{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DigitalDocument","altText":"Comment attachment by Anonymous","alternateName":"8_-_EXHIBITS_-_5_Sealed_Redacted-less_redacted.pdf","caption":"","contentUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/578/raw","datePublished":"2026-10-21T23:18:19+00:00","description":"","encodingFormat":"application/pdf","identifier":"578","isAccessibleForFree":true,"machineReadable":{"json":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/578/index.json","markdown":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/578/index.md"},"name":"Comment attachment by Anonymous","ocrStatus":"ready","ocrText":"--- Page 1 ---\nCornell\nUniversity\n\"\n+\nJanuary 14, 2026 \nScott Kretzschmar \nVia Email \nDear Scott, \nIn accordance with Cornell University Policy 6.4, appeals submitted under this policy are reviewed \nby a three-member Appeal Panel that includes myself; Vice Provost and Professor Steven Jackson; \nand a member of the Hearing Panel pool, in this case, Teaching Professor Hadas Ritz. In reviewing \nyour appeal, we have read and carefully considered the appeal documents submitted by you and \nthe complainant, the decision of the hearing panel, and the additional materials that constitute the \nappeal record in this matter. \nYou appealed on the grounds that the hearing panel rendered a decision that was clearly erroneous \nand \u201cprocedurally improper.\u201d \nThe two primary points you raise in your appeal are that 1) a hearing panelist was in a vehicle for a \nportion of the hearing, and 2) that you did not have the proper opportunity to respond to the \nmisconduct (attempted sexual exploitation) for which you were ultimately found responsible, and \nthat the finding itself was clearly erroneous. \nWe acknowledge your concerns that a hearing panelist was apparently in a vehicle for a portion of \nthe hearing. However, our close review of the record shows this to be a substantially de minimis \namount of time in a hearing that spanned many hours and multiple days. Based on the record, it is \napparent that this issue was addressed promptly and did not occur outside the single instance cited \nin your appeal. We found no error in the hearing chair\u2019s procedural determination that the concerns \nraised did not render the hearing \u201cirreparably tainted,\u201d a determination that fell well within her \ndiscretion. Therefore, we do not find this argument sufficient to warrant granting your appeal. To \nyour second point, the Notice of Formal Complaint issued to you at the commencement of this \nmatter clearly notified you that additional violations might be identified throughout the process. \nThat same document detailed the factual allegations underlying the misconduct for which you were \nfound responsible. Finally, your disagreement with the factual conclusions of the hearing panel does \nnot render their determination clearly erroneous. Therefore, we also do not find this argument \nsufficient to warrant granting your appeal. \nYour additional arguments assert bias on the part of the hearing chair and panel, and allege that the \nhearing chair and the Title IX Coordinator \u201ceither lied or schemed\u201d or were \u201cgrossly incompetent.\u201d \nThese allegations are wholly unsupported by the extensive record in this matter. \nTherefore, and by unanimous decision, we affirm the decision and sanctions issued by the hearing \npanel.  \nThis decision is the final University action in this case. \nPrivate - Dristribution Not Permitted\nAppeal Panel Decision \n[94428] \nDistributed 01/14/2026\n1 of 2\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 8\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n\u00b7o\n \nSincerely,  \n \n \n \nRyan T. Lombardi, Ed.D. \nVice President for Student & Campus Life \n \nCc: \nComplainant \nTitle IX Coordinator \nPrivate - Dristribution Not Permitted\nAppeal Panel Decision \n[94428] \nDistributed 01/14/2026\n2 of 2\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 8\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026","text":"--- Page 1 ---\nCornell\nUniversity\n\"\n+\nJanuary 14, 2026 \nScott Kretzschmar \nVia Email \nDear Scott, \nIn accordance with Cornell University Policy 6.4, appeals submitted under this policy are reviewed \nby a three-member Appeal Panel that includes myself; Vice Provost and Professor Steven Jackson; \nand a member of the Hearing Panel pool, in this case, Teaching Professor Hadas Ritz. In reviewing \nyour appeal, we have read and carefully considered the appeal documents submitted by you and \nthe complainant, the decision of the hearing panel, and the additional materials that constitute the \nappeal record in this matter. \nYou appealed on the grounds that the hearing panel rendered a decision that was clearly erroneous \nand \u201cprocedurally improper.\u201d \nThe two primary points you raise in your appeal are that 1) a hearing panelist was in a vehicle for a \nportion of the hearing, and 2) that you did not have the proper opportunity to respond to the \nmisconduct (attempted sexual exploitation) for which you were ultimately found responsible, and \nthat the finding itself was clearly erroneous. \nWe acknowledge your concerns that a hearing panelist was apparently in a vehicle for a portion of \nthe hearing. However, our close review of the record shows this to be a substantially de minimis \namount of time in a hearing that spanned many hours and multiple days. Based on the record, it is \napparent that this issue was addressed promptly and did not occur outside the single instance cited \nin your appeal. We found no error in the hearing chair\u2019s procedural determination that the concerns \nraised did not render the hearing \u201cirreparably tainted,\u201d a determination that fell well within her \ndiscretion. Therefore, we do not find this argument sufficient to warrant granting your appeal. To \nyour second point, the Notice of Formal Complaint issued to you at the commencement of this \nmatter clearly notified you that additional violations might be identified throughout the process. \nThat same document detailed the factual allegations underlying the misconduct for which you were \nfound responsible. Finally, your disagreement with the factual conclusions of the hearing panel does \nnot render their determination clearly erroneous. Therefore, we also do not find this argument \nsufficient to warrant granting your appeal. \nYour additional arguments assert bias on the part of the hearing chair and panel, and allege that the \nhearing chair and the Title IX Coordinator \u201ceither lied or schemed\u201d or were \u201cgrossly incompetent.\u201d \nThese allegations are wholly unsupported by the extensive record in this matter. \nTherefore, and by unanimous decision, we affirm the decision and sanctions issued by the hearing \npanel.  \nThis decision is the final University action in this case. \nPrivate - Dristribution Not Permitted\nAppeal Panel Decision \n[94428] \nDistributed 01/14/2026\n1 of 2\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 8\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026\n\n--- Page 2 ---\n\u00b7o\n \nSincerely,  \n \n \n \nRyan T. Lombardi, Ed.D. \nVice President for Student & Campus Life \n \nCc: \nComplainant \nTitle IX Coordinator \nPrivate - Dristribution Not Permitted\nAppeal Panel Decision \n[94428] \nDistributed 01/14/2026\n2 of 2\nPrivate \nDistribution Not Permitted, See Policy 6.4\nFILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/30/2026 01:47 PM\nINDEX NO. EF2026-0292\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 8\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026","thumbnailUrl":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/578/thumb.webp","transcriptStatus":"not_applicable","transcriptText":"","url":"https://lucycraig.blog/media/578"}