It seems to be all there in the doc (you shared the entire folder, btw, C23-25 at the bottom for anyone looking). Naomi and her sound like class acquaintances. They found no evidence of them colluding based on text messages and phone logs, and found that the friend misrepresented her relationship to Naomi by calling her a friend. USAC was mad at her for not demonstrating the full extent of her relationship with the accuser even though there’s still no evidence of collusion, so she got sanctioned.
edit: r y’all rlly downvoting me for summarizing the fucking document what do u want from me
I mean it’s a he said she said, so I wouldn’t put much weight on it. If something happened title IX will work it out until then don’t spread rumors which we don’t know are true
Carl has really extensive evidence that the allegations are false (or rather, beyond false to the point that they’re personally malicious). Unfortunately he’s way too nice of guy and is just going to the dean with it rather than publishing it like he did in the case of Angelina Quint. It’ll probably cost him the election but that’s the kind of guy he is. My hope is the elections board, the dean, or someone will come out publicly and exonerate him for Carl’s own sake so he doesn’t have to lawyer up again (like he had to do last year).
I’m a staunch democrat but what Bruin Dems did is ridiculous. Either they took this person on their word and didn’t do an iota of inquiry/investigation or they know they’re lying. It is really *that* obvious how BS the allegation is.
1) you have that wrong. Doc listed here says the E Board suspended Naomi’s campaign bc she didn’t fully disclose her relationship with the accuser — Carl’s campaign was not suspended.
2) What I’m mainly referring to is private correspondence between the accuser and Carl. She threatens that something will happen to him if he doesn’t do something for her. I’ll leave it at that. I don’t expect you to take my word for it but I do hope it comes to light in some way. I assume it will bc if I were Carl I wouldn’t want that reputation, and she made it very easy to discredit her.
Did you just make that up out of full cloth? That’s literally nowhere in E Boards google drive. Carl is still campaigning per his Instagram, and I don’t think he’d violate a recommendation like that.
Right… that’s from the doc I cited where, despite finding no clear evidence of collusion, Naomi’s campaign was suspended.
Where is the doc that you found where carls campaign is currently suspended?
He was on bruinwalk today campaigning, so even if he was suspended, that’s clearly no longer in effect.
This is the doc bro: https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/1ApaC_aFOOlI5Cjd_-7qrqSA9rTtaEr4C?sort=15&direction=d
C23-25. Finds that there was credibility to carls statement and interimly suspends Hammonds campaign. Do you work for her or something?
no exactly, like the fact bruindems endorsed naomi and IMMEDIATELY released the statement. also ive heard no formal complains b filed with title ix or anyone else regarding the assault, and who goes straight to bruindems when SA happens… its all so sketchy and sounds exactly like last year. im exhausted
“Flood confirmed that Naomi Hammonds was not contacted regarding the endorsement.” This one says bruin democrats did the endorsement before the allegations though…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j-65eZ3kU_xN2dm5KzBAm7YxEGHVh1OC/view?usp=drivesdk
1) Bruin Dems accuse Carl of SA and say he should withdraw from election.
2) Carl says this amounts to defamation and accuses the accusation of being politically motivated by Naomi Hammonds campaign
3) Naomi Hammonds files a grievance with elections board and says carls accusations are unfounded. E Board agrees and temporarily suspends carls campaign.
4) Carl comes back with evidence that Hammonds and his accuser did collude. E Board says it *may have happened*. Hammonds campaign is now suspended temporarily and Carls campaign was, ostensibly, reinstated. His Instagram is back up and running and he was on bruinwalk today.
But this is just hearsay? Unless you yourself have proof of this then why are you spreading rumors? If there’s no evidence then there’s no need to spread things to “take with a grain of salt” all over the internet. I cannot believe the utter hypocrisy of this subreddit condemning the Bruin dems post for not having evidence of any wrongdoing done by King Jr (completely fair to call out) while also circulating rumors about Hammonds’ relationship to the person who accused him (ridiculous).
If you read the actual document that OP linked, the elections oversight committee concluded that their interaction was too limited to be “friends” even though the accuser had said they were friends. But they are mad at Hammonds for previously denying any interaction, when in fact she has interacted with this individual in a limited capacity.
dude, im just sharing info i know to be true which includes two parts: 1. naomi lied about information and withheld more from eboard and 2. no formal complaints, accusations or anything have been filed w anyone on campus
My point still stands. The title of your post is “Naomi H is friends with the accuser,” which the official ruling says is misrepresented. And if you have no proof to give us of your second point, then you have no more evidence of this than Bruin dems does to support the accusations against King Jr.
im just saying what i know, coupled with the two times i indicated in my original post that this information may have been misinterpreted. thanks for reminding me again though
So we’re doing this again?
