Columbia University Sued For Defaming Innocent Male Student In Mattress Sex Scandal

Screen shot 2015-04-24 at 9.49.40 AM

Paul Nungesser sues Columbia University for failure to protect from rape claims | Daily Mail Online: We had the Rolling Stones story that turned out to be false rape charges and now there is this famous case made famous by a young woman who was told she could publicly embarrass and attack a fellow student who was neither really charged nor found guilty of rape.  The art professor who gave this young lady permission to defame a fellow student should be fired.  And the young man is right to sue for this is clearly defamation of character that the school allowed.

 

 

It said that the school allowed Sulkowicz to carry a mattress into classes, the library and campus-provided transportation as part of her senior thesis, that Kessler approved the ‘Mattress Project’ for her course credit and that Sulkowicz’s pledge to carry her mattress to graduation may prevent Nungesser and his parents, who’d like to fly from Germany, from participating in graduation ceremonies.

 

‘Day-to-day life is unbearably stressful, as Emma and her mattress parade around campus each and every day,’ the suit said.

 

As a result of publicity that resulted in media reports in 35 countries, the lawsuit said, Nungesser ‘has been subjected to severe, pervasive … and threatening behavior by other Columbia students, believing that Paul is a `serial rapist,’ whenever Paul has appeared at university activities.’

 

What amazes me is how this female student dressed while parading about with her mattress.  She wore Daisy Duke cut off at the ass pants which were made full of holes via application of battery acid.  Thus revealing everything except the hair covering her vagina.  Like so many young ladies like the Woman who made canoe out of her VAGINA faces 2 years in jail in Japan, this ‘in your face’ sex stuff is coupled with rage when men react sexually to all of this.

 

The trick here is, the men are supposed to be flustered and embarrassed by bare assed moves by sexually provocative females.  Europe has a lot of this stuff.  The Gallery – FEMEN are half naked women shoving their tits in people’s faces while screaming.  They become incredibly angry if any males touch them or try to stop them.  They are all over the place.

 

I was at the forefront of the women’s sexual revolution.  I gave a speech half naked in 1969 and was arrested, of course.  I also dealt harshly with rapists and taught women how to defend themselves when attacked.  I did the Haight Ashbury free love.  But the main thing is, we could have this freedom only if we respected men, too.  The helpless female thing can’t exist with free love.  Either you take your knocks and don’t whine or you do the old fashioned thing of having chaperones, many rules, no contact until a contract is signed, etc.  The good old days.

 

Instead, women want to run riot, get drunk in public, pass out, stumble about barely clad, wearing ‘I want sex!’ outfits and be foul mouthed and ‘free’ while…no one is supposed to touch.  If I were a man, I would have a woman sign a contract of mutual sex before even kissing.  Instead, our youth run off to school where mommy and daddy don’t lurk anymore and can do whatever and whatever happens.  I know very well, I did it all.

 

Here is the lady in the Daisy Dukes and the mattress thoroughly enraged that her victim is demanding his legal rights:

 

‘It’s ridiculous that he would read it as a `bullying strategy,’ especially given his continued public attempts to smear my reputation, when really it’s just an artistic expression of the personal trauma I’ve experienced at Columbia. If artists are not allowed to make art that reflect on our experiences, then how are we to heal?’

 

So, spreading in public, unsupported accusations of criminal actions and naming a specific student is ‘artistic’ but the victim going to court properly is ‘smearing her reputation’?  He isn’t even suing her!  He is suing her SCHOOL.  After that remark, I would strongly suggest he sue her, too.  But the one most to be blamed is this misguided woman’s professor.  This is NOT an ‘art project’.  It is a crime, what she did.  For defamation of character has been recognized as a form or ‘rape’ for the last 700 years.

 

She should learn this early and not later.  Celebrity skin doctor Fredric Brandt takes his own life at Miami home after two of his friends in Hollywood who were also clients, made a TV comedy that very clearly made fun of him as a human.  This, too, is defamation of character only no one, so far, is suing…but might in the future.

 


sunset borger

side picture begging boneEmail:

emeinel@fairpoint.net

MAILING ADDRESS:

EMS NEWS

209 Greenhollow Rd

Petersburgh, NY 12138

Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’

Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.

 

sunset borger

20 Comments

Filed under Politics

20 responses to “Columbia University Sued For Defaming Innocent Male Student In Mattress Sex Scandal

  1. DeVaul

    This sort of thing happens everyday in family court, but the mother is never “fired”, or punished, or sanctioned, or sent to prison, or even held in contempt of court or anything at all. Neither is her attorney, who knows the allegations are false. The husband must “disprove” the wild allegations, no matter how bizzare they are.

    Why would women outside the courtroom not duplicate this behavior?

    You want to stop this nonsense? Hang all state court judges and confiscate their “donations” and pensions and send the mother to prison for one year with no probation or early release if she cannot prove her allegations with clear and convincing evidence (a very low standard for rape or child abuse).

    Women do NOT want this and Americans in general have learned how to duplicate those in power to manipulate their way through life as well.

