Ohio jury awards $11 million to bakery owners targeted by Oberlin College student protests - This highlights the problem of SJW Insanity from the left

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:42 pm

First topic message reminder :

Bakery filed the libel suit after student boycott, allegations of racism,

The owners of an Ohio bakery who sued for libel after being targeted by student protests won Friday an $11 million verdict against Oberlin College.

A Lorain County jury ordered Oberlin to pay $11 million in compensatory damages to Gibson’s Bakery, a local fixture since 1885 that was beset by protests and racism allegations after three black students were arrested for shoplifting the day after the 2016 presidential election.

“The jury saw that Oberlin College went out of their way to harm a good family and longtime business in their community for no real reason, and the jury said we aren’t going to tolerate that in our community anymore,” Owen Rarric, an attorney for the Gibsons, told Legal Insurrection.

The award, which could triple at Tuesday’s hearing on punitive damages, came as a warning to universities that encourage social-justice activism as student protests spill from the campus to the local community.

“The verdict sends a strong message that colleges and universities cannot simply wind up and set loose student social justice warriors and then wash their hands of the consequences,” said Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson, who runs the conservative Legal Insurrection website.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/7/ohio-jury-awards-11-million-to-bakery-owners-targe/

http://www.chroniclet.com/Local-News/2019/06/07/Gibson-s-Bakery-v-Oberlin-College-More-than-11-million-awarded.html

by Original Quill Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:07 am

phildidge wrote:To date there has been plenty and it shows you have not read the court case

The onus is on you to make the case

As the defendents have been found guillty.

If there are any facts connecting the College, let's have them. Start like this:

1....

2...

3...

etc.

Look forward to it. Laughing

by Guest Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:10 am

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:To date there has been plenty and it shows you have not read the court case

The onus is on you to make the case

As the defendents have been found guillty.

If there are any facts connecting the College, let's have them. Start like this:

1....

2...

3...

etc.

Look forward to it.

The professors and student body organised hate against the bakery with defamation

Opps

You can look forward to the facts they were found guilty of hate top the tune of 44 million

FRankly, I would have personally taken a flame flower to the college and burn such nazism to the grouund once evacuated Laughing

by Guest Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:15 am

I find it funny that Quill asks me for evidence on a case where the racist extremnist left qwing scum have been found guilty and yet he continues to defend racist scum. Hence my views on what is wrong with the left. In the case of Ben, he needs his wiofe to have debates for him. Quill invents imaiginary laws, ignoring the rulling and even thinks its great to defend these racists leftists, that tried to ruin the life of innocent people. That says it all to me, and why I really have lost flavour with this place and mopst of this comes from how Ben and eddie are acting. I love debate, that is it. I find better debate elsewhere now

Laters

by Original Quill Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:32 am

phil wrote:The professors and student body organised hate against the bakery with defamation

So, you're admitting that the connection, or association is all they have. That would be what is called "association fallacy." That is, "by irrelevant association and by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

In another words, because the professors and students are associated with the college, the college is guilty. Suppose they had the same mother; would their mother be guilty, as well?

Admit it, you have no facts that connect the college with the boycott. Without facts, you have no evidence. It's what I've been telling you all along: you start by declaring the college guilty, and then from there you decry the guilt of the college.

by Guest Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:53 am

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:The professors and student body organised hate against the bakery with defamation

Admit it, you have no facts that connect the college with the boycott. Without facts, you have no evidence. It's what I've been telling you all along: you start by declaring the college guilty, and then from there you decry the guilt of the college.

Admit that you are so biased and ignoring a Jury did listen to the evidence and found the college guilty?

Of course you do not like this, as what is being exposed is the power grap going on in Universities and schools by the Far left

So there is plenty of facts and why the college was found guilty, you are simple shutting off your mind to this facts, as they are so damning

In reality its you making the fallacy argument claiming no evidence, by never attending the trial and making poor assumptions, never listening to the trial making absurd claims of no evidence. Its also insulting to the members of the Jury. That you a person never even reading the transcript of the trial can then claim to say there is no evidence. When what you should be actually doing is challenging the evidence presented. You have not even done that and simple asserted an opinion, not even based on the actual trial. Mainly as you are so biased, that you are not even willing to look at the evidence that was presented. You simple assert a position and even worse, and quite stupidly, think you have a gotcha. Based again on you never actually reading the evidence presented in the trial.

What is known, is that the College deliberately set out to harm the family of this bakery and why the Jury found them guilty. You may not like that, but that is irrelevant when you are unable to dermonstrate why you think the evidence is wrong. What you need to understand is the onus is on you, to then challenge the evidence and you hae not even demostrated this. Instead you asked me for evidence, which was a poor strawman argumnent and you know it was. When people as dishonest as you constantly are. Attempt to twist the actual trial, based on your cultist beliefs of intersectionality. It exposes you as a fraud. Its down to you to demonstrate that the evidence was flawed and until you provvide the transcript of the trial.,Then you are simple making unfounded and poor assumtpions

Frankly, they should shut down said facilities, that have now become so corrupted. I imagine that like Evergreen, which has lost now many students on intake, its then the public that take this out on the Universitiies by less students attenting such extremist venues. The liberals are starting to wake up to hateful people like yourself Quill and have had enough of the prejudiced hate being taught within the education system by the vile hateful Far left. The college allowed hateful fliers even to stand within their premesis against he Bakery. That is standing by hate speech and why the College is responsible, when they took no steps to challenge this and instead encouraged this. To the extent the family bakery lost buisness.

The worst aspect of your argument is that you do not think people should be responsible for their actions. At least the Jury disagrees with you and rightly so. What this facility did, was nothing short of hate speech and a campaign of hate based on malicious lies. Even worse, where they sought to defend actual criminals. To then deliberately seek to harm the lives of others, based again on malicious lies they created in an attempt to harm this bakery and its employees. The best way to sum up the rationality of your argument here, is basically you thinking the maliciious lies the nazis presented against the Jews were justified. To then defend the nazi's from any criminal responsibility.

That is essentially what you are doing here and arguing that people from an institution are not collectivelly responsible from the organisation that they are a part of and you wish to deny their responsibility. It would be like claiming that the people who individually murder Jews in the Holocaust were only responsible, Ignoring the fact these orders came from the Nazi's themselves and this argument is often used by antisemites like David Irving. Who tries to argue that Hitler and the nazis were not responsible for the murder of 6 millions Jews. Hence its you denying responsibility. This College was at the forefront of this hate camapaign against the Bakery and did nothing to challenge the views that were being incited within their society. Not only that, they actually encouraged the lies and hate that was promoted against the Bakery family and you want to deny responsibility of the facility here. Shows you have not learn a damn thing from history.

I have spent years debating holocaust deniers, and yet you here use the same poor excuses they do on Nazi responsibility. Its why the College was right ly found guilty, for its implicit hate camapaign against the family.

What is even more disgusting about your reason here, is you simple constantly ignore what actually happened to the bakery family. That to you does not matter. All that matters to you, is to defend hateful institutions like this College, which is built on far leftist cultism and ideology

by Guest Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:35 am

Oberlin College has long been a bastion of idealism. It began admitting black people and women in the 1830s, became a center for the abolitionist movement, and served as a stop on the Underground Railroad for slaves fleeing the South. Its graduates include playwright Thornton Wilder, author Sinclair Lewis, singer Liz Phair, actor John Cazale and actress Lena Dunham.

But in the last four or five years, it has been the subject of attention that alumni consider to be unflattering and red meat for conservatives who view liberal arts colleges as epicenters for political correctness gone amok. National stories have detailed Oberlin student complaints about the cultural appropriation of cafeteria food and an assistant professor who on Facebook suggested that "Zionists" were involved in a plot to bring down the World Trade Center towers on September 11.

Then, in November 2016, students along with some Oberlin staff began gathering in front of Gibson's Bakery to protest what they called store's longtime racist policies after the arrest of three black students. A police report said one of the students was confronted by Allyn Gibson, who is white, after stealing wine. The confrontation turned physical and the students punched and kicked Gibson as he lay on the ground, the report said.

The student caught shoplifting was initially charged with robbery. All three students later pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and read statements in court saying Allyn Gibson's actions that day weren't racially motivated.

The protests, flyers posted around the school denouncing the Gibsons, and a decision by Oberlin Vice President Meredith Raimondo, a defendant in the lawsuit, to end Oberlin's longtime commercial relationship with Gibson's, sent the business into an economic freefall, the lawsuit said. Oberlin eventually resumed its relationship with the market but ended it once again when the Gibsons filed suit in November 2017.