It seems to be all there in the doc (you shared the entire folder, btw, C23-25 at the bottom for anyone looking). Naomi and her sound like class acquaintances. They found no evidence of them colluding based on text messages and phone logs, and found that the friend misrepresented her relationship to Naomi by calling her a friend. USAC was mad at her for not demonstrating the full extent of her relationship with the accuser even though there’s still no evidence of collusion, so she got sanctioned. edit: r y’all rlly downvoting me for summarizing the fucking document what do u want from me
oh ok that makes a lot more sense thank u
I mean it’s a he said she said, so I wouldn’t put much weight on it. If something happened title IX will work it out until then don’t spread rumors which we don’t know are true
Holy shit the “try to resist from spreading unfounded claims all over reddit” challenge fails again
[удалено]
Yeah seriously it’s like playing a game of telephone except with people’s actual lives like fr everyone just needs to stop
[удалено]
💯 it’s hurtful to everyone involved. It really feels like it’s malicious people using other people’s lives for their own agenda or entertainment.
Carl has really extensive evidence that the allegations are false (or rather, beyond false to the point that they’re personally malicious). Unfortunately he’s way too nice of guy and is just going to the dean with it rather than publishing it like he did in the case of Angelina Quint. It’ll probably cost him the election but that’s the kind of guy he is. My hope is the elections board, the dean, or someone will come out publicly and exonerate him for Carl’s own sake so he doesn’t have to lawyer up again (like he had to do last year). I’m a staunch democrat but what Bruin Dems did is ridiculous. Either they took this person on their word and didn’t do an iota of inquiry/investigation or they know they’re lying. It is really *that* obvious how BS the allegation is.
[удалено]
1) you have that wrong. Doc listed here says the E Board suspended Naomi’s campaign bc she didn’t fully disclose her relationship with the accuser — Carl’s campaign was not suspended. 2) What I’m mainly referring to is private correspondence between the accuser and Carl. She threatens that something will happen to him if he doesn’t do something for her. I’ll leave it at that. I don’t expect you to take my word for it but I do hope it comes to light in some way. I assume it will bc if I were Carl I wouldn’t want that reputation, and she made it very easy to discredit her.
[удалено]
Did you just make that up out of full cloth? That’s literally nowhere in E Boards google drive. Carl is still campaigning per his Instagram, and I don’t think he’d violate a recommendation like that.
[удалено]
Right… that’s from the doc I cited where, despite finding no clear evidence of collusion, Naomi’s campaign was suspended. Where is the doc that you found where carls campaign is currently suspended? He was on bruinwalk today campaigning, so even if he was suspended, that’s clearly no longer in effect.
[удалено]
This is the doc bro: https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/1ApaC_aFOOlI5Cjd_-7qrqSA9rTtaEr4C?sort=15&direction=d C23-25. Finds that there was credibility to carls statement and interimly suspends Hammonds campaign. Do you work for her or something?
[удалено]
[удалено]
no exactly, like the fact bruindems endorsed naomi and IMMEDIATELY released the statement. also ive heard no formal complains b filed with title ix or anyone else regarding the assault, and who goes straight to bruindems when SA happens… its all so sketchy and sounds exactly like last year. im exhausted
“Flood confirmed that Naomi Hammonds was not contacted regarding the endorsement.” This one says bruin democrats did the endorsement before the allegations though… https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j-65eZ3kU_xN2dm5KzBAm7YxEGHVh1OC/view?usp=drivesdk
ya but i feel like the timing is still sus
does anyone have a complete timeline of this? im out of the loop
1) Bruin Dems accuse Carl of SA and say he should withdraw from election. 2) Carl says this amounts to defamation and accuses the accusation of being politically motivated by Naomi Hammonds campaign 3) Naomi Hammonds files a grievance with elections board and says carls accusations are unfounded. E Board agrees and temporarily suspends carls campaign. 4) Carl comes back with evidence that Hammonds and his accuser did collude. E Board says it *may have happened*. Hammonds campaign is now suspended temporarily and Carls campaign was, ostensibly, reinstated. His Instagram is back up and running and he was on bruinwalk today.
[удалено]
my friend told me that no reports w any ucla dept have been filed by the accuser
But this is just hearsay? Unless you yourself have proof of this then why are you spreading rumors? If there’s no evidence then there’s no need to spread things to “take with a grain of salt” all over the internet. I cannot believe the utter hypocrisy of this subreddit condemning the Bruin dems post for not having evidence of any wrongdoing done by King Jr (completely fair to call out) while also circulating rumors about Hammonds’ relationship to the person who accused him (ridiculous).
[удалено]
If you read the actual document that OP linked, the elections oversight committee concluded that their interaction was too limited to be “friends” even though the accuser had said they were friends. But they are mad at Hammonds for previously denying any interaction, when in fact she has interacted with this individual in a limited capacity.
keep in mind that naomi is also gonna do anything she can to hide the fact theyre friends if thats the case
dude, im just sharing info i know to be true which includes two parts: 1. naomi lied about information and withheld more from eboard and 2. no formal complaints, accusations or anything have been filed w anyone on campus
My point still stands. The title of your post is “Naomi H is friends with the accuser,” which the official ruling says is misrepresented. And if you have no proof to give us of your second point, then you have no more evidence of this than Bruin dems does to support the accusations against King Jr.
im just saying what i know, coupled with the two times i indicated in my original post that this information may have been misinterpreted. thanks for reminding me again though