August 23rd, 2010

For Tuesday:
1. Flawless character
2. Made a promise and kept it. “Do you recall…?”
3. Factual statement of what has happened. [an arrow points to the word factual, and next to it is written: university compl., security officers, false suicide, weapons check]. Few incidents when we spoke. [V]’s reaction made it clear I should avoid her once all over.
4. University hearing finds me not a threat, not guilty of her claim of rape.
5. Days after the University hearing (Jul 28), [V] calls me using Skype (Aug 2). I tell her I do not want to speak w/her. This is direct violation of what Univ. ruled.
6. [V] files for EPO in spite of fact I have done nothing to her.

Questions:
– Who bears ill intention to the other party? Whose actions are directed as attacks?
– Who stands to lose more?

Second Round:
– Losses I have suffered
– [V]’s actions making our private conflict public
– Her lack of desire for the conflict to end on peaceful terms.
– Court system exists for good reason. Innocent go free, guilty led away. What’s it NOT for?
– Claims that she is just now considering staying on at the University of Tulsa.

August 21, 2010

I was just reading on persuasion, and I got to thinking about my upcoming court date again. I believe that in opening testimony I must first show without a doubt that I have neither harassed nor threatened [V]. Then I must bring into light my losses relative to her own. I have lost work, respect from my peers; all because of one small mistake that ought to be well behind us. There is a possibility for even greater loss, too. I could be considered fully ineligible to enter the industry, even though I am a high achiever. My reputation could be ruined, because [V] is unreasonable.

In the second round, I must make clear that I am free from fault, that [V] is engaging in behavior that is potentially ruinous to me, and that the judge has the power to prevent further losses on my part. He can also make [V] pay for her abuse of the system.

You’d think that she could leave a brother alone.

To Dr. Sorochty

Dear Dr. Sorochty,

I am writing this letter to follow up with my appeal sent to you on August 9 regarding the decision made by the Office of Student Affairs in their letter dated August 2 in the case involving the student complaint filed by Ying Li.

The Office of Student Affairs has misruled in this case, imposing punishment on me when it is Ying Li who is a danger to others at the University. You will understand that Ying Li has not suffered any real negative consequences through this ordeal, and that she desires to see me receive undue punishment through her abuse of procedures ordinarily reserved for true threats. I am on the receiving end of insult upon insult, forced into a position where I must defend my good name until Ying Li is brought to proper justice.

The ruling followed a long and twisted hearing that no one could reasonably have followed. This hearing took place on July 28, almost a week after the Tulsa District Court dismissed Ying Li’s petition for Protective Order. At the University hearing, Ying Li raised allegations that I had sexually assaulted her, claiming that she was held down against her will. She presented evidence from the hospital claiming that she had been the victim of sexual assault, though in her court filing she made it clear that we had engaged in consensual sex. If she had truly been the victim of sexual assault, why wouldn’t she have made this claim to the Tulsa Police and to the Court?

Ying Li has a vengeful attitude – she surprised me by declaring to Dean Taylor in the Office of Student Affairs that she would have me dismissed from the University, and I humbly submitted that all I wanted was the gifts I had given her returned to me. The time I have spent to help Ying Li since her coming to Tulsa should not be reasonably repaid by these drastic measures. Among the gifts that I want returned are a diamond pendant and a handbag, both given out of love. Had we parted under more reasonable terms, I would not have raised complaint, but her course of action has been hurtful beyond measure, and it is not right that these objects of my affection remain with her.

Ying Li has received no harassment from me. The text messaging incident of July 3 was one that was settled between the two of us that very evening, long before the complaint was raised at the University level. It was decided between us that I would be responsible for the costs associated with the text messages, $26 of additional service charges, this being the only negative consequence that Ying Li has realized thus far. When I sent the text messages, there was no thought of foul intention; the only desire of mine was to get in contact with her so I might understand why she had suddenly distanced herself from me though we had been intimate that afternoon.

Ying Li has abused procedures for emergency relief before, and it is clear that she will not hesitate to do so again. I have had much difficulty in understanding her reasons behind going to the police, then her raising complaint with the University. To me, these actions represented those of an unhappy woman who felt that she had been in some way wronged. When we broke up she suddenly found herself back where she had started from, though slightly more experienced and arguably in a better place. The one offense she suffered was that she no longer held a place in my heart, and it is for this reason that she sought to seek redress. Still, it makes no sense that she would immediately call for help from a higher power to judge our conflict instead of settling the ordeal directly with me. By filing for Protective Order again, she is only signaling her unwillingness to allow this conflict to go to rest.