Some alumni are dismayed.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:23 pm

phil wrote:Oberlin College has long been a bastion of idealism. It began admitting black people and women in the 1830s, became a center for the abolitionist movement, and served as a stop on the Underground Railroad for slaves fleeing the South. Its graduates include playwright Thornton Wilder, author Sinclair Lewis, singer Liz Phair, actor John Cazale and actress Lena Dunham.

So you are saying if Oberlin had never admitted black people, they would not be guilty here?

by Guest Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:Oberlin College has long been a bastion of idealism. It began admitting black people and women in the 1830s, became a center for the abolitionist movement, and served as a stop on the Underground Railroad for slaves fleeing the South. Its graduates include playwright Thornton Wilder, author Sinclair Lewis, singer Liz Phair, actor John Cazale and actress Lena Dunham.

So you are saying if Oberlin had never admitted black people, they would not be guilty here?

Ohio jury awards $11 million to bakery owners targeted by Oberlin College student protests - This highlights the problem of SJW Insanity from the left - Page 2 C11

by Original Quill Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:26 pm

phil wrote:Admit that you are so biased and ignoring a Jury

It's not about me.

Reminder: this thread is about a law case against Oberlin College.

by Guest Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:Admit that you are so biased and ignoring a Jury

It's not about me.

Reminder: this thread is about a law case against Oberlin College.

Admit that you are so biased and ignoring a Jury did listen to the evidence and found the college guilty?

Of course you do not like this, as what is being exposed is the power grap going on in Universities and schools by the Far left

So there is plenty of facts and why the college was found guilty, you are simple shutting off your mind to this facts, as they are so damning

In reality its you making the fallacy argument claiming no evidence, by never attending the trial and making poor assumptions, never listening to the trial making absurd claims of no evidence. Its also insulting to the members of the Jury. That you a person never even reading the transcript of the trial can then claim to say there is no evidence. When what you should be actually doing is challenging the evidence presented. You have not even done that and simple asserted an opinion, not even based on the actual trial. Mainly as you are so biased, that you are not even willing to look at the evidence that was presented. You simple assert a position and even worse, and quite stupidly, think you have a gotcha. Based again on you never actually reading the evidence presented in the trial.

What is known, is that the College deliberately set out to harm the family of this bakery and why the Jury found them guilty. You may not like that, but that is irrelevant when you are unable to dermonstrate why you think the evidence is wrong. What you need to understand is the onus is on you, to then challenge the evidence and you hae not even demostrated this. Instead you asked me for evidence, which was a poor strawman argumnent and you know it was. When people as dishonest as you constantly are. Attempt to twist the actual trial, based on your cultist beliefs of intersectionality. It exposes you as a fraud. Its down to you to demonstrate that the evidence was flawed and until you provvide the transcript of the trial.,Then you are simple making unfounded and poor assumtpions

Frankly, they should shut down said facilities, that have now become so corrupted. I imagine that like Evergreen, which has lost now many students on intake, its then the public that take this out on the Universitiies by less students attenting such extremist venues. The liberals are starting to wake up to hateful people like yourself Quill and have had enough of the prejudiced hate being taught within the education system by the vile hateful Far left. The college allowed hateful fliers even to stand within their premesis against he Bakery. That is standing by hate speech and why the College is responsible, when they took no steps to challenge this and instead encouraged this. To the extent the family bakery lost buisness.

The worst aspect of your argument is that you do not think people should be responsible for their actions. At least the Jury disagrees with you and rightly so. What this facility did, was nothing short of hate speech and a campaign of hate based on malicious lies. Even worse, where they sought to defend actual criminals. To then deliberately seek to harm the lives of others, based again on malicious lies they created in an attempt to harm this bakery and its employees. The best way to sum up the rationality of your argument here, is basically you thinking the maliciious lies the nazis presented against the Jews were justified. To then defend the nazi's from any criminal responsibility.

That is essentially what you are doing here and arguing that people from an institution are not collectivelly responsible from the organisation that they are a part of and you wish to deny their responsibility. It would be like claiming that the people who individually murder Jews in the Holocaust were only responsible, Ignoring the fact these orders came from the Nazi's themselves and this argument is often used by antisemites like David Irving. Who tries to argue that Hitler and the nazis were not responsible for the murder of 6 millions Jews. Hence its you denying responsibility. This College was at the forefront of this hate camapaign against the Bakery and did nothing to challenge the views that were being incited within their society. Not only that, they actually encouraged the lies and hate that was promoted against the Bakery family and you want to deny responsibility of the facility here. Shows you have not learn a damn thing from history.

I have spent years debating holocaust deniers, and yet you here use the same poor excuses they do on Nazi responsibility. Its why the College was right ly found guilty, for its implicit hate camapaign against the family.

What is even more disgusting about your reason here, is you simple constantly ignore what actually happened to the bakery family. That to you does not matter. All that matters to you, is to defend hateful institutions like this College, which is built on far leftist cultism and ideology

by Original Quill Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:33 pm

phil wrote:The protests, flyers posted around the school denouncing the Gibsons, and a decision by Oberlin Vice President Meredith Raimondo, a defendant in the lawsuit, to end Oberlin's longtime commercial relationship with Gibson's, sent the business into an economic freefall, the lawsuit said. Oberlin eventually resumed its relationship with the market but ended it once again when the Gibsons filed suit in November 2017.

We get that students and professors were involved in a secondary boycott, but what facts do you have that Oberlin College was involved?

Guilt by association is what you keep going back to. Is that all?

by Original Quill Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:36 pm

phil wrote:Admit that you are so biased and ignoring a Jury did listen to the evidence and found the college guilty?

Of course you do not like this, as what is being exposed is the power grap going on in Universities and schools by the Far left

This is not about me.

I am merely the messenger, who bears a message that apparently you can't answer.

Get some facts, or move on.

by Guest Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:The protests, flyers posted around the school denouncing the Gibsons, and a decision by Oberlin Vice President Meredith Raimondo, a defendant in the lawsuit, to end Oberlin's longtime commercial relationship with Gibson's, sent the business into an economic freefall, the lawsuit said. Oberlin eventually resumed its relationship with the market but ended it once again when the Gibsons filed suit in November 2017.

We get that students and professors were involved in a secondary boycott, but what facts do you have that Oberlin College was involved?

Guilt by association is what you keep going back to. Is that all?

Admit that you are so biased and ignoring a Jury did listen to the evidence and found the college guilty?

Of course you do not like this, as what is being exposed is the power grap going on in Universities and schools by the Far left

So there is plenty of facts and why the college was found guilty, you are simple shutting off your mind to this facts, as they are so damning

In reality its you making the fallacy argument claiming no evidence, by never attending the trial and making poor assumptions, never listening to the trial making absurd claims of no evidence. Its also insulting to the members of the Jury. That you a person never even reading the transcript of the trial can then claim to say there is no evidence. When what you should be actually doing is challenging the evidence presented. You have not even done that and simple asserted an opinion, not even based on the actual trial. Mainly as you are so biased, that you are not even willing to look at the evidence that was presented. You simple assert a position and even worse, and quite stupidly, think you have a gotcha. Based again on you never actually reading the evidence presented in the trial.

What is known, is that the College deliberately set out to harm the family of this bakery and why the Jury found them guilty. You may not like that, but that is irrelevant when you are unable to dermonstrate why you think the evidence is wrong. What you need to understand is the onus is on you, to then challenge the evidence and you hae not even demostrated this. Instead you asked me for evidence, which was a poor strawman argumnent and you know it was. When people as dishonest as you constantly are. Attempt to twist the actual trial, based on your cultist beliefs of intersectionality. It exposes you as a fraud. Its down to you to demonstrate that the evidence was flawed and until you provvide the transcript of the trial.,Then you are simple making unfounded and poor assumtpions

Frankly, they should shut down said facilities, that have now become so corrupted. I imagine that like Evergreen, which has lost now many students on intake, its then the public that take this out on the Universitiies by less students attenting such extremist venues. The liberals are starting to wake up to hateful people like yourself Quill and have had enough of the prejudiced hate being taught within the education system by the vile hateful Far left. The college allowed hateful fliers even to stand within their premesis against he Bakery. That is standing by hate speech and why the College is responsible, when they took no steps to challenge this and instead encouraged this. To the extent the family bakery lost buisness.

The worst aspect of your argument is that you do not think people should be responsible for their actions. At least the Jury disagrees with you and rightly so. What this facility did, was nothing short of hate speech and a campaign of hate based on malicious lies. Even worse, where they sought to defend actual criminals. To then deliberately seek to harm the lives of others, based again on malicious lies they created in an attempt to harm this bakery and its employees. The best way to sum up the rationality of your argument here, is basically you thinking the maliciious lies the nazis presented against the Jews were justified. To then defend the nazi's from any criminal responsibility.