    Start at the top: judges, police captains, mayors, congressmen, etc. Protect those at the top and those at the bottom will see that crime does pay.

  2. Ken

    Elaine, this isn’t the first post in which you alluded to a wild youth. Many of my friends who also had what I would consider to be a wild youth (mostly free sex, street drugs and general alternative life style rejection of societal norms) have pretty much confided in me that they hope their own children do not follow that path. I’m curious. Do you feel the same way? Would you prefer that your own children not do some of the things that you did?

  3. Petruchio

    I am truly mystified at young women who have babies while very young and unmarried. Set aside the morality questions for a second and ask, “Why do women NOT use birth control? The fact-based reality is crystal clear: single mommies live in poverty. And the poverty lasts a lifetime .I absolutely do not buy the argument that these young women did not know their options re birth control. I know, I know. It’s more complicated than that. Spare me. How many real life examples do young women have to have before even they, as young as they are, figure out having babies out of wedlock and at an early age is NOT a good idea? Go ahead, Elaine. Call me a sexist and a prude. Imho, I’m neither.

  4. Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
    SJW’s say every woman must be believed. I hold with innocent until proven guilty and it must apply to all regardless of gender. Humans lie all the time.

  5. I’ve been following this story for a while. It’s hardly rocket science that perpetrators often act as the victim, denying their victim a voice. Thanks for your thoughts Elaine.

  6. emsnews

    Sex when young is often full of ‘missed directions’. That is, when they toss out the old rules, courtesy and other civilized actions, we get raw reality which could mean different things to different people.

    Young women in particular must realize males are not machines to be turned on and off on whim. Men have EMOTIONS too. And so, if a woman wants safety, she has to follow various social rules to protect herself and any man she invites into her home.

    Rule #1 is to say ‘No’ early and loud. A simple rule I used effectively all my life which is why I don’t worry about working around men, my entire career involved working under often stressful and intimate circumstances with many men because when I began working on construction projects, I was nearly 90% the time the only female around.

    Young men have to realize they are in danger when sex is around and have to act accordingly and many of them think playing the street for fun is fun rather than leading to death events as we see with many males killing each other or females over sex issues.

  7. Petruchio

    @#6 Elaine: I know of a co-worker who has had an affair with a married woman. I told him, “Guys like you end up getting shot.” I meant that comment seriously.

  8. attractivemenonly

    This seems a bit out of touch, even with yourself perhaps:

    “women want to run riot, get drunk in public, pass out, stumble about barely clad, wearing ‘I want sex!’ outfits and be foul mouthed and ‘free’ while…no one is supposed to touch.”

    Note: in the following by “women” I mean (as you did) “typical/some/many women”.

    Well, women are not idiots, they do all that precisely because they want to be “touched” by SOME ONE, not by “no one”, and want it very badly, and compete that way with each other to get “touched”: but that SOME ONE must be a man for which they have “chemistry”!

    Women make overt displays of sexual availability and desire, but they want only men for which they have “chemistry” to be aroused by those displays. Therefore this is also rather unrealistic:

    “males are not machines to be turned on and off on whim”

    Because women want males turned on on whim if they are attractive, and males turned off on whim if they are unattractive.

    Just as women feel that any reaction of arousal by men they don’t consider attractive is disgusting and threatening, very improper actions by attractive men are usually badly wanted, and that’s why women engage in overt sexual displays, to arouse attractive men to act improperly with them.

    Therefore harassment is sincerely defined in most jurisdiction as UNWELCOME acts, not as “improper” acts. The very same actions can be a woman’s dream or a crime depending on how attractive the man is. What makes a man’s sexually charged acts harassment or a worse crime is not so much whether they are forced on a woman, but whether she welcomes them, and that depends on whether she has chemistry for the man.

    There are some academic papers that show conclusively that exactly the same acts by complete strangers are considered harassment if done by unattractive men and are very welcome if done by attractive men.

    This is such a huge and old point that there is a large market for “chick lit” books (and movies!), and the plot is always the same, and it is the ultimate sexual fantasy for women: that while she feels disgusted and threatened by the attentions of an unattractive creep (for example her fat whiny accountant husband) suddenly a very attractive man (for example a tough and hunky professional athlete) loses control and acts sexually very improperly and even forcefully with the protagonist, and she feels so lucky.

  9. Lou

    ‘I was at the forefront of the women’s sexual revolution.’ And this is what it degenerated into. C’est la vie.
    Asains travel to USA to ‘get that degree’, but is it worth 100K to 500K?

  10. Lou

    And ‘What amazes me is how this female student dressed while parading about with her mattress. ‘
    Thats a dumb comment. SHE IS AN EXHIBITIONIST AND A TEASE.

  11. Pontiff Holysh*t

    Minor correction:

    The primary basis of Mr. Nussenger’s cause of action against Columbia University et. al. is “gender based harassment”, rather than defamation, under various state and federal laws.

    https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/nungesser-complaint.pdf

    I was curious about this because I was straining to think of a theory under which one could base a claim on vicarious liability in a defamation case, barring an agency relationship.

    I am guessing there is no defamation suit against Ms. Sulkowicz because she is judgment proof, while Columbia of course has “deep pockets”.