Dr. Sorochty, it is important that I complete my final semester at TU and move on past these events, and I am fully prepared to defend myself in court this second time should I have to. However, I am concerned that Ying Li will continue to abuse the procedures set in place unless she realizes that such actions can and will have negative consequences towards her. As a rational being, she should understand that conflicts between individuals over private matters ought to be resolved between individuals, and that a higher authority exists to help only when all viable options have been considered. To this end, I request that the University advise Ying Li to immediately withdraw the pending court case, otherwise I will have no choice but to seek compensation for the lost time, work, and damage to my reputation that she has caused me during the court hearing.

I end with a plea for help from the University as this case continues. My request is twofold: first, I feel it is fair that Ying Li be asked to apologize in person for the trouble she has caused me; and secondly, that the University advise her that our conflict is over, and that further action on her part could lead to my filing of a counter-suit that will result in negative consequences to her.

You will find attached a document that gives a timeline of events relevant to this case. Please consider it in your decision.

Faithfully yours,

Alex Zheng

Event Log

(the following log of events accompanied my message to Dr. Sorochty)

Event Log

The text messages of July 3rd (…) were sent without ill intention, designed only to get Ying Li’s attention.  She had distanced herself unexpectedly even though we had been intimate on the afternoon of the 3rd, ignoring my calls and not providing details of her whereabouts.  That afternoon she invited me to attend a party with her, an offer that I declined because I had already made plans.  I called her that evening and her attitude had changed.  I sent the messages because I was concerned about her and wanted to know what had happened to make her suddenly distant.  We settled the issue that evening when she called me late at night, 11:45PM.

We decided that I would be held responsible for those service charges, and this behind us now, she called me on the morning of the 4th.  That afternoon after I returned from church, Ying Li willingly accepted my invitation to visit with me in my apartment.  We discussed the events of the past day and engaged in consensual sex; I ended our final sexual encounter by doing something I had never done before – ejaculating on her face.  Immediately afterwards, she became strangely detached, and she shut down to any attempt of mine to ask how she was doing.  She walked out of my apartment without a word, then proceeded back home, where she called for Tulsa Police and went to the hospital for a sexual assault screening.  The results of the screening, I learned at the time of the University hearing, were positive, without a doubt because of consensual sex.

Following two days of no word from Ying Li, she called me at 3AM on July 6.  She was mostly quiet, and I used the opportunity to apologize again for my actions that prompted her to leave my apartment without a word on the afternoon of July 4.  I also shared that I knew about her going to the police and to the hospital.  I asked her why she would do such a thing, being as she knew there was never a threat of physical harm from me, and she was not forthcoming with an answer.  We spoke for some thirty minutes, and that day she went to the Tulsa District Court to file for Protective Order.

I was served with court papers at my workplace on July 7.  The deputy from the Tulsa County Sheriff’s office called me and arranged to meet with me outside.  I took the papers, and asked questions to understand what were the implications behind the court filing.

On the afternoon of July 13, I was studying in my apartment following the conclusion of class, and there came an urgent knocking on my door.  I opened the door to find a Tulsa Police Department officer accompanied by three or four TU Security personnel.  Also present was a woman who identified herself as being associated with TU Housing.  They requested to come into my apartment, saying that they had been sent by TU Security Dispatch under the impression that I was suicidal and a danger to myself.  The TPD officer ascertained that I was not in a state of distress, and I informed those present that I did not own any weapons.  I did make known the pending court case when they mentioned Ying Li was responsible for their coming.

On the morning of July 14, I received a message from Dean Taylor stating that Ying Li had filed a student complaint against me, claiming harassment and sexual assault.  I called the Dean’s office to schedule a meeting for that afternoon, to take place after class.  During the meeting I was able to present my testimony.  I gave a complete account of events that had taken place in Houston leading up to my return to Tulsa, and a record of events taking place in Tulsa.  I was told that the Office of Student Affairs would take some time to determine whether a hearing was appropriate and returned to my apartment.

I had just returned when another urgent knock came on my door.  I opened the door to find five TU Security officers followed by a TPD officer.  The officers informed me that they were coming to search my apartment for weapons.  I invited them in and waited in the living room as they conducted a sweep of my room and the rest of the apartment.  Finding nothing, they further requested to search my vehicle.  I again consented, even though I believe they had no legal grounds to make that search.  The officers found nothing and left.