That is essentially what you are doing here and arguing that people from an institution are not collectivelly responsible from the organisation that they are a part of and you wish to deny their responsibility. It would be like claiming that the people who individually murder Jews in the Holocaust were only responsible, Ignoring the fact these orders came from the Nazi's themselves and this argument is often used by antisemites like David Irving. Who tries to argue that Hitler and the nazis were not responsible for the murder of 6 millions Jews. Hence its you denying responsibility. This College was at the forefront of this hate camapaign against the Bakery and did nothing to challenge the views that were being incited within their society. Not only that, they actually encouraged the lies and hate that was promoted against the Bakery family and you want to deny responsibility of the facility here. Shows you have not learn a damn thing from history.

I have spent years debating holocaust deniers, and yet you here use the same poor excuses they do on Nazi responsibility. Its why the College was right ly found guilty, for its implicit hate camapaign against the family.

What is even more disgusting about your reason here, is you simple constantly ignore what actually happened to the bakery family. That to you does not matter. All that matters to you, is to defend hateful institutions like this College, which is built on far leftist cultism and ideology

by Original Quill Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:38 pm

phil wrote:What is known, is that the College deliberately set out to harm the family of this bakery...

I don't believe that is true. Prove it with facts.

by Guest Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:What is known, is that the College deliberately set out to harm the family of this bakery...

I don't believe that is true. Prove it with facts.

Admit that you are so biased and ignoring a Jury did listen to the evidence and found the college guilty?

Of course you do not like this, as what is being exposed is the power grap going on in Universities and schools by the Far left

So there is plenty of facts and why the college was found guilty, you are simple shutting off your mind to this facts, as they are so damning

In reality its you making the fallacy argument claiming no evidence, by never attending the trial and making poor assumptions, never listening to the trial making absurd claims of no evidence. Its also insulting to the members of the Jury. That you a person never even reading the transcript of the trial can then claim to say there is no evidence. When what you should be actually doing is challenging the evidence presented. You have not even done that and simple asserted an opinion, not even based on the actual trial. Mainly as you are so biased, that you are not even willing to look at the evidence that was presented. You simple assert a position and even worse, and quite stupidly, think you have a gotcha. Based again on you never actually reading the evidence presented in the trial.

What is known, is that the College deliberately set out to harm the family of this bakery and why the Jury found them guilty. You may not like that, but that is irrelevant when you are unable to dermonstrate why you think the evidence is wrong. What you need to understand is the onus is on you, to then challenge the evidence and you hae not even demostrated this. Instead you asked me for evidence, which was a poor strawman argumnent and you know it was. When people as dishonest as you constantly are. Attempt to twist the actual trial, based on your cultist beliefs of intersectionality. It exposes you as a fraud. Its down to you to demonstrate that the evidence was flawed and until you provvide the transcript of the trial.,Then you are simple making unfounded and poor assumtpions

Frankly, they should shut down said facilities, that have now become so corrupted. I imagine that like Evergreen, which has lost now many students on intake, its then the public that take this out on the Universitiies by less students attenting such extremist venues. The liberals are starting to wake up to hateful people like yourself Quill and have had enough of the prejudiced hate being taught within the education system by the vile hateful Far left. The college allowed hateful fliers even to stand within their premesis against he Bakery. That is standing by hate speech and why the College is responsible, when they took no steps to challenge this and instead encouraged this. To the extent the family bakery lost buisness.

The worst aspect of your argument is that you do not think people should be responsible for their actions. At least the Jury disagrees with you and rightly so. What this facility did, was nothing short of hate speech and a campaign of hate based on malicious lies. Even worse, where they sought to defend actual criminals. To then deliberately seek to harm the lives of others, based again on malicious lies they created in an attempt to harm this bakery and its employees. The best way to sum up the rationality of your argument here, is basically you thinking the maliciious lies the nazis presented against the Jews were justified. To then defend the nazi's from any criminal responsibility.

That is essentially what you are doing here and arguing that people from an institution are not collectivelly responsible from the organisation that they are a part of and you wish to deny their responsibility. It would be like claiming that the people who individually murder Jews in the Holocaust were only responsible, Ignoring the fact these orders came from the Nazi's themselves and this argument is often used by antisemites like David Irving. Who tries to argue that Hitler and the nazis were not responsible for the murder of 6 millions Jews. Hence its you denying responsibility. This College was at the forefront of this hate camapaign against the Bakery and did nothing to challenge the views that were being incited within their society. Not only that, they actually encouraged the lies and hate that was promoted against the Bakery family and you want to deny responsibility of the facility here. Shows you have not learn a damn thing from history.

I have spent years debating holocaust deniers, and yet you here use the same poor excuses they do on Nazi responsibility. Its why the College was right ly found guilty, for its implicit hate camapaign against the family.

What is even more disgusting about your reason here, is you simple constantly ignore what actually happened to the bakery family. That to you does not matter. All that matters to you, is to defend hateful institutions like this College, which is built on far leftist cultism and ideology

by Original Quill Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:42 pm

phil wrote:The worst aspect of your argument is that you do not think people should be responsible for their actions.

No, to the contrary, I don't believe that Oberlin took any actions involved. You have no response based on any factual record.

This isn't a legal argument, or some deep metaphysical logic. This is a very simple matter: there are no facts.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:55 pm

phil wrote:That is essentially what you are doing here and arguing that people from an institution are not collectivelly responsible from the organisation that they are a part of and you wish to deny their responsibility.

What is collective responsibility? That sounds rather socialist. The last time I heard an argument built on collective responsibility was a couple of years ago when one-percenters were arguing that capitalists should be held collectively responsible for owning all wealth and property.

Is that what you mean? If so, it goes much further than Oberlin College. Hedge Fund corporations, Brokerage Houses, and wealthy individuals must give up all their holdings, which will then be redistributed to all people. That's collective responsiblity.

If you are unwilling to rest with that argument, then we are back to individual responsibility. Oberlin College did nothing wrong...individually.

by Guest Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:08 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:The worst aspect of your argument is that you do not think people should be responsible for their actions.

No, to the contrary, I don't believe that Oberlin took any actions involved. You have no response based on any factual record.

This isn't a legal argument, or some deep metaphysical logic. This is a very simple matter: there are no facts.

Admit that you are so biased and ignoring a Jury did listen to the evidence and found the college guilty?

Of course you do not like this, as what is being exposed is the power grap going on in Universities and schools by the Far left

So there is plenty of facts and why the college was found guilty, you are simple shutting off your mind to this facts, as they are so damning

In reality its you making the fallacy argument claiming no evidence, by never attending the trial and making poor assumptions, never listening to the trial making absurd claims of no evidence. Its also insulting to the members of the Jury. That you a person never even reading the transcript of the trial can then claim to say there is no evidence. When what you should be actually doing is challenging the evidence presented. You have not even done that and simple asserted an opinion, not even based on the actual trial. Mainly as you are so biased, that you are not even willing to look at the evidence that was presented. You simple assert a position and even worse, and quite stupidly, think you have a gotcha. Based again on you never actually reading the evidence presented in the trial.

What is known, is that the College deliberately set out to harm the family of this bakery and why the Jury found them guilty. You may not like that, but that is irrelevant when you are unable to dermonstrate why you think the evidence is wrong. What you need to understand is the onus is on you, to then challenge the evidence and you hae not even demostrated this. Instead you asked me for evidence, which was a poor strawman argumnent and you know it was. When people as dishonest as you constantly are. Attempt to twist the actual trial, based on your cultist beliefs of intersectionality. It exposes you as a fraud. Its down to you to demonstrate that the evidence was flawed and until you provvide the transcript of the trial.,Then you are simple making unfounded and poor assumtpions

Frankly, they should shut down said facilities, that have now become so corrupted. I imagine that like Evergreen, which has lost now many students on intake, its then the public that take this out on the Universitiies by less students attenting such extremist venues. The liberals are starting to wake up to hateful people like yourself Quill and have had enough of the prejudiced hate being taught within the education system by the vile hateful Far left. The college allowed hateful fliers even to stand within their premesis against he Bakery. That is standing by hate speech and why the College is responsible, when they took no steps to challenge this and instead encouraged this. To the extent the family bakery lost buisness.

The worst aspect of your argument is that you do not think people should be responsible for their actions. At least the Jury disagrees with you and rightly so. What this facility did, was nothing short of hate speech and a campaign of hate based on malicious lies. Even worse, where they sought to defend actual criminals. To then deliberately seek to harm the lives of others, based again on malicious lies they created in an attempt to harm this bakery and its employees. The best way to sum up the rationality of your argument here, is basically you thinking the maliciious lies the nazis presented against the Jews were justified. To then defend the nazi's from any criminal responsibility.

