Angel Lovemore Statement (approx. feburary 2026)
Introduction
I plead not guilty to all allegations. I argue that allegations either lack documentation of measurable effects, are hyperbolic and false, or are protected rights of assembly and self-expression. The physical assault allegation is false due to no measurable harm. The electronic misconduct allegation is false due to consent to terms of service and lack of evidence. Disruptive behavior & harassment is a false, hyperbolic description of institutionally and constitutionally protected rights of assembly, free speech, and self-expression.
Physical Assault Allegation
For physical assault, there are two categories: causes harm (intentionally or negligently) and intends or threatens to cause harm or imminent danger. I believe both of these allegations are false. They are false because there was no measurable effect of harm, nor were there any expressions of intending to cause harm or imminent danger. To avoid a semantic shift, I remind you that “harm” is defined as “physical bodily injury”.
The law of cause and effect is a foundational law of logic and science. The law of cause and effect simply says that all causes have measurable effects. If harm was caused, then it follows that there was a measurable effect. Therefore, I ask if there are any observations of an injury, such as red marks, bruises, or urgent care visits. If harm cannot be measured, harm could not have been caused, for all causes have measurable effects. If evidence of an effect on the body is not found, then I believe logic – and the law of cause and effect – entails that there was no harm caused. Is there any documentation (i.e., photos, medical receipts, etc.) of physical bodily harm at the time of the alleged incident?
As for intention, my intention was to protest peacefully and to leave without causing harm. This is evident by the protest signs and the fact that I left the room when a bystander announced campus security. I was never told to leave, but I left due to the bystander's announcement as it implied I was no longer welcomed. The physical evidence (i.e., signs, notecards) shows my intention was aimed toward peaceful protest, not physical assault.
I conclude that a charge of physical assault is irrational, anti-scientific, and evidenceless considering the fact that no measurements of bodily injury are documented. Punishment without evidence is unjust and biased. In fact, the only measurable evidence (i.e., signs, notecards) reveals that I intended to protest peacefully rather than cause physical bodily injury.
Electronic or digital misconduct allegation
The phrase “campaign of harassment” is a false and hyperbolic description. It may refer to my self-expression that falls within terms of service on Discord.com. Discord is a social media platform, which is an off-campus, public location where free speech applies.
Discord is a public forum with terms of service. All messages on discord are consensual as each member agrees to the terms of service. Furthermore, I never received email or direct message from any members of the philosophy club that I was harassing them. Additionally, discord users are free to block others they do not consent to communicating, similar to any other social media platforms. I would never intentionally harass others online.
To note, I believe Tam Bradley and Avery Clark excluded me from their Discord server due to their hatred of men. I was banned for expressing my concerns of misandry (i.e., hatred of men). Despite citing academic research, I was discriminated against from the Philosophy Club due to a protected characteristic (i.e., my male gender or sex). Additionally, Tam verbally abused me by insulting my intelligence (e.g., Your inability to read... is reflective on your faculties”, “if you continue this ignorance, you will be removed.”,“rant and spam, nothing philosophically coherent”, “ignorant”).
To conclude, all users agree to Discord terms of service, which includes consenting to receiving messages from others – potentially anyone – in public chats. Also, there is no evidence or accusation of hacking, abuse of equipment, or surveillance.
Disruptive behavior allegation
I attended a club meeting and expressed myself, both of which are basic rights as a PSU student. I am free to attend club meetings and express myself. Exercising one's right to attend club meetings, or expressing oneself freely, should not count as disruptive behavior. Otherwise, charging it as so violates basic rights and protections such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
I was never told by club officers to leave or not attend. The club officers listened to my self-expression. Indeed, Officer Avery Clark told me, “Let's talk,” and “I never told you couldn't attend,” indicating they were receptive rather than disrupted by my self-expression.
When a bystander mentioned “campus security”, I left immediately. This indicates that I left as soon as my self expression was unwanted. Notably, I was never told to leave by officers or bystanders, rather I left on my own accord. Leaving as soon as possible is the opposite of disruptive behavior. I believe the club meeting continued as normal after my departure, indicating that the club meeting was not disrupted.
I did not disrupt teaching, classroom activities, research, administrative functions, or disciplinary procedures.
Harassment allegation
I have a good, legitimate purpose to exercise my constitutionally protected right of protest and free speech. The purpose is free speech and civic participation. This includes activity on discord.com or displaying signs. While the signs may provoke emotional distress to some individuals, I believe civic participation is a legitimate purpose for displaying these signs. Self-expression is a protected right under PSU free speech policy and US constitution. There is no intention to cause physical or emotional distress, rather an intention to exercise constitutionally protected rights.
Conclusion
I ask you to consider the lack of evidence of any bodily harm. I ask that you consider the PSU free speech policy and US constitution as evidence of my protected right to free expression. I ask that you view the evidence of the protest signs for practicing my protected right to free speech. I also ask you to consider the Discord term of service which is evidence of consensual messages with all users in accordance to their terms. Consider the fact that I left as soon as discontent was expressed by a bystander, and the fact that Avery Clark told me: “let's talk”. The preponderance of evidence should sway you to the fact that I was exercising my rights as a student and US citizen and that many of the allegations against me are groundless and lacking measurable, physical evidence.