    On first impression, and admittedly that’s not based on much, I would be concerned about how the plaintiff is going to prove that all of the wrongdoing he alleges was because of his gender, i.e. his status as a male.

  12. emsnews

    IF a male student paraded around in short shorts and tight shirts with a sign saying ‘Female Student *insert her name here* Is Too Ugly To Kiss’ he would have been punished severely by the university and no ding bat art professor would say this is a great student art project.

    That is the difference here. This woman made it perfectly clear her protest and mattress was about a specific male student who unluckily was lured into her spider web. One suspects it was his refusal to come back that generated much of the ire.

  13. Pontiff Holysh*t

    @ #12
    Assuming you are responding to my concern about the possible difficulty in proving gender based discrimination:

    Even if we accept your scenario as true, it is only relevant to show that the University discriminated in its treatment of Ms. Sulkowicz , not the Plaintiff.

    But it is still just a hypothetical scenario, not relevant to prove anything in court.

    Typically, absent some “smoking gun” admission, protected class discrimination is proven by showing that others who are not part of the Plaintiff’s protected class but were otherwise “similarly situated” were treated differently.

    Just because the protest was about a specific male doesn’t mean it was necessarily because he was a male.

    In court, you have to present relevant evidence to prove each element of your case. Just because something “seems obvious” doesn’t matter.

  14. Pontiff Holysh*t

    OK the complaint referenced “Emma’s campaign of gender based harassment” and that is what I was going by in my original comment (emphasis added) There is, however, the allegation that the Plaintiff and Defendant were treated differently with respect to the campus rape investigation confidentiality policy. So that may be something to go on.

    And of course, there might be other evidence we have no knowledge of. In fact, I am guessing there is.

    Interestingly, Senator Gillibrand invited Sulkowicz to the State of the Union address as a guest of honor.

  15. Pontiff Holysh*t

    Indeed, the complaint insinuates that rejection generated much of the ire. Unfortunately, however, that may help the defendants, because it tends to show that it was rejection, rather than maleness, that brought about the harassment.

  16. Petruchio

    This story is all about the continuing war against males, particularly WHITE males. This is the whole point of reverse discrimination. This is the whole point of Family Court laws. This is the whole point of television’s CONSTANT portrayal of white males being clueless, fumbling idiots. A white male can get himself into trouble in the workplace by merely LOOKING at a female the wrong way. Contrast this with the black culture, in particular rap and hip hop music and its attitude toward women. It’s a art form if some black rapper refers to women as bitches and ho’s, but if a white male makes even a slightly sexual reference to a female’s body, that sparks a controversy and the speaker is vilified. Now THERE’S something the good professor in this story might go after! Of course, he’d probably lose his job for that..

  17. Sunger

    Yes those poor white christian men are the most victimized group in America. They get abused by homosexuals and feminists and ungodly liberal idiots and atheists. Just won’t stop!

    White men just don’t get any respect anymore.

  18. emsnews

    Actually, the left very much does attack white males in total. It is extremely obvious. Read any comments at Huffington Post or Salon, for example, and they often crow, ‘Eventually there will be fewer and fewer white males and we will win power this way’.

    This is INSANE. The plot to replace white males has a huge flaw: the people being used to engineer this are mainly Catholic Hispanic males who are SUPER MACHO. Big time.

    And black males: DITTO! Only they are killing each other off at a mad rate or being sent to prison due to criminal choices and so they can only displace white males in major cities that become undesirable places to live.

    But yes, liberals want to eliminate the classic macho white male.

  19. Petruchio

    @17: you just prove my point!. And I didn’t say anything about Christian white males–just white males. You can be an atheist white male and still be discriminated against. I think you have some anger issues regarding whites in general and males in particular. Also, didn’t say ANYTHING about feminists or homosexuals. Ditto about ungodly liberal idiots. You are reading your anger issues into my comments. That all said, it IS true that white males are and have been under attack. They suffer the highest job losses in economic downturns, they are primarily the victims of preferential hiring practices and they are frequently the “guilty until their innocence can’t be ignored or denied” in the Family Courts. No, white males most certainly DO have legitimate complaints. But some people–like you–are on a revenge mission. So be it.

  20. Petruchio

    @18, Elaine: You are correct about the ‘machismo’ of Hispanics and Blacks, but the attacks on white males are NOT race or gender motivated. The Ruling elites, the upper 1%’ers, are REALLY motivated by Class Warfare, specifically an assault, an all out WAR against the Middle Class, the White Middle Class in particular. Think about this. How was the American Middle Class structured? The women typically were the homemakers and the men were the primary breadwinners. Right or wrong, that’s the way it was set up. So the question is, how to destroy the Middle Class, what’s the best way? Just take a look at today’s economy. NAFTA, Outsourcing, subsidies to manufacturers to re-locate overseas. Tax breaks for Multis. In other words, our bought-and-paid-for politicians have been doing EVERYTHING they can to destroy jobs here in the US. Eliminating tariffs. Unrestricted immigration policies. Two more weapons in the war against the Middle Class.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s