That is essentially what you are doing here and arguing that people from an institution are not collectivelly responsible from the organisation that they are a part of and you wish to deny their responsibility. It would be like claiming that the people who individually murder Jews in the Holocaust were only responsible, Ignoring the fact these orders came from the Nazi's themselves and this argument is often used by antisemites like David Irving. Who tries to argue that Hitler and the nazis were not responsible for the murder of 6 millions Jews. Hence its you denying responsibility. This College was at the forefront of this hate camapaign against the Bakery and did nothing to challenge the views that were being incited within their society. Not only that, they actually encouraged the lies and hate that was promoted against the Bakery family and you want to deny responsibility of the facility here. Shows you have not learn a damn thing from history.

I have spent years debating holocaust deniers, and yet you here use the same poor excuses they do on Nazi responsibility. Its why the College was right ly found guilty, for its implicit hate camapaign against the family.

What is even more disgusting about your reason here, is you simple constantly ignore what actually happened to the bakery family. That to you does not matter. All that matters to you, is to defend hateful institutions like this College, which is built on far leftist cultism and ideology

by Original Quill Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:20 pm

phil wrote:I have spent years debating holocaust deniers, and yet you here use the same poor excuses they do on Nazi responsibility.

This thread is not about me. It's about Oberlin College and some bogus lawsuit.

Have you nothing to say about that? Some facts, say, re: how Oberlin is even involved?

by Guest Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:I have spent years debating holocaust deniers, and yet you here use the same poor excuses they do on Nazi responsibility.

This thread is not about me. It's about Oberlin College and some bogus lawsuit.

Have you nothing to say about that? Some facts, say, re: how Oberlin is even involved?

Going to keepo posting until you respond to all my points

Of course you do not like this, as what is being exposed is the power grap going on in Universities and schools by the Far left

So there is plenty of facts and why the college was found guilty, you are simple shutting off your mind to this facts, as they are so damning

In reality its you making the fallacy argument claiming no evidence, by never attending the trial and making poor assumptions, never listening to the trial making absurd claims of no evidence. Its also insulting to the members of the Jury. That you a person never even reading the transcript of the trial can then claim to say there is no evidence. When what you should be actually doing is challenging the evidence presented. You have not even done that and simple asserted an opinion, not even based on the actual trial. Mainly as you are so biased, that you are not even willing to look at the evidence that was presented. You simple assert a position and even worse, and quite stupidly, think you have a gotcha. Based again on you never actually reading the evidence presented in the trial.

What is known, is that the College deliberately set out to harm the family of this bakery and why the Jury found them guilty. You may not like that, but that is irrelevant when you are unable to dermonstrate why you think the evidence is wrong. What you need to understand is the onus is on you, to then challenge the evidence and you hae not even demostrated this. Instead you asked me for evidence, which was a poor strawman argumnent and you know it was. When people as dishonest as you constantly are. Attempt to twist the actual trial, based on your cultist beliefs of intersectionality. It exposes you as a fraud. Its down to you to demonstrate that the evidence was flawed and until you provvide the transcript of the trial.,Then you are simple making unfounded and poor assumtpions

Frankly, they should shut down said facilities, that have now become so corrupted. I imagine that like Evergreen, which has lost now many students on intake, its then the public that take this out on the Universitiies by less students attenting such extremist venues. The liberals are starting to wake up to hateful people like yourself Quill and have had enough of the prejudiced hate being taught within the education system by the vile hateful Far left. The college allowed hateful fliers even to stand within their premesis against he Bakery. That is standing by hate speech and why the College is responsible, when they took no steps to challenge this and instead encouraged this. To the extent the family bakery lost buisness.

The worst aspect of your argument is that you do not think people should be responsible for their actions. At least the Jury disagrees with you and rightly so. What this facility did, was nothing short of hate speech and a campaign of hate based on malicious lies. Even worse, where they sought to defend actual criminals. To then deliberately seek to harm the lives of others, based again on malicious lies they created in an attempt to harm this bakery and its employees. The best way to sum up the rationality of your argument here, is basically you thinking the maliciious lies the nazis presented against the Jews were justified. To then defend the nazi's from any criminal responsibility.

That is essentially what you are doing here and arguing that people from an institution are not collectivelly responsible from the organisation that they are a part of and you wish to deny their responsibility. It would be like claiming that the people who individually murder Jews in the Holocaust were only responsible, Ignoring the fact these orders came from the Nazi's themselves and this argument is often used by antisemites like David Irving. Who tries to argue that Hitler and the nazis were not responsible for the murder of 6 millions Jews. Hence its you denying responsibility. This College was at the forefront of this hate camapaign against the Bakery and did nothing to challenge the views that were being incited within their society. Not only that, they actually encouraged the lies and hate that was promoted against the Bakery family and you want to deny responsibility of the facility here. Shows you have not learn a damn thing from history.

I have spent years debating holocaust deniers, and yet you here use the same poor excuses they do on Nazi responsibility. Its why the College was right ly found guilty, for its implicit hate camapaign against the family.

What is even more disgusting about your reason here, is you simple constantly ignore what actually happened to the bakery family. That to you does not matter. All that matters to you, is to defend hateful institutions like this College, which is built on far leftist cultism and ideology

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:49 pm

It's not clear how much the college was involved, but the question is - should colleges be held responsible if students plan this kind of disruption on college premises?

by Original Quill Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:It's not clear how much the college was involved, but the question is - should colleges be held responsible if students plan this kind of disruption on college premises?

There's no specific proof of Oberlin's involvement.

Should colleges be held responsible if students are disruptive? The primary question is why? Educational institutions are not police departments. What precedent does that establish? The next lawsuit will insist the court make all business enterprises into responsible parties: office buildings, or department stores, auto dealers, dress shops, restaurants...or indeed, bakeries. Then we come full circle.

One hand goes with the other: if colleges and businesses are responsible for their customers, you must give them the absolute means to control everything. If you start making businesses into imperial dictators, they will eventually lose their purpose. To many that would be all right...but this is not just a matter of guns and explosives.

This case is restraint-of-trade litigation. How do you remedy that? You must give the institutions and businesses the power to compel office workers, students, hospital patients, restaurant customers, auto purchasers, etc., to purchase from the given plaintiff business.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Law is for everyone, not just this situation or that. As with didge's collective responsibility, you must think in terms of applying any measure to all other applications. For sure...there will be a lawsuit that comes along and applies precedent, and thus demands it.

by Guest Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:50 pm

by Guest Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:16 pm

Today was the first day of testimony in the trial of Gibson Bros. v. Oberlin College. I was in the courtroom, as I will be for every day of trial.

You can read about some of the background on this case here.

If there is one thing Americans agree upon these days, it is that the inmates have taken over the asylum. The various political sides and religious groups and age entities and the multiple genders of this country may not agree upon who are inmates and who runs the asylum — and perhaps how it might get fixed — but they all generally concur that something is messed up.

But in this rare world of agreement, most conclude that the most messed up of all the institutions is higher education, the boilerplate of America gone haywire. Costs out of control, free speech madness, parents bribing officials to get their kids in, sports more important than books, and as writer Gertrude Stein once said, suffering from “There is no there there.”

This higher education identity crisis of who is really in charge was on full display on the opening day of evidence being presented in the Gibson Bros. v. Oberlin College case in Elyria, Ohio. In fact, it all became clear what the primary issue in this case with the first witness.

Ferdinand Protzman, the chief of staff for the school administration and a 1975 graduate of Oberlin College, was on the stand Friday morning to testify why he didn’t think the school’s decisions to cut business ties with the little local bakery was a good idea after students launched a protest claiming Gibson’s was racist. The racist claim came about because students were upset that Gibson’s caught three African-American students shoplifting in November of 2016.

Gibson’s attorney Lee Plakas asked Protzman what was the reason for cutting ties with the business they had worked with for more than a century. He pointed out emails from various administrators that the student might have throw a “tantrum” on campus, specifically in the cafeteria while eating dinner, and that might be a good reason to get their cookies and bagels elsewhere.

“The concern was that the students were angry?” Plakas asked. “The fear was that angry students would throw food [made by Gibson’s] on the floor [of the cafeteria] and stomp on it?”

“Yes, that was one of the concerns,” Protzman answered.

“Doesn’t that sound more like a nursery school than a college?” Plakas continued.

