2024 Florida High School Mock Trial Competition

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Contents

Trial Overview

Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar

Code of Ethical Conduct

Complaint

Answer

Jury Instructions

Stipulations and Pretrial Orders

Witness and Exhibit Lists

Witnesses’ Affidavits

Affidavit of Alex Ross

Affidavit of Cameron Grey

Affidavit of Robin Turner

Affidavit of Dr. Devin Myers

Affidavit of Jamie Bossa

Affidavit of Jude Collins

Exhibits

Rules of Evidence

Rules of Competition

Score Sheets and Forms

105

Updated January 2, 2024

TRIAL OVERVIEW

I. The presiding judge will ask each side if they are ready for trial.

II. Presiding judge announces that all witnesses are assumed to be sworn. Ask

teams if there are any preliminary matters (not motions) that need to be

addressed.

III. Opening Statements - no objections allowed; however, after each opening has

concluded, the opposing counsel may stand to be recognized and state that if

they could have objected they would have objected to… Please reference Rule

4.17 Objections During Opening Statement/Closing Statement.

IV. Cases presented. See Rules for the trial sequence and time limitations.

V. Closing Statements - no objections allowed; however, after each closing

statement has concluded, the opposing counsel may stand to be recognized and

state that if they could have objected - they would have objected to... Please

reference Rule 4.17 Objections During Opening Statement/Closing Statement.

VI. No jury instructions need to be read at the conclusion of the trial.

Judges should complete score sheets before debriefing.

VII. If a material rules violation is entered, teams will adhere to Rule 6.1.A Material

Rules Violation – Disputes at the Conclusion of the Trial – In-Person

Competitions. The presiding judge will follow the rules for this type of dispute.

VIII. Critique

JUDGES DO NOT ANNOUNCE SCORES OR PERFORMANCE

DECISIONS!

IX. ALL DECISIONS OF THE JUDGES ARE FINAL.

OATH OF ADMISSION TO THE FLORIDA BAR

The general principles which should ever control the lawyer in the practice of the

legal profession are clearly set forth in the following oath of admission to the Bar,

which the lawyer is sworn on admission to obey and for the willful violation to

which disbarment may be had.

"I do solemnly swear:

"I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State

of Florida;

"I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;

"I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to

be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under

the law of the land;

"I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means

only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge

or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;

"I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my clients, and

will accept no compensation in connection with their business except from them or

with their knowledge and approval;

"To opposing parties and their counsel, I pledge fairness, integrity, and civility, not

only in court, but also in all written and oral communications;

"I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the

honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause

with which I am charged;

"I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the

defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone's cause for lucre or malice. So help me

God."

CODE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT

The purpose of the Florida High School Mock Trial Competition is to stimulate and

encourage a deeper understanding and appreciation of the American legal system by providing

students the opportunity to participate actively in the legal process. The education of young people

is the primary goal of the mock trial program. Healthy competition helps to achieve this goal. Other

important objectives include improving proficiency in speaking; listening, reading, and reasoning

skills; promoting effective communication and cooperation between the educational and legal

communities; providing an opportunity to compete in an academic setting; and promoting tolerance,

professionalism, and cooperation among young people of diverse interests and abilities.

As a means of diligent application of the Florida High School Mock Trial Competition's

Rules of the Competition, the Mock Trial Advisory/Policy Committee has adopted the following

Code of Ethical Conduct for all participants.

1. Team members promise to compete with the highest standards of ethics, showing respect for

their fellow team members, opponents, judges, evaluators, attorney coaches, teacher coaches,

and mock trial personnel. All competitors will focus on accepting defeat and success with

dignity and restraint. Trials will be conducted honestly, fairly, and with the utmost civility.

Members will avoid all tactics they know are wrong or in violation of the rules, including

the use of unfair extrapolations. Members will not willfully violate the rules of the

competition in spirit or in practice

2. Teacher coaches agree to focus attention on the educational value of the Mock Trial

Competition. They shall discourage willful violations of the rules. Teachers will instruct

students as to proper procedure and decorum and will assist their students in understanding

and abiding by the competition's rules and this Code of Ethical Conduct.

