional, inebriated hooking up is a way to put a notch in your belt.

    If that’s not disturbing enough, Orenstein chronicles how young women with sociopathic tendencies are using the ongoing status game among boys to coerce unwanted sexual activity. Once iff together in a private location, if the boy spurns her advance, she threatens reputational damage in the form of dissing the boy’s sexual prowess publicly. The boys cave, and afterwards often undergo the same depression, social retreat, self-medication and relationship anxieties as young women feel who’ve been sexually assaulted. And, we don’t even have a term for this form of female sexual assault, let alone a legal or administrative process set up to investigate, punish and deter it.

    The reason I raise this ugly reality is that it’s very unlikely that Morgan Wright’s false accusation against a professor in this case her first foray into coercive behavior. Rather, I expect that she has racked up previous success using reputational threats to get what she wants, and that the boy/man buckled to her will.

    I’m not suggesting that such manipulative behavior is common among young women. Orenstein is clear that most young women are only influenced in the direction of risky behavior by their cravings of social inclusion, and as a result quasi-willingly participate in binge-drinking and regretful sex.

    That said, the legal system, employers and colleges need to be aware that a small minority of sociopathic young women are ready and willing to exploit bias borne of statistical reality to milk the system. This makes due process all the more crucial, as well as readiness to suss out the rare false accuser.

    1. Peggy Orenstein is a magazine journalist. She’s the liberal answer to Kay S. Hymowitz, though I’d wager she does some actual reporting rather than deriving her understanding of men from reading laddie magazines. Someone wrote of Hymowitz, “She lacks the competence to offer a social-scientific perspective and lacks the insight to offer a humanistic one”. Don’t bother with journalists unless they’re unusually gifted. Read the pros.

  14. What are the odds that Professor Parisi will ever collect on the judgment?

  15. He should have gotten 20 million bucks and she should be in jail for 5 years for destroying a man’s life. Same goes for that disgusting tara reade human.

    1. There is strong, credible evidence to support Tara Reade’s claim that Joe Biden assaulted, and likely raped, her. Biden and his office retaliated against her for reporting the assault, her mother was on Larry King the next month, she told numerous friends at the time, and the devastating affect that Biden’s had on her were detailed in court filings in San Luis Obispo in 1996. None of which were uncovered by the “thorough” vetting done by Obama’s team, the DNC, and the New York Times. All while Biden plays hide the ball on the old personnel records. And as the Times said, the could find no evidence of a pattern of sexual misconduct by Joe ‘serial assaulter’ Biden, other than the long pattern of misconduct we already know about. Of course, Biden supporters would vote for him even if he boiled babies and ate them.

      But woe to a woman that dares to speak out to a prominent Democrat.

    2. Hey Jad, using your lame rationale, does it also mean that Christine Blasey Ford is “disgusting”?

      1. @Ed- In Jad’s reckoning, Christine Blasey Ford is a hero. So much so that she received nearly $1 million in her go fund me donations. Anyone care to take odds on whether Jad contributed?

      2. Tara Reade is supported by the proven circumstantial evidence against a proven female and child toucher/sniffer/harasser.

        Every aspect of Christine Ballsy Ford’s malicious, fictional account has been impeached.

        Tara Reade – 1

        Christine Ballsey Ford – 0

    3. Comparing Tara Reade’s situation with anyone else, is pure political nonsense. I guess you still think Paula Jones was lying about Bill Clinton. Folks like you, don’t care about facts, only about politcs.

      Why do so many Biden supporters feel the need to protect him at all costs. Your statement about Tara Reade, reminds me of Hillary’s disgusting statements about Bill’s accusers.

Leave a Reply