I took the day off work on July 19th, the day of our court hearing.  As I walked into the courtroom I did not see Ying Li.  As our case was called from the docket, I became aware that not only was Ying Li there, she had also brought along four others who now sat surrounding her on the bench.  Among them were two TU students, one a mutual friend of ours who had visited with me just over the weekend.  Ying Li continued her petition for Protective Order and I announced my intention to defend myself against it.  The judge took her testimony first – she made known many private facts that went far beyond the claim of harassment that she had originally noted.  I was surprised but came prepared, and defended myself to the best of my ability.  Ying Li took the opportunity to invite our mutual friend to serve as a witness for her.  The judge dismissed our case seeing that I was not a threat to Ying Li’s safety, and that there were no grounds for a Protective Order.  He asked that we go back to the University, finish our studies, and leave each other alone.

That afternoon a mutual friend called me.  He informed me that Ying Li was not satisfied with the outcome of the court case.  She was upset by the judge’s ruling and wanted immediately to pursue the case.  He had advised her against doing so because it was likely that the case would be thrown out again.

I wrote to Dean Taylor following Judge Hogshead’s dismissal of Ying Li’s case, but she wrote back saying that the University would continue its hearing in spite of the outcome at the District Court.

On July 21st, I went to Ying Li’s office and knocked on the closed door.  One of her officemates answered, and he let up after I informed him that the judge had dismissed Ying Li’s court case.  I spoke with Ying through the open door and implored that we go somewhere to settle matters between us now that the court case was over.  When she refused, I asked that she kindly drop the investigation on the University level so that we could go back to our regular lives, and I also requested she return to me the gifts I had given her.  She reacted very negatively, yelling that I had slept with another girl and that I was not to speak with her, and then said that she would call TU Security.  At least two other students were present in her office.  One of them, acknowledging the scene, asked that I leave because Ying did not want to speak with me.

I left after that and bumped into TU Security later after they had finished taking a report from Ying Li.  One of the officers kindly suggested that I write back the belongings that I wanted returned, and that he would give the list over to the Office of Student Affairs.  I wrote down that I wanted the return of a portable hard drive that Ying Li had left my apartment with.  I hesitated to ask for the return of the gifts then.

On July 26th, I tried again to speak with Ying Li.  I approached her and asked again that we go somewhere where we could discuss matters.  She again refused and locked herself in her office.  I left a note with the department secretary and asked that she deliver it to Ying Li.  In the note I pleaded for Ying Li to call for an end to the University level investigation, if she had ever cared for me.  Ying Li took that note to Dean Taylor to use as evidence against me.

July 28th marked the date of the University hearing.  Dean Taylor and Dean Mills were both present.  Ying Li claimed that I had harassed and sexually assaulted her.  I defended myself again.  When asked what we hoped the outcome of the investigation would be, Ying Li stated she would have me dismissed from the University.  I asked for the gifts I had given Ying Li back.  There was some discussion about those gifts, but Dean Taylor made the decision that they were not to be returned after talk wore on.  Ying Li expressed that there was no emotional value for her in these objects.  Dean Taylor stated that Ying Li and I were not to have any contact with one another.  I left after the hearing and did not make contact with Ying Li again.

I had just returned back to Tulsa on August 2nd, and was in the airport when I received a call from an unknown number.  I answered my phone to find Ying Li on the other end.  She said that she was not my ‘opponent’ and said that there was still much she could do to destroy me if she wanted to.  She asked me if I hated her.  I responded that I did not feel anything towards her, and that I did not want to speak with her.  Ying Li seemed like she had more she wanted to say, but I told her that she was better off writing to me, I did not want to speak with her then.  She hung up.

I received a call from my roommate on the evening of August 3rd informing me that there was a police officer at my apartment requesting to see me.  I met with the officer, who handed me the court papers.  I asked no questions this time and drove back home.  Ying Li had filed for a second Protective Order, the court date which was set for August 17th would mean I would be out of the country.  My failure to appear would automatically grant her a Permanent Protective Order, that very thing I had fought against so hard from the beginning.  I immediately informed my parents – my father wrote an email to Dean Taylor.

My grievances with Ying Li go back further, however.  There were very public incidents that occurred at TU that made me question our being together.  She once made a scene when I waved at a girl I knew from church the night of the Chinese New Year festival at TU.  When I left for Houston, she wanted to come with me, but I told her this was not possible as I had to concentrate on work.  She made a fuss of wanting to visit, and I eventually consented.  In the weeks that I had been away from Tulsa, she had called me so many times to express that she wanted to be with me in Houston, I had long grown tired of reassuring her that all was well even during the work day.