3. Attorney coaches agree to uphold the highest standards of the legal profession and will

zealously encourage fair play. They will promote conduct and decorum in accordance with

the competition's rules and this Code of Ethical Conduct. Attorney coaches are reminded that

they are in a position of authority and thus serve as positive role models for the students.

4. All participants (including observers) are bound by all sections of this code and agree to

abide by the provisions. Teams are responsible for insuring that all observers are aware of

the code. Students, teacher coaches, and attorney coaches will be required to sign a copy of

this code. This signature will serve as evidence of knowledge and agreement to the provisions

of the code. Teams will receive scores on ethical conduct during each round.

5. Staff and Mock Trial Advisory Committee members agree to uphold the rules and procedures

of the Florida High School Mock Trial Competition while promoting ethical conduct and the

educational values of the program.

IN THE 21ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM COUNTY, FLORIDA

ALEX ROSS

PLAINTIFF

PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF

TRUSTEES

DEFENDANT

CASE NO. 23-006275-CA-01

JUDGE VINCENT LAGUARDIA

GAMBIN

COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF

CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC

PERFORMANCE

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, ALEX ROSS, and files this Complaint against the Defendant, PALM

COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and alleges as follows:

1. The Plaintiff, ALEX ROSS, is an individual residing in Palm County, Florida and

is full age of majority.

2. The Defendant, PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, is a

quasi- governmental agency with its principal place of business located in Palm

Coast County, Florida.

3. This Court has jurisdiction on this matter as this complaint seeks damages in excess

of $50,000.00 exclusive of attorney fees and costs.

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because (a) Defendant is

operating, present and/or doing business in Palm County, Florida and (b)

Defendant breach of contract occurred within Palm County, Florida.

5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Florida Statutes 47.011 et. seq., as the

causes of action alleged and all material events giving rise to this suit occurred

within Palm County.

NATURE OF ACTION

6. This is an action for breach of contract and specific performance which arises out

of the wrongful expulsion of the Plaintiff by the Defendant with respect to a

contract executed by both the Plaintiff and Defendant.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On August 19, 2019 the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a written

contract titled Palm Coast University Student Contract, a true and correct copy of

which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The contract outlined the rights and

obligations of both parties

8. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, the Plaintiff fulfilled all of their obligations

as required under the contract.

9. However, the Defendant has willfully and materially breached the contract by

improperly expelling the Plaintiff from Palm Coast University.

10. Despite written notice of the breach, the Defendant has failed to remedy the breach

or fulfill their obligations under the contract.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT

11. The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set

forth herein.

12. The Defendant's breach of the contract constitutes a material violation of the

contractual terms, resulting in harm and damages to the Plaintiff.

13. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach, the Plaintiff has suffered

the following damages:

a. Damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation at Palm Coast University

b. Rejections and inability to attend other universities.

c. The Defendant’s breach of contract directly caused a previous acceptance

to a prestigious law school to be withdrawn.

14. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but

in no event less than the amount specified in the contract.

COUNT II – SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

15. The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set

forth herein.

16. There was a valid enforceable contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant.

17. The Plaintiff has complied with all terms and conditions of the contract with the

Defendant.

18. The Plaintiff, at all times relative to this proceeding, was ready, willing and able to

perform all of its obligations under the contract.

19. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, the Plaintiff is entitled to specific

performance, which requires the Defendant to fulfill their contractual obligations

as outlined in the contract.

20. The Plaintiff hereby demands specific performance, requiring the Defendant to

fulfill all obligations under the contract, specifically the Plaintiff is requesting

reinstatement in good standing to Palm Coast University.

21. The Plaintiff requests the Court to issue an order of specific performance

compelling the Defendant to perform their obligations under the contract within a

reasonable time, as the Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law since monetary

damages would not be adequate to compensate the Plaintiff for damages sustained

in this matter.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in

their favor and against the Defendant, and grant the following relief:

1. A judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the claims for breach of contract

and specific performance;

2. An award of monetary damages to compensate the Plaintiff for the

harm caused by the Defendant’s breach;

3. An order of specific performance, requiring the Defendant to fulfill

their obligations under the contract within a reasonable time;

4. Prejudgment interest on all monetary damages awarded;

5. Attorney's fees and costs incurred in pursuing this action; and

6. Any further relief as the Court deems just and proper

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

DATED this 18

day of July, 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF JAKE BRIGANCE

877 Main Street

Penthouse Suite

Palm City, Florida 33333

Jake Brigance .