“Nursery school students do throw food on the floor, yes,” Protzman said, adding “We are not the students’ parents,” as the reason the school could not tell the students to quit threatening to throw food on the floor and eat their dinner like nice people do.

For those who want more details of the “Student Food Stomp Threat,” the food to be flattened into the cafeteria tile was going to be donuts and bagels made by Gibson’s, but no one could was sure of the students were going to put cream cheese on the bagels before they jumped on them.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-1-it-was-a-mob-mentality-out-there/

by Original Quill Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:51 pm

Still no evidence of hard substance. You seem impassioned by the rhetoric surrounding this case. But, just as adjectives are not arguments, so it is that rhetoric is not proof.

All I read about this case suggests that the Ohio jury was swayed by the same insubstantial rhetoric at trial. Every article goes into the same mushy, opinion-based testimony, where what is needed are hard facts.

When cooler heads prevail, I am confident the verdict will be reversed.

by Original Quill Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:40 am

phildidge wrote:To date there has been plenty and it shows you have not read the court case

The onus is on you to make the case

As the defendents have been found guillty

Doh

I have followed the "responsible" news stories regarding this case. The claims are for (1) defamation and (2) secondary boycott.

1. Oberlin did nothing itself to defame the business, nor did it participate in any boycott.

2. An employer cannot be held responsible for the actions of an employee, unless it was acting as an agent. No valid proof of agency has been shown.

This was a run-away jury, set loose in Trumpland. Oberlin is a liberal arts college, and Ohio went for Trump in every race he has run. It was a collision waiting to happen.

These anomalous results are anticipated in the law, and the law has a way of handling them. It's called appeal. I feel confident that this decision will be reversed on appeal because (1) the only connection to Oberlin is as students and employees; and (2) agency theory doesn't work because whatever actions were made were not in the scope of agency:

Legalmatch Law Library wrote:What Is the Scope of an Agent's Authority?
Ultimately, this depends on the agreement made between the principal and the agent. In general, there are two ways to determine the scope of an agent's authority:

Express: An agent's authority can be expressly determined. If an agreement specifies an agent's duties, an agent does not have authority to represent the principal beyond those duties.

Implied: An agent's authority can be implied by custom. Custom is determined by the express duties of other agents in the same position. For example, a realty company hires a real estate agent. It is implied that the agent has authority to help third parties buy and sell homes since it is the custom among real estate agents.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/scope-of-an-agents-authority.html

Therefore, Oberlin College was improperly sued.

by Guest Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:40 am

phildidge wrote:Today was the first day of testimony in the trial of Gibson Bros. v. Oberlin College. I was in the courtroom, as I will be for every day of trial.

You can read about some of the background on this case here.

If there is one thing Americans agree upon these days, it is that the inmates have taken over the asylum. The various political sides and religious groups and age entities and the multiple genders of this country may not agree upon who are inmates and who runs the asylum — and perhaps how it might get fixed — but they all generally concur that something is messed up.

But in this rare world of agreement, most conclude that the most messed up of all the institutions is higher education, the boilerplate of America gone haywire. Costs out of control, free speech madness, parents bribing officials to get their kids in, sports more important than books, and as writer Gertrude Stein once said, suffering from “There is no there there.”

This higher education identity crisis of who is really in charge was on full display on the opening day of evidence being presented in the Gibson Bros. v. Oberlin College case in Elyria, Ohio. In fact, it all became clear what the primary issue in this case with the first witness.

Ferdinand Protzman, the chief of staff for the school administration and a 1975 graduate of Oberlin College, was on the stand Friday morning to testify why he didn’t think the school’s decisions to cut business ties with the little local bakery was a good idea after students launched a protest claiming Gibson’s was racist. The racist claim came about because students were upset that Gibson’s caught three African-American students shoplifting in November of 2016.

Gibson’s attorney Lee Plakas asked Protzman what was the reason for cutting ties with the business they had worked with for more than a century. He pointed out emails from various administrators that the student might have throw a “tantrum” on campus, specifically in the cafeteria while eating dinner, and that might be a good reason to get their cookies and bagels elsewhere.

“The concern was that the students were angry?” Plakas asked. “The fear was that angry students would throw food [made by Gibson’s] on the floor [of the cafeteria] and stomp on it?”

“Yes, that was one of the concerns,” Protzman answered.

“Doesn’t that sound more like a nursery school than a college?” Plakas continued.

“Nursery school students do throw food on the floor, yes,” Protzman said, adding “We are not the students’ parents,” as the reason the school could not tell the students to quit threatening to throw food on the floor and eat their dinner like nice people do.

For those who want more details of the “Student Food Stomp Threat,” the food to be flattened into the cafeteria tile was going to be donuts and bagels made by Gibson’s, but no one could was sure of the students were going to put cream cheese on the bagels before they jumped on them.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-1-it-was-a-mob-mentality-out-there/

From the same link~:

If you think this part is funny teaching moment, listen to what former City of Oberlin police officer Victor Ortiz about the protesters outside of Gibson’s two days after the 2016 presidential election. He was an on-duty that day, and responded to the threat of the 200 or so people protesting. The police quickly assessed the situation, and Ortiz said he found the situation so dangerous that he was considering calling the Lorain County riot team to quell the situation.

“It was a mob mentality out there,” said Ortiz. “People were getting flyers shoved in their faces saying Gibson’s were racist, curse words were chanted, and they chanted how this business was racist too.”

This video, which was not played in court today, gives a sense of what the protest looked like as described by Ortiz:

Ortiz also questioned the supposition from Oberlin College that the school’s employees on the scene at the protest – including The Devil You Know of Students Meredith Raimondo, a defendant in this case – were only there to calm the situation down.

“I didn’t see anyone trying to calm the students down at all,” Ortiz said. “Didn’t see any of them instructing the students not to use curse words and didn’t hear any of them tell their students not to shout that Gibson’s is racist. The sidewalks were filled up, and a lot of businesses closed in the early afternoon because they were afraid.”

What happened to set this all up was that an Oberlin College male student and his two female student friends were involved in being caught shoplifting wine at Gibson’s Bakery and Market, and a scuffle afterwards outside the store before the three were arrested. This all happened the day after Donald Trump was elected president, and the Oberlin College students seemed angry enough to protest and threaten to stomp on donuts and bagels as a way to express such anger.

Ortiz also settled an issue that has caused some dispute and consternation in Oberlin. Some in the Oberlin College community have expressed that one of the Gibson’s employees (Allyn Gibson) chased after the three shoplifters – one male, and two females – and beat them up unfairly and illegally outside of the store. In short, the school supporters have pushed interpretation of all this that the shoplifters were the victims of a crime, not Gibson’s

Quite the opposite happened, Ortiz testified, as he was one of the first on the scene and the police report backs him up on this.

“When we got there, we saw two young ladies [Endia Lawrence and Cecelia Whettstone] standing over [Allyn Gibson] and throwing haymakers at him,” Ortiz said. “The two women would stand over him and kick him, and then crouch down and throw punches. As we got closer, we could see [Allyn Gibson] on his back, with the male [Jonathan Aladin] on top of him and punching him.”

Another point made quite clearly by the Gibson’s was that they were not considered racist by the community’s African-American community and the city in general. Ortiz and another former Oberlin police officer said they dealt with Gibson’s on a daily basis, not because there was often trouble there, but because the downtown business area is very small and the police and business owners all know each other well.

Henry Wallace, the city’s police department’s community service officer from 1984 to 2017, and who is also an African-American, told the jury “Gibson’s treated me just like they treat everyone else. They always treated everyone fairly and without any malice, and I say that because I have known them for more than 50 years.”

What became quite evident on the first day of testimony, however, is that the school seemed to perceive that they ran the town of Oberlin, and that the town was supposed to do what they were told to do. The city has a population of 8,000, and the school’s students and teachers and employees are half of that. This is a town that is only 35 miles from downtown Cleveland, Ohio.

A deposition by former Oberlin College president Marvin Krislov said the school had about 400 people who live locally on a “no trespass” list, meaning those people were banned from setting foot anywhere on the school’s 440 acres.

Krislov said in parts of his videotaped deposition shown to the jury (he may testify in person later in the trial), that “a large number of the community were upset about it, because there were a disproportionate number of African-Americans on it.” (Krislov is now president of Pace University in New York City).

Amazingly, the school thought they could get Gibson’s and the city to drop the shoplifting charges against the three students, in exchange for the school business restored with Gibson’s. On December 02, 2017, less than a month after the protest, Tito Reed, set an email to her boss, Krislov, laying out how she thought things could be fixed. This is what the jury read today:

“So can we draft a legal agreement clearly stating that once charges are dropped the [purchase] orders [with Gibson’s] will resume. I’m baffled by their combined audacity and arrogance to assume the position of victim.”

