In the latest hearing regarding the Varlo Davenport case brought about by the City of St. George — and, by default, Dixie State University — it appeared that some progress was taking place. Judge Karlin Myers, in spite of reluctance and or resistance from the prosecuting attorneys, ordered the school to turn over all emails pertaining to Davenport and including anything pertaining to the alleged victim’s grade status. Both city attorney Robert Cosson and DSU attorney Doajo Hicks stated emphatically that no such “grade” email exists, despite Davenport’s testimony that it did. Cosson and Hicks turned over a small file to the court that they said contained everything the previous sua sponte order included.
Up until that point, the only thing the prosecution had turned over regarding grading was an email dated February 23, 2015 from Mark Houser. It outlined the alleged victim’s grade status where a grade status is given.
However, after the order was given at the hearing where Cosson and Hicks stated they were handing over everything in court that day, another email from Houser was discovered.
The exchange is between Davenport and Houser whereby, after being suspended administratively, Davenport informed Houser of the grade he would have given the student. Houser wrote back and informed Davenport that the dean had requested that the student be given an A in the course despite Davenport’s report and told him to finish it out. Davenport did not comply.
The name and details of the grades pertaining to the alleged victim are withheld here in protection of their rights, but the fact remains that Hicks and Cosson testified in court that no such email existed — and it irrefutably does.
Rule 3.3 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, Candor toward the Tribunal, states as follows:
“(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a)(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”
Suffice it to say, the court, the defendant, and the good citizens of Washington County await the correction of the false statement made by both Cosson and Hicks.
Another note of interest is that at the time of all of the previous proceedings wherein Hicks appeared and asserted himself in what appeared to be a manner of legal counsel in the case, Hicks was not licensed to practice law in the State of Utah, and no legitimate or legal documentation of pro hac vice has been submitted to the court or the defense.
But ponder this for now: Dixie State University, via Mark Houser and the dean of the theater department, tried to coerce Davenport into giving the alleged victim a grade he otherwise might not have given, and this was months before any suggestion from President Biff Williams that there was another shoe that would drop.
Lastly, ponder that Davenport was exonerated not once but twice from any wrongdoing, first by a faculty hearing and again by a faculty senate vote.
I’ve said it before … you cannot make this up.
See you out there.
RELATED ARTICLES
An honest judge in the Varlo Davenport case!?
The Varlo Davenport circus is an abomination of the highest degree
The Varlo Davenport debacle: It’s getting beyond surreal
Judge Ron Read and attorney Michael Carter’s illegal activities in the Varlo Davenport case
This has turned into quite a soap opera.
If the Three Stooges were still around it could be made into a movie. They would be perfect for the U, the city, and the State AGs office.
This raises some interesting questions, the first of which is why the administration would be so interested in making sure the student received an “A” in the class. Did this order come from our man Biff, through the good Dean Jarvis, or did Jarvis decide it on his own? Or did Houser make the decision and lie about the involvement of those higher up? In any case, what incentive did DSU have to give the student an “A” that she did not earn? Either Houser made a deal with the student when he first talked to her, promising her such a grade in exchange for her help in getting Varlo terminated (and his intentions in that regard are more than clear), or Biff and Co. were trying to placate some litigious parents with dollar signs in their eyes. If the latter is true, it wouldn’t be surprising if the firing of the professor and the “A” grade were not the only consolation prizes the young lady and her family received for bringing a bogus assault charge. In other words, the fix was in, early on. Varlo was vindicated, as Mr. Hyland points out here, twice, by faculty votes. But Biff had tied his own hands by promising termination in advance of any real investigation. The termination had to be upheld. So when the firestorm of criticism hit, Biff needed a little favor in return: this former student and her family, on the basis of favors received, must keep their mouths shut and support the criminal charge, even if they’d rather avoid it. Consider: there is not a hint that the young lady or her family had an expectation of criminal charges being filed until after the bad publicity hit Biff. The alleged assault occurred in a class toward the end of November of 2014. Varlo’s termination was upheld at the end of February 2016. According to an affadavit submitted to the court by Dixie State police chief Don Reid, when the girl’s parents were informed (by Biff Williams–curious isn’t it that Biff called to assure them the deed had been done?) that Biff had upheld the termination they expressed their concern and surprise that charges had not been filed. They supposedly then expressed the same thing to Reid. This is Reid’s (and Biff’s) story and he’s sticking to it. But for anyone who thinks about it just a bit, it becomes somewhat curious that they had never expressed this concern at any time during the previous three months. In other words, if they knew they wanted charges filed, they would have been working on that from the date of incident, not sitting around for three months and then suddenly–in a moment curiously coinciding with Biff Williams getting some bad press and perhaps having to face the music for his incompetence–telling Biff and Don Reid that they expected charges to have been filed long ago. Reid’s affadavit, or at least this part of it, is (in my opinion) a lie, straight up and bald-faced. And it’s part of a malicious prosecution of Varlo Davenport, the purpose of which is to try to cover Biff Williams’s incompetence and preserve his career ambitions. In other words, Biff doesn’t mind ruining Varlo’s career to save his own. I don’t think anyone has to ask whether this is the mark of a good man. As for Don Reid, recall that he teaches “Criminal Justice” at DSU. That’s right. And that loud noise you hear is your irony detector. — Every citizen who considers her/himself honest should care about this. Thank you, Dallas Hyland, for keeping this in the public eye! Viva watchdog journalism in St. George, Utah!
^Man in the know:
I’d like to buy you a drink and sit down and have a nice chat.
Who is the student???!!!
Was the dean just making a suggestion based on other work the dean seen?
Wait, who is the dean again?
Is the student a millenial?
What are the administration’s credentials? Did they come from hack Al Sharpton?