Jake Brigance

Esquire/Florida Bar No. 999889

IN THE 21ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM COUNTY, FLORIDA

ALEX ROSS

PLAINTIFF

PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF

TRUSTEES

DEFENDANT

CASE NO. 23-006275-CA-01

JUDGE VINCENT LAGUARDIA

GAMBIN

ANSWER TO PLAINIFF’S COMPLAINT

FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

COMES NOW the Defendant, PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and files

this Answer to the Plaintiff, ALEX ROSS Complaint against the Defendant, as follows:

1. Admitted

2. The Defendant denies they are a quasi governmental agency, but admits that their principle

place of business is Palm Coast County, Florida.

3. The Defendant is without knowledge to admit or deny this paragraph.

4. Admitted.

5. Admitted.

NATURE OF ACTION

6. Defendant admits this is an action for breach of contract and specific performance, but

denies any wrongful expulsion of the Plaintiff.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Admitted.

8. Denied.

9. Denied.

10. Denied.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT

11. Admitted.

12. The Defendant denies there was any breach of contract, as well as denying the Plaintiff

sustained any damages, and demands strict proof thereof.

13. The Defendant denies there was any breach of contract, as well as denying the Plaintiff

sustained any damages, and demands strict proof thereof.

14. The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to any damages in this matter.

COUNT II – SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

15. Admitted.

16. Admitted.

17. Admitted.

18. The Defendant I without knowledge to admit or deny this allegation.

19. The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract.

20. The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract.

21. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The Defendant hereby raises the following affirmative defenses

1. The Defendant complied with all terms of the contract dated August 19, 2019,

therefore there was no breach of contract.

2. The Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and is therefore not entitled to specific

performance of the contract.

DATED this 19

day of July, 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF BAYLOR & SHIFFLET

422 Great American Way

Palm City, Florida 33333

Rudy Baylor .

Rudy Baylor

Esquire/Florida Bar No. 993999

IN THE 21ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM COUNTY, FLORIDA

ALEX ROSS

PLAINTIFF

PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF

TRUSTEES

DEFENDANT

CASE NO. 23-006275-CA-01

JUDGE VINCENT LAGUARDIA

GAMBIN

JURY INSTUCTIONS

This Court shall (constructively) read these instructions to the jury before closing arguments.

Introduction

1. Members of the jury, the evidence and arguments in this case have been completed. I will

now instruct you as to the law in this case. The law that applies to this case is stated in these

instructions, and it is your duty to follow all of them. It is your duty to determine the facts

and to determine them only from the evidence in this case. You are to apply the law to the

facts. Neither sympathy nor prejudice should influence your verdict.

Evidence

2. From time to time, it has been the duty of this Court to rule on the admissibility of evidence.

Any evidence that was received for a limited purpose should not be considered by you for

any other purpose than that stated by this Court. You should disregard testimony and exhibits

which this Court has refused or stricken.

3. The evidence consists only of the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits which this

Court has received. You should consider all the evidence in the light of your own

observations and experience in life.

4. The evidence may be either direct or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is testimony

about what a witness personally saw, heard, or did. Circumstantial evidence is testimony

about one or more facts that logically lead you to believe the truth of another fact. You should

consider both direct and circumstantial evidence in reaching your verdict. You may decide

the facts in this case based upon circumstantial evidence alone.

5. Neither opening statements nor closing arguments are evidence, and any statement or

argument made by the attorneys which is not based on the evidence should be disregarded.

Witnesses

6. Only you are the judges of the believability of the witnesses and of the weight to be given to

the testimony of each of them. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may consider

their ability and opportunity to observe, their memory, their manner while testifying, any

bias they may have, and the reasonableness of their testimony considered in the light of all

the evidence in this case.