The trial testimony will resume Monday. The jury is deciding if Oberlin College defamed and libeled Gibson’s, and if they decide they did, how much money they owe.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-1-it-was-a-mob-mentality-out-there/

by Guest Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:55 am

Today was Day 2 of witness testimony in Gibson Bros. v. Oberlin College. Last week I covered the final trial motions, jury selection, opening statements, and the first day of witness testimony.

You can read about some of the background on this case here.

Good trial lawyers like to get seminal moments before the jury early on in their cases, and Ohio attorney Lee Plakas was able to do that today. In some ways, in something seldom seen, he created evidence to present.

Plakas represents Gibson’s Bakery & Market and its owners in their lawsuit against Oberlin College and its The Devil You Know of Students, Meredith Raimondo. Gibson’s claims defendants had a role in them being defamed as racists and assaulting the shoplifters — three African-American Oberlin undergrad students — who were shoplifting or assisting in shoplifting, in November 2016.

Multiple witness have testified in the first two days of trial to say the family and the business are not racists – many of them law enforcement personnel and African-Americans who have known the family for 40 years or more — and it was the shoplifters who were charged with assaulting a Gibson’s employee, not the other way around

So the longtime plaintiffs’ trial lawyer called the Oberlin College The Devil You Know of Students Meredith Raimondo to the stand to speak to these issues of Gibson’s being racist and an assaulter of young thieves. Raimondo is a defendant in this case in addition to her employer, and she was called by the plaintiffs as an “adverse witness,” meaning she can still be called by the defendants later on the defendants’ case.

Plakas did something very simple. He read a sentence from a flyer that was passed out at a protest outside the bakery that week of the shoplifting. It was a flyer Raimondo admitted she had passed out. The line on the flyer Plakas was focused on was this: “A member of our community was assaulted by the owner of this establishment yesterday.”

Ohio jury awards $11 million to bakery owners targeted by Oberlin College student protests - This highlights the problem of SJW Insanity from the left - Page 2 Gibsons-Bakery-Oberlin-College-Flyer-Racist

Plakas presented her with a paper that asked her if she “agreed” or “disagreed” with that statement about assault, and to check the proper box. Raimondo hemmed and hawed a bit, but then said her answer was “I don’t know.” So Plakas wrote “I don’t know” on the paper and asked her to sign her name as to that being her answer.
She didn’t want to put her signature on it. But she agreed to initial her “I don’t know” designation.

He did different variations of this three more times and she said she didn’t know each time and initialed the papers.

That wasn’t enough for Plakas, though, as he seemed to have realized he may have struck some gold here. He then pulled out the Oberlin College’s Student Senate resolution passed a day after the shoplifting event, and pulled out this gem from that: “Gibson’s has a history of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment of students and residents alike.” Once again, Rainmondo was asked if she “agreed” or “disagreed” with that statement. She again answered, “I don’t know,” and Plakas brought the next group of papers up to her to initial.

Ohio jury awards $11 million to bakery owners targeted by Oberlin College student protests - This highlights the problem of SJW Insanity from the left - Page 2 Oberlin-College-Student-Senate-Resolution-Gibsons-e1557788492113

The last evidentiary papering of the witness occurred when she was asked if there were negative consequences from being accused unjustly of either assaulting people or being racist when you aren’t. Agree or disagree. This time, she said her answers was “I think it depends on the circumstances.”

Once again, she initialed and it seems like everyone in the courtroom was shocked at what they had observed. The The Devil You Know of Students at a prominent liberal arts college, who had been at this protest and passed out that very flyer that claimed the business owners has unjustly assaulted students, and was the advisor to the student senate that said the little bakery had a “history or racial profiling,” told the jury that “I don’t know” and “it depends on the circumstances” if such accusations were bad for one who is the subject of the attack.

One of the themes of this lawsuit is that Oberlin College was trying to cater to a segment of its students – either radical social justice warriors or minorities or the rudimentary minds of some college students who love any and all angst – and side with them in this time of cultural and political partisanship. The attorneys for Gibson’s are emphasizing repeatedly that the school lost its basic understanding of what the adult in the room is supposed to do, and a small business that has been serving the school as a food provider and city business treasure for more than 100 years was damaged as an innocent bystander business in the process.

Some of these themes came out as Raimondo’s testimony ended for the day (she will be back tomorrow morning).

The plaintiffs have insinuated that the school ended the business deal they had with Gibson’s (for some cafeteria grub and meeting party trays) because the business had refused to drop the legal charges against the students. Emails to and from Raimondo, and other high ranking Oberlin College administrators, had said that their food contract would have resumed “had the Gibson’s been willing to support a resolution outside of the legal system.”

Another email said, “once charges are dropped, orders will resume” and that students “will find [resuming orders] hard to accept” without the charges being dropped. Another email stated that school cannot settle with Gibson’s by “giving them everything and getting nothing in return.”

Raimondo responded that this discussion of resuming business with Gibson’s was decided by a group of administrators and she “didn’t know what the legal matter were” at that time.

If all this wasn’t enough for Oberlin College not to be pleased with the evidence presented today, the plaintiffs also called, Rick McDaniel, the director of security for Oberlin College from 1980 to 1995. He still lives in the city and is very active in community groups.

McDaniel said he had known the Gibson family for close to 40 years, and “never heard or observed, never been an allegation or gossip, about the Gibson’s being racist.” Vicky Gaines, an Oberlin College staff nurse in the school’s health care facility, and an African-American Oberlin city native, also told the jury “I’ve known them for about 40 years, our kids played together, we go to their sporting event, eat at each other’s homes, no, never even heard of the thought of as being racist.”

Gaines said she also went downtown to the protest, went inside the store, and gave a big hug to Lorna Gibson, wife of David Gibson, one of the plaintiffs in this case. “I walked outside with her so we could look together at what I saw happening, and I wanted her to know people in the community in Oberlin were behind them on this,” she said. “She was distraught, very hurt, and you could see the pain in their faces from what was happening right outside their store.”

McDaniel also went downtown when he heard the protests had started. He said when he got to the small downtown he noticed a large group of students, which he described as “Anger. Noise, Venom … [students] very angry and disturbed and irate and they wanted to take it out on somebody.”

McDaniel said he started taking pictures with his cell phone, and a young man came up to him and started blocking his phone with flyers in his hand. McDaniel said he kept moving and the man moved with him, blocking his ability to take picture over and over. “I’m with the college,” the man answered when the former Oberlin College police chief asked him why he was blocking his ability to take pictures.

McDaniel testified he found out later the man hounding him over picture taking was Julio Reyes, associate director of the school’s multi-resource center. “He was attempting to intimidate me and I don’t intimidate easily,” McDaniel said.

“I told him ‘I’m going to just going to wait until your silly ass leaves and [I’ll] start taking pictures again without you trying to block me,.’ “McDaniel testified. “He answered that he was going to come back when I wasn’t looking and key my car.”

When asked if he saw Oberlin administration officials trying to “deescalate the crisis” as they have said they were doing, McDaniel looked straight at the jury and said, “No one from Oberlin College was trying to calm things down. The only reason the lid didn’t explode off the pot was because the city police were there.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-2-i-dont-know-may-come-back-to-haunt-the-defense/

by Guest Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:58 am

oday was Day 3 of witness testimony in Gibson Bros. v. Oberlin College. The events giving rise to the lawsuit have been said to represent “the worst of identity politics.” You can read about some of the background on this case here.

Oberlin College The Devil You Know of Students Meredith Raimondo completed her testimony, which started yesterday. She is a defendant in the case, and the plaintiffs had called her as an “adverse witness.”

What the attorneys for Gibson’s Bakery & Market wanted to establish was that Raimondo and other school administrators not only supported students saying that Gibson’s is racist and overseeing the November 2016 protests that passed out flyers saying such, they also wanted to explore whether Raimondo and other administrators had any “conscience” in how they made their decisions.

Not conscience in the sense that the school administration might have been feeling bad and felt sorry for Gibson’s, but more along the line that Oberlin College let being mean and nasty be a big part of the equation.

In other words, did bad personal feelings – an ill will toward the bakery/convenience store that had been doing business in the city since 1885 – come into play at all when the college decided to cut off ties with the small business as a bagel, donut and pizza dough food provider for the school cafeterias for the 2,800 students?

The plaintiffs’ lawyers had plenty of examples of what they told the jury was “personal beliefs overshadowing professional responsibility.” In one email, Ben Jones, the vice president of communications for the school wrote to his co-executives in the school administration that, “I love how these Gibson supporters accuse us of making rash assumption decisions, but are totally blind to their own assumptions … all these idiots complain about the college.”

