Ezell's House testimony includes Saint Regis info

Testimony from the House "Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness" is now available for the hearing Are Current Safeguards Protecting Taxpayers Against Diploma Mills?

Allen Ezell's written testimony is contained in a very long pdf file. It (and therefore, as I understand it, the official congressional record) contains explicit mention of Richard J. Hoyer, The International College of Homeland Security, Dixie Randock, and St. Regis University.

From time to time the absence of discussion of Saint Regis in the Senate Government Affairs Committee hearings is presented as affirmation of the legitimacy of Saint Regis. (See this thread, but also elsewhere.) For the supporters of Saint Regis, then, here is a counter example, with negative comments about the practices of SRU being well received in a congressional hearing.

G

 

Thanks, G. Now just watch--some g****** shill is gonna quote
"the practices of SRU being well received in a congressional hearing" to lie ungremmaticly, as they tend to say, and claim the very opposite of what Alan Ezell had to say. Still, this moves things right along and is good news.

 

Anyone can testify in a court of law, a committee, etc. about what they believe, or want others to believe, are the facts pertaining to a situation. What really counts is not the testimonies, but the final determination. So, let's wait and see, I'm as curious as you are.

John D

 

don't shoot, G-man!

As you know, Ezell is a former FBI agent. One expects that he understands the need for accuracy in testimony, and the need to separate fact from analysis and (expert) opinion.

G

 

Galanga wrote:

"As you know, Ezell is a former FBI agent. One expects that he understands the need for accuracy in testimony, and the need to separate fact from analysis and (expert) opinion."

Sure, yes, often ex and still in the service police agents' testimonies prove to be as reliable or unreliable as anybody else's. But, why presume? When is the outcome of this investigation expected to be issued publicly? Does anybody know?

John D

 

Why presume? Because Mr. Ezell was the instrumental figure in the "Dipscam" investigations of the middle 1980's, conducting investigations and presenting evidence that led to may diploma mill closures. It is expected that his testimony is both accurate and expert. I'm afraid that preponderates some vague suspicion.

 

Rich Douglas wrote:

"Why presume? Because Mr. Ezell was the instrumental figure in the "Dipscam" investigations of the middle 1980's, conducting investigations and presenting evidence that led to may diploma mill closures. It is expected that his testimony is both accurate and expert. I'm afraid that preponderates some vague suspicion."

This does not make him an expert witness. A retired police agent who has arrested a number of criminals during his career does not become automatically a criminologist, or any other type of a qualified expert who can testify as an expert witness. Mr. Ezell testifies as a private individual who has allegedly knowledge of the issue under investigation.

Besides, there is the question of why he bothers to testify although this is not part of his duties any longer. There are two possible answers to that, he's either personally keenly concerned as a citizen to the point of having devoted his energies to fight degree mills (not any degree mills, but specific so-called "degree mills) instead of going fishing, or he is on the payroll of or receives handouts by some vested interests on behalf of which he acts.

John D

 

you do him a disservice

Out of curiosity, which of the two do you think is more likely? We have your two alternatives:

(1) Mr. Ezell is a citizen well-acquanted with the potential harm caused by the sale of fake engineering and clinical credentials to unqualified individuals; he continues to pay attention to the problem after his retirement from the FBI, going so far as to coauthor a book with another authority on diploma mills...

(2) Mr. Ezell, having established his bona fides as an investigator now uses his knowledge to extort money from... from whom? The cabal of Regionally Accredited universities that are out to get all those brave unaccredited entities (you know, the ones that conclude that 75.3% of pigeons really ARE entitled to college degrees, and any university which disagrees only does so out of commercial motives)?

There's got to be a way of tossing in the issue of racism too, but frankly, pigeons usually look kind of gray to me. And let's not even think about how it might be extraterrestrials at the root of the whole mess.

Oh, I forgot, some of the Entities are under new, but still secret, ownership. Dang, those extraterrestrials are shy folk.

G

 

Of course it makes him an expert. He investigated degree mills for years. It isn't a matter of who was "arrested." His knowledge isn't "alleged"; it is demonstrated.

Why does he bother? Perhaps for the same reasons many of us press these frauds: because what they do is wrong and what we know helps stop them.

If you have some evidence that his testimony and/or actions are biased because of some renumeration he receives, please share it. Otherwise, your insinutation is both baseless and insulting.

 

That isn't what made him an expert witness. He has testified as an expert witness on multiple occasions. As a matter of fact, in this very case he testified as an expert witness. "Expert witness" is a legal term and Mr. Ezell obviously qualified as an expert witness by satisfying the legal requirements. (reference "voir dire")

Your attempts to cast aspersions on Mr. Ezell would be insulting if they weren't so lame and amusing. I believe it tells far more about JohnD than it does Mr. Ezell.

 

Galanga, Rich Douglas and Bill Huffman,

I'm not insinuating anything in my post and I never implied heavy terms like Galanga uses in his post - e.g., "to extort money from...". I never implied that there is a possibility that accredited education may be behind this either. That would have been a ludicrous assertion and I'm not really given to conspirational theories.

Using an objective perspective and knowing that man's mind is an abyss where anything is possible, I simply consider all possible motives of a person involved in a given situation.

Besides, why should it be insulting for a retired FBI agent to be paid for his services? And why should the motives of those paying the ex agent for his services be necessarily sinister? So, even if this is the case, there are no insinuations and no insults intended against Mr. Ezell.

What possibility am I inclining toward? Hard to say, I'm not given to beliefs without concrete evidence either. If we want to speculate though, taking into consideration statistical evidence of what usually are the motives of the predominant majority of the population in such cases, the odds will be clearly in favor that Mr. Ezell is getting some personal benefit out of this, either in the form of monetary or other rewards. But, still, anything is possible.

Why speculate though? I'm sure the members of the investigating committee are much more experienced than us and they will not just take for granted the accuracy of anyone's testimony. They will seek corroboration of all data and opinions presented to them from many independent sources before they reach a decision.

John D

 

I see "John D" posts under two names, "JohnD" and "Roya." Isn't this a violation of the TOS?

As for considering "all possible motives," it would be helpful to have some reason for consideration. Otherwise, you JohnD/Roya, are engaging in reckless speculation, and giving equal weight to all possibilities, no matter how unlikely.

Checking for motives as you have, you're looking at the wrong end. It is Congress, not Mr. Ezell, that is conducting the investigation. Perhaps they're motivated to root out academic frauds.

 

Ezell was right

John D.:

After that announcement from the Liberian Embassy it would seem that Ezell is right.

G