7. There may be witnesses that are qualified as an expert in a particular field was summoned to

testify at trial. Expert witnesses are like other witnesses, with one exception - the law permits

an expert witness to give their opinion. However, an expert's opinion is reliably only when

given on a subject about which you believe them to be an expert. Like other witnesses, you

may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony.

8. The defendant in this case is a quasi-governmental entity and may have a representative as a

witness. You should apply the same rules to consideration of their testimony that you apply

to the testimony of the other witnesses. Ultimately, you may rely upon your own conclusion

about the credibility of any witness. You may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the

evidence or the testimony of any witness.

9. You must consider the testimony of some witnesses with more caution than others. This is

particularly true when there is no other evidence tending to agree with what a witness says

about the defendant. So, while a witness may be entirely truthful when testifying, you should

consider their testimony with more caution. However, if the testimony of such witness

convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, or the other evidence in

this case does so, then you should find the defendant guilty.

Charges and Elements

10. Two causes of action have been brought against the defendant. The first is breach of

contract, and the other is specific performance. The defendant has denied both counts. The

specifics of the elements of these claims are set forth below.

Burden and Reasonable Doubt

11. The Plaintiff has the burden of proof on this matter. The Plaintiff must prove their claims

by the greater weight of the evidence which is also referred to as preponderance of the

evidence. Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and convincing force

and effect of the entire evidence in the case. The defendant is not required to present

evidence or prove anything, although the defendant may present evidence to refute the

evidence provided by the evidence

12. It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that

proof.

13. Whether the Plaintiff has met its burden of proof does not depend upon the number of

witnesses it has called or upon the number of exhibits it has offered, but instead upon the

nature and quality of the evidence presented.

CONTRACT FORMATION — ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

To prove that a contract was created, Plaintiff must prove all of the following:

1. The essential contract terms were clear enough that the parties could understand what each was

required to do;

2. The parties agreed to give each other something of value. [A promise to do something or not to do

something may have value]; and

3. The parties agreed to the essential terms of the contract. When you examine whether the parties

agreed to the essential terms of the contract, ask yourself if, under the circumstances, a reasonable

person would conclude, from the words and conduct of each party, that there was an

agreement. The making of a contract depends only on what the parties said or did. You may not

consider the parties’ thoughts or unspoken intentions.

If Plaintiff did not prove all of the above, then a contract was not created.

BREACH OF CONTRACT — ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

To prove a claim for breach of contract, Plaintiff must prove all of the following:

1. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract;

2. Plaintiff did all, or substantially all, of the essential things which the contract required it to;

3. All conditions required by the contract for defendant’s performance had occurred;

4. Defendant failed to do something essential which the contract required it to do; and

5. Plaintiff was damaged by that failure.

BREACH OF CONTRACT-DAMAGES

a. Compensatory damages:

Compensatory damages are the amount of money which will put (claimant) in as good a position

as [he] [she] [it] would have been if (defendant) had not breached the contract and which naturally

result from the breach.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Specific performance shall only be granted when:

1. The Plaintiff, by clear and definite proof, has performed under the terms of the contract;

2. There is no adequate remedy at law; and

3. The trier of fact believes that justice requires it.

Specific performance will be denied where money would adequately compensate the plaintiff for

the loss. The court determines whether money would be adequate after examining the subject

matter of the contract itself.

CONSTRUCTION AGAINST DRAFTER

If there is a claim of ambiguity in the terms of the contract, you must determine whether there is

actually an ambiguity in the contract based upon the evidence presented. If you are able to

determine there was an ambiguity in the terms of the contract, then you consider which party

drafted the disputed terms(s) in the contract and then construe that language against that party.

GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

“Greater weight of the evidence” means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of

the entire evidence in the case. Another way to think about this standard is to think about the

scales of justice – if the plaintiff’s evidence outweighs the defendant’s evidence, even by a

marginal amount, the plaintiff will win the case. Essentially, the plaintiff must prove that their

assertions are more likely true than not. If they have proven the case to a 50.1 percent degree of

certainty, they will succeed. However, if the plaintiff cannot reach this threshold, the defendant

will win.

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

“Clear and convincing evidence” differs from the “greater weight of the evidence” in that it is

more compelling and persuasive. “Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence that is precise,

explicit, lacking in confusion, and of such weight that it produces a firm belief or conviction

without hesitation about the matter in issue. The Florida Supreme Court defined this standard as

an intermediate level of proof that entails both a qualitative and quantitative standard. The

evidence must be credible; the memories of the witnesses must be clear and without confusion;

and the sum total of the evidence must be of sufficient weight to convince the trier of fact without

hesitancy.

IN THE 21ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM COUNTY, FLORIDA

ALEX ROSS

PLAINTIFF

PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF

TRUSTEES

DEFENDANT

CASE NO. 23-006275-CA-01

JUDGE VINCENT LAGUARDIA

GAMBIN

STIPULATIONS AND PRETRIAL

ORDERS

General

1. This Court has proper jurisdiction over this matter. All charging documents were signed by

the proper parties. The venue is proper.

2. The Plaintiff (Alex Ross) has alleged that the Defendant (Palm Coast University Board of

Trustees) breached a contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant and is bringing an action

for breach of contract with an alternative claim of Specific Performance of the contract in

question. The parties may not add or dismiss any claims.

3. The Plaintiff, in no particular order, calls Alex Ross, Robin Turner and Cameron

Grey. The Defendant, in no particular order, calls Jude Collins, Dr. Devin Myers, and

Jamie Bossa. No other witnesses are called. All witness statements were given under oath.

4. The only legal authorities that may be cited at trial are these stipulations and pretrial orders,

the Complaint, the Answer, the Jury Instructions, Rules of Competition and the Rules of

Evidence.

5. Whenever a rule of evidence requires that reasonable notice be given, it has been given.

6. The trial has been bifurcated. This Court will only be hearing matters pertaining to the breach

of contract and specific performance. If the Plaintiff prevails on either of these counts, the

Court will have a separate trial on the specific remedy on this matter, whether it be monetary

damages or specific performance of the contract.

7. For the purposes of this trial, Jude Collins shall be the party representative of the Defendant,

Palm Coast University Board of Trustees.

8. Stipulations cannot be contradicted or challenged.

9. Dallas Warren is out of the country and not available to testify at trial.

10. The parties stipulate that Palm Coast drafted the Palm Coast University Contract in Exhibit

1, as well as the Plagiarism Policy found in the Student Handbook in Exhibit 2.

Authenticity

11. All signatures on witness statements and other documents are authentic. Any texts or emails

are presumed to be authentic.

12. Chain of custody was properly documented for all exhibits, and all exhibits have been

properly preserved for trial.

13. The parties stipulate that there was a valid, enforceable contract between the parties

14. For the purposes of Exhibit 4 the relevant citation page was reviewed by both experts, but is

not included as an exhibit. No objections to the exclusion of the citations are permitted.

However, expert conclusions drawn from the citations may be admissible subject to the

Simplified Rules of Evidence.

15. The Plagiarism Policy is considered part of the student handbook and therefore part of the

Palm Coast University Agreement.

Experts

16. Cameron Grey and Jamie Bossa are stipulated to be expert witnesses. If either party wishes

to establish another witness as an expert, proper foundation will need to be provided to the

Court.

17. The reports of Cameron Grey and Jamie Bossa are "affidavits" for the purposes of

impeachment. All witnesses who authored reports were under oath and agreed to include any

and all knowledge about this case. These witnesses are thus bound by those reports. Both

experts have read and reviewed the other’s affidavit/report and is familiar with the same.

18. Any examination, analysis, or experiment conducted by any expert witness is presumed to

have been conducted consistent with generally accepted scientific principles pertaining to

the field of expertise of the witness

Exhibits

19. For the convenience of both parties, the Court, and the jury, all exhibits have been pre-labeled

and pre-numbered. Those numbers will be used for all purposes at trial, regardless of which

party offers the exhibit or the order in which the exhibits are offered.

20. Exhibit 1 accurately reflects the Enrollment Contract between the Plaintiff and the

Defendant, and the validity of the same cannot be challenged.

21. Exhibit 2 accurately reflects the Plagiarism Policy of Palm Coast University and the validity

or accuracy of the same cannot be challenged.

22. The parties stipulate that Exhibit