I have a letter from the Office of Equities of Utah State University University. It has been sitting in my inbox waiting for me to read it for a few weeks now. I have held off on reading it because USU has reliably been dismissive, degrading, and has handled this is ways that deny responsibility and that are known to increase stress and harm to a person, which it has and does. Thus having sciatica and then being sick with a kidney infection I have used my better judgement to refrain from increasing stress to my body from the source that has contributed to the medical conditions by inflicting the stresses of injustices and denying any responsibility.
Today I decided I have to be well enough to get this thing read so I can determine next steps...
The first paragraph is as far as I could make it since the "attached report" is from the Utah State University "Assistant Attorney General" because, "As you know, these cases were sent for review outside of the Office of Equity, based on the allegations of conflict of interest/bias you raised against me and the Office of Equity investigator."
Have you figured out why I had to stop already?
So to review my complaint they sent it to the USU attorneys who, of course, are going to be completely unbiased and work to make sure all parties are fairly and equally represented -my heavy sarcasm with this statement should not be missed in that last statement.
Of course Utah State University Attorneys are not going to review this fairly. What they will be doing is making sure they get a running head start on any legal action I might take against USU as well as manipulating laws and procedures however they can to reinforce and justify the wrong doing against me and my family. They will increase the harm through definitive statements and manipulating interpretations of laws in order to bully. They are the least likely person at the University (or any place) to review anything in a way that would be fair to both parties. Based on my experiences with attorneys and institutions thus far they are not going to look at and say, "let's see, now, is our institution being fair to this student?" they are going to look at it and say, "let's see, can we get away with what we have done and if appears we cannot, what can we do to either threaten and intimidate this person away or what can we manipulate to ensure that we can get away with what we have done."
Now while I have not read the letter myself yet, I have had my "process advisor" read it so I do already know some of the denying and dismissing from the letter and it becomes increasingly more evident Utah State University really is and does intend to cause as much harm as they possibly can to me.
It's so strange to face this and I assure you I am not paranoid or making this up. Instead it is more likely I have increased problems because I have overcompensated for some family members paranoia, suspiciousness and distrust and I have not been paranoid, suspicious and distrusting enough.
Unbelievable, USU, and increasingly egregious from institutions and people who should know and behave better.
They are determined to be united in their discriminations, unfair treatment, and straight up wrongdoings against me. I think this might be much harder for me to just accept because of all the lessons I teach to our children about "talking responsibility," "being honest," and "responsible citizenship." Complete contradictions to what we teach and those that are harmed most are those that actually embrace and believe the teachings of our government funded public schools.
**So upon further investigation I have found that it was not a review by the Utah State University attorney's office but by the Utah State Attorney Generals Office. This makes it a touch easier to attempt to read and from what I have read thus far the "reviewer" is exhibiting significantly less bias and may be fairly neutral but that is hard to tell because it seems as though they have been given partial informations and complaints but I do not know. It seem pretty obvious that I was represented to them by USU in a biased way because there is missing information and/or important points, complaints, issues are not mentioned or intentionally ignored, but, again I do not know what they were give.
An example to illustrate either me being misrepresented or the Assistant to the Utah Attorney General being biased:
The report states: "Police investigations involve a unique set of circumstances and are not required to follow a single established procedure; provided, however, that the investigation is ultimately carried out in accordance with the law. Detectives are allowed to rely on a variety of sources, including, but not limited to, information obtained from community members, information obtained from publicly available sources (such as Google, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), and information obtained through the issuance of a valid search warrant."....
..."Specifically, Ms. Saxton believes that Detective Christensen received biased and faulty information that ultimately established a bias against her. This letter makes no attempts to parse fact from fiction; however, it should be noted that the purpose of a police investigation is to do just that. While initial reports may contain inaccuracies, it is a detective’s responsibility to receive any relevant information and investigate the claims made therein. The mere act of receiving faulty or possibly biased information does not, in itself, constitute a discriminative intent on behalf of the receiving official."
I'm too tired and insulted to dissect the absurdity and obvious misrepresentation of the above statements (the way it clearly needs to be for those involved and to in order to stand up for myself) but I will point out that my main complaint against the officer in question was that he failed to investigate the claims made. The officer did not investigate what happened at all, he simply listened to rumors and lies and attempted to find evidence to support those. The Assistant to the Utah Attorney General seems to make it clear that Officer Biased was supposed to supposed to "parse" fact from fiction but he did not do that at all and that is the point. And I resent the assumption that I do not understand that "The mere act of receiving faulty or possibly biased information does not, in itself, constitute a discriminative intent on behalf of the receiving official." NO SHIT GENIUS... and I am getting angry as I, once again, have to sit here and take this kind of debasement... so that is all I can say and do about it today.
No comments:
Post a Comment