That's a quote from a Richmond Times-Dispatch article for which this is the address:
The title of the article is "UVa dean's request to toss 'personal attacks' in 'Jackie' deposition is called 'ironic.'"
This is a quote from the article:
"Jackie's attorneys accuse Eramo of taking issue with 'anyone who expresses a negative opinion of her,' and poses a rhetorical question of whether she will similarly take issue with 'uncontested facts' in the case, including unfavorable findings by the federal Office of Civil Rights regarding her duty of handling sexual assault reports on the U.Va. campus, as well as an open letter from the National Organization for Women deriding Eramo's legal battle with Jackie.
'(Jackie) is not surprised that Dean Eramo would rather these facts not be publicized further,' the filing states. 'The problem for Dean Eramo is they are true and they are relevant.'
The motion also specifically calls out one of Eramo's attorneys, Libby Locke, for giving comments and interviews to news outlets, in which she 'attacked (Jackie) and mischaracterized facts in the case.' None of Eramo's attorneys, including Locke, could be reached for comment Wednesday evening."
This is another quote from that article:
"Jackie's attorneys filed a second motion Tuesday that does not appear to be publicly available. Jackie's motion suggests that Eramo is asking the court to compel Jackie to turn over more documents in the case, although Jackie argues that she has already turned over all relevant documents. The filing also suggests that Eramo is asking Jackie to pay fees in the case, a request Jackie calls 'baseless and offensive.'
'When viewed alongside Dean Eramo's unintelligible motion to 'strike' truthful statements made by (Jackie) in defense against Dean Eramo's attacks, this motion appears to be nothing more than Dean Eramo's latest barb aimed at causing (Jackie) distress,' the motion concludes."
The Richmond Times-Dispatch article was posted "2 months ago," as of today, according to its webpage.
It would seem that Dean Eramo's lawyers did not think that they could successfully persuade the court that the federal Office of Civil Rights was colluding with Jackie's lawyers for a publicity stunt, so they attacked the National Organization of Women, hoping that the conglomerate media's misogyny and the conglomerate media's promotion of rape would ensure the victory of Dean Eramo's lawsuit.
Did the Daily Caller and the Washington Post publish articles about what the federal Office of Civil Rights had to say about Dean Eramo and I just didn't happen to locate those articles? What about Dean Eramo trying to get Jackie to pay for Dean Eramo's fees? Has the Daily Caller or the Washington Post reported that somewhere? If so, please get those articles prominently displayed; I'd rather be corrected than inaccurately accuse professional reporters of being biased and of omitting facts.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, June 13, 2016 @ 6:41 p.m.