He closed with, “Fuck-em … they’ve made their own bed now.”

When Roger Copeland, an Oberlin College professor of theater and dance (he is “emeritus” status now) wrote a letter to the campus newspaper soon after the protests ended, and criticized how the school was treating Gibson’s in the letter, Jones sent a text message in caps saying, “FUCK ROGER COPELAND.”

“Fuck him,” Raimondo responded in a message. “I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”

Raimondo was given these examples and others and then asked a very simple question. “When personal beliefs get involved in decision making, does that have an effect on trying to maintain professional responsibility?” asked plaintiffs’ attorney Lee Plakas. She was asked specifically about herself and the higher-ups in the Oberlin College administration.

Her answer was quite surprising.

“Their position is to not have a position,” she said.

Several of the jurors shook their heads in surprise when they heard that from her.

She was then asked similar questions again in various others ways. Her answers were equally vague, and quite hard to figure out in basic, common sense terms.

Asked if she thought dropping “F-Bombs” connected with school policy decisions was bad professional behavior for an administrator for a prestigious higher education school, and did she consider responding and saying it isn’t appropriate, she said, “I wouldn’t have considered that an appropriate response.”

When asked if she thought that personal feelings should not interfere with professional responsibility, she responded that “I’m not sure what you mean by interfere.” Lastly, she was asked if people should always separate personal opinions from their job. Raimondo said, “I do not agree.”

The reason this testimony is important in the case is that Gibson’s is claiming they suffered greatly — economically and from a damaged reputation — from student-led protests that occurred on Nov. 10-11, 2016 that claimed they were racist. In trying to prove libel and defamation, the plaintiffs are arguing that not only did the school do harm by helping the student in their protests, they were more than just acting as administrative overseers in their actions, showing a malice with intent that helped make the damage worse.

Lee Plakas asked Raimondo if the action by the school was at all related to the school’s problems they were having with minority students’ perception of the school. A 14-page list of demands was released by the Black Student Union in December of 2015 saying the school “include(s) Black and other students of color in the institution and mark them with the words ‘equity, inclusion and diversity,’ when in fact this institution functions on the premises of imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy. “

“You did these things to appease the students, for the school to be thought of as treating minority students better, right?” Plakas asked.

“That statement is absolutely false,” Raimondo answered.

Clarence “Trey” James and other witnesses
There were other witnesses called by Gibson’s side that are very relevant in this overall argument of “active” participation by the school in causing damage to the business.

Clarence “Trey” James, an African-American who had worked at the store since 2013, first denied that any racism existed in either the store’s treatment of its customers, or how he has been treated. “Never, not even a hint,” James said. “Zero reason to believe, zero evidence of that.”

James said he had moved to Oberlin from Cleveland to have a better family life for his young daughter. He is a single-father of a teenager, and he said that he and his daughter were invited over Dave Gibson’s house for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner.

James said he was working at the store during the protests and could see Raimondo directly outside the front door, as he was working the cash register near the front windows and store entrance. Raimondo has claimed she was merely at the protest because it was her administrative duty to oversee the safety of the students and to keep the event “lawful.” She has repeatedly said she was not an “active participant.”

But James said he saw Raimondo “standing directly in front of the store with a megaphone, orchestrating some of the activities of the students. It appeared she was the voice of authority. She was telling the kids what to do, where to go. Where to get water, use the restrooms, where to make copies.”

The copy making was needed to get more flyers for the students to pass out. These flyers said Gibson’s had a long history of racial profiling, had assaulted the shoplifting students, encouraged a boycott of Gibson’s, and gave a list of other stores to shop with.

James said Raimondo was taking part in the distribution of these flyers. “She had a stack of them,” James testified, “and while she was talking on the bullhorn, she handed out half of them to a student who then went and passed them out.”

The level of “participation” in the protest grew to higher levels with the last two witnesses. Two employees who worked in the school’s music conservancy offices (just down the street from the Gibson’s store) said students were allowed to use the conference room in their offices, make copies of the flyers that said Gibson’s was racist, use the restrooms of these offices, and were brought in pizza and beverages by the music conservancy administrators that had been ordered by the school.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-3-to-unleash-the-students-or-not-that-was-the-question/

by Guest Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:05 am

There is also more links to this and its evident the College was massively involved. Like I said, quill needs to actually read the trial and has not and embarressed himself. Can post more links to the trial if any posters are interested

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:36 am

Gibson’s attorney Lee Plakas asked Protzman what was the reason for cutting ties with the business they had worked with for more than a century. He pointed out emails from various administrators that the student might have throw a “tantrum” on campus, specifically in the cafeteria while eating dinner, and that might be a good reason to get their cookies and bagels elsewhere.

What? That is not a good reason to get cookies and bagels elsewhere. However, it is a good reason to ban those students from the cafeteria and tell them to grow up.

What is all this nonsense about appeasing a bunch of ignorant students instead of dealing with them appropriately?

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:13 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It's not clear how much the college was involved, but the question is - should colleges be held responsible if students plan this kind of disruption on college premises?

There's no specific proof of Oberlin's involvement.

Should colleges be held responsible if students are disruptive? The primary question is why? Educational institutions are not police departments. What precedent does that establish? The next lawsuit will insist the court make all business enterprises into responsible parties: office buildings, or department stores, auto dealers, dress shops, restaurants...or indeed, bakeries. Then we come full circle.

One hand goes with the other: if colleges and businesses are responsible for their customers, you must give them the absolute means to control everything. If you start making businesses into imperial dictators, they will eventually lose their purpose. To many that would be all right...but this is not just a matter of guns and explosives.

This case is restraint-of-trade litigation. How do you remedy that? You must give the institutions and businesses the power to compel office workers, students, hospital patients, restaurant customers, auto purchasers, etc., to purchase from the given plaintiff business.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Law is for everyone, not just this situation or that. As with didge's collective responsibility, you must think in terms of applying any measure to all other applications. For sure...there will be a lawsuit that comes along and applies precedent, and thus demands it.

You didn't read my post properly. If the boycott and libel of this bakery was planned on college premises, and college equipment was used to print flyers, all with the knowledge and encouragement of college adminstrators, would that make the college liable?

If you don't think it does, who then do you think should be held responsible for the damage to the bakery business? Do you just think they should suck it up - perhaps because they're white?

Justice had to be done here. The Gibsons were minding their own business, going about their daily lives, running the bakery. Not only did they have to put up with students shoplifting, they had to put up with a bunch of students harassing and libelling them afterwards.

by Original Quill Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

There's no specific proof of Oberlin's involvement.

Should colleges be held responsible if students are disruptive? The primary question is why? Educational institutions are not police departments. What precedent does that establish? The next lawsuit will insist the court make all business enterprises into responsible parties: office buildings, or department stores, auto dealers, dress shops, restaurants...or indeed, bakeries. Then we come full circle.

One hand goes with the other: if colleges and businesses are responsible for their customers, you must give them the absolute means to control everything. If you start making businesses into imperial dictators, they will eventually lose their purpose. To many that would be all right...but this is not just a matter of guns and explosives.

This case is restraint-of-trade litigation. How do you remedy that? You must give the institutions and businesses the power to compel office workers, students, hospital patients, restaurant customers, auto purchasers, etc., to purchase from the given plaintiff business.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Law is for everyone, not just this situation or that. As with didge's collective responsibility, you must think in terms of applying any measure to all other applications. For sure...there will be a lawsuit that comes along and applies precedent, and thus demands it.

You didn't read my post properly. If the boycott and libel of this bakery was planned on college premises, and college equipment was used to print flyers, all with the knowledge and encouragement of college adminstrators, would that make the college liable?

No. The college neither explicitly, nor impliedly directed the students or employees.

Raggamuffin wrote:If you don't think it does, who then do you think should be held responsible for the damage to the bakery business? Do you just think they should suck it up - perhaps because they're white?

The only people responsible are the people who acted intentionally to defame the bakery and/or organize and conduct a secondary boycott. The college neither directed, nor could prevent the actions complained of.

Raggamuffin wrote:Justice had to be done here. The Gibsons were minding their own business, going about their daily lives, running the bakery. Not only did they have to put up with students shoplifting, they had to put up with a bunch of students harassing and libelling them afterwards.

It's axiomatic in Anglo-American law that you can't just pick someone up off the street and designate him as guilty or responsible. Justice must bear some connection to fault. Defamation and boycotting are intentional torts--intent must be shown as an element in the causation--and that brings in the concept of purpose: a person may not be held responsible for an intentional tort, where they lack the purpose to perform the acts comprising the tort.

There would have to be some showing of voluntary intent on the part of the college. That's why I stress that there is no showing that the college did anything wrong.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:08 pm

You need to read the details again Quill. Administrators did plenty to encourage and help these students.

by Original Quill Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:09 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:You need to read the details again Quill. Administrators did plenty to encourage and help these students.

Administrators and professors are employees, and thus agents. Read up ^ two posts, for an explanation of 'agency' theory. Principals are liable for the acts of their agents only when they exercise control over that person. If an employee exceeds the scope of his authority, he is deemed not to be acting on behalf of the employer...he is said to be "off on a detour of his own."

Unless the plaintiff has proof of a directive or some sort of edict directing the employees to participate by the employer, the college is not culpable. That's what I have been saying along...there's no evidence connecting the college.

by Guest Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:26 pm

A company, any company is liable for the actions of its employees. Hence why the Jury rightly found the college guilty. There is a mass of evidence and I have only produced some of this so far. Its clear the defendents also got caught out lying. So there is no way in helll they willl win on appeal and rightly so. Its about time such frar leftist extremists got taken to task.

by Guest Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:27 pm

A company, any company is liable for the actions of its employees. Hence why the Jury rightly found the college guilty. There is a mass of evidence and I have only produced some of this so far. Its clear the defendents also got caught out lying. So there is no way in helll they willl win on appeal and rightly so. Its about time such far leftist extremists got taken to task for spreadi hate and lies.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:05 pm

If I did something at work to cause an accident to someone or whatever, the company would be liable for compensation to that person. The company can sack me of course, but they're the ones who have to pay the compensation.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:09 pm

I have to say though that the real people who are morally responsible are the students who did this protest. They're very lucky they got away with that. If they hadn't, how do you pursuade a company to hire you for work when you've managed to ruin another business? Being a rabble rouser doesn't look good on your CV.

As for the college, is their reputation now in tatters? Perhaps it should be.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:11 pm

phildidge wrote:A company, any company is liable for the actions of its employees. Hence why the Jury rightly found the college guilty. There is a mass of evidence and I have only produced some of this so far. Its clear the defendents also got caught out lying. So there is no way in helll they willl win on appeal and rightly so. Its about time such far leftist extremists got taken to task for spreadi hate and lies.

Students aren't employees of a university, though, they're the customers.

If two people getting dinner at McDonald's get into a fight, the justice system doesn't hold McDonald's liable, unless one of its employees provoked the fight.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I have to say though that the real people who are morally responsible are the students who did this protest. They're very lucky they got away with that. If they hadn't, how do you pursuade a company to hire you for work when you've managed to ruin another business? Being a rabble rouser doesn't look good on your CV.

As for the college, is their reputation now in tatters? Perhaps it should be.

They didn't have much of a reputation before, to be fair. Several years ago, students protested to have sushi and pho soup removed from the school cafeteria on the grounds that it was "cultural appropriation."

by Guest Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:17 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:A company, any company is liable for the actions of its employees. Hence why the Jury rightly found the college guilty. There is a mass of evidence and I have only produced some of this so far. Its clear the defendents also got caught out lying. So there is no way in helll they willl win on appeal and rightly so. Its about time such far leftist extremists got taken to task for spreadi hate and lies.

Students aren't employees of a university, though, they're the customers.

If two people getting dinner at McDonald's get into a fight, the justice system doesn't hold McDonald's liable, unless one of its employees provoked the fight.

Hence why I said employees and not students in my previous comment. Being as employees were involved and orchestrating this

So do keep up eh

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:22 pm

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:A company, any company is liable for the actions of its employees. Hence why the Jury rightly found the college guilty. There is a mass of evidence and I have only produced some of this so far. Its clear the defendents also got caught out lying. So there is no way in helll they willl win on appeal and rightly so. Its about time such far leftist extremists got taken to task for spreadi hate and lies.

Students aren't employees of a university, though, they're the customers.

If two people getting dinner at McDonald's get into a fight, the justice system doesn't hold McDonald's liable, unless one of its employees provoked the fight.

Hence why I said employees and not students in my previous comment. Being as employees were involved and orchestrating this

So do keep up eh

Sorry, just read the last few posts. I didn't realize that professors were involved in this as well.

by Guest Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:29 pm

No need to apologise Ben. People should read the day by day trial of this, as there is a story daily on this.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-10-it-depends-upon-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-support-is/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/student-journalist-shoplifting-at-gibsons-bakery-was-part-of-oberlin-colleges-culture-of-theft/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-4-as-protests-grew-mrs-gibson-was-very-nervous-and-afraid/

Even more links I can post

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:50 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I have to say though that the real people who are morally responsible are the students who did this protest. They're very lucky they got away with that. If they hadn't, how do you pursuade a company to hire you for work when you've managed to ruin another business? Being a rabble rouser doesn't look good on your CV.

As for the college, is their reputation now in tatters? Perhaps it should be.

They didn't have much of a reputation before, to be fair. Several years ago, students protested to have sushi and pho soup removed from the school cafeteria on the grounds that it was "cultural appropriation."

Oh right. I always thought that colleges were places of learning. Silly me. Laughing

by Guest Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:54 pm

phildidge wrote:No need to apologise Ben. People should read the day by day trial of this, as there is a story daily on this.

Have edited to place all stories in order

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-1-it-was-a-mob-mentality-out-there/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-2-i-dont-know-may-come-back-to-haunt-the-defense/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-3-to-unleash-the-students-or-not-that-was-the-question/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-4-as-protests-grew-mrs-gibson-was-very-nervous-and-afraid/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-5-90-year-old-allyn-w-gibson-testifies-some-threats-made-to-us/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-6-whats-a-bakery-worth/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-7-damages-expert-says-show-gibsons-the-money/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-8-my-dad-was-going-to-pass-away-labeled-as-a-racist/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-9-the-business-never-came-back/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-10-it-depends-upon-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-support-is/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-11-dont-let-them-eat-gibsons-cake/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-12-defense-says-bakery-worth-only-35k-less-than-one-semester-at-oberlin-college/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-trial-day-13-defense-expert-declares-gibson-family-5-generation-bakery-history-irrelevant/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/gibsons-bakery-v-oberlin-college-closing-argument-when-a-powerful-institution-says-you-are-racist-you-are-doomed/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/verdict-jury-awards-gibsons-bakery-11-million-against-oberlin-college/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/student-journalist-shoplifting-at-gibsons-bakery-was-part-of-oberlin-colleges-culture-of-theft/

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I have to say though that the real people who are morally responsible are the students who did this protest. They're very lucky they got away with that. If they hadn't, how do you pursuade a company to hire you for work when you've managed to ruin another business? Being a rabble rouser doesn't look good on your CV.

As for the college, is their reputation now in tatters? Perhaps it should be.

They didn't have much of a reputation before, to be fair. Several years ago, students protested to have sushi and pho soup removed from the school cafeteria on the grounds that it was "cultural appropriation."

Oh right. I always thought that colleges were places of learning. Silly me.

Hopefully they'll learn to stop being assholes Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:22 pm

phildidge wrote:A company, any company is liable for the actions of its employees. Hence why the Jury rightly found the college guilty. There is a mass of evidence and I have only produced some of this so far. Its clear the defendents also got caught out lying. So there is no way in helll they willl win on appeal and rightly so. Its about time such far leftist extremists got taken to task for spreadi hate and lies.

Not so. If a disgruntled employee runs into the plant and kills his boss and co-workers, the employer isn't criminally liable.

What you haven't proved is facts showing that the College was involved in instructing and organizing those students and faculty who did this.

by Original Quill Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:28 pm

phildidge wrote:A company, any company is liable for the actions of its employees. Hence why the Jury rightly found the college guilty. There is a mass of evidence and I have only produced some of this so far. Its clear the defendents also got caught out lying. So there is no way in helll they willl win on appeal and rightly so. Its about time such frar leftist extremists got taken to task.

Only if the actions were within the scope of the employee agency is the employer responsible for the employee actions.

I'm afraid you've got got it wrong.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:A company, any company is liable for the actions of its employees. Hence why the Jury rightly found the college guilty. There is a mass of evidence and I have only produced some of this so far. Its clear the defendents also got caught out lying. So there is no way in helll they willl win on appeal and rightly so. Its about time such far leftist extremists got taken to task for spreadi hate and lies.

Not so. If a disgruntled employee runs into the plant and kills his boss and co-workers, the employer isn't criminally liable.

What you haven't proved is facts showing that the College was involved in instructing and organizing those students and faculty who did this.

We're not talking about criminal law though are we?

by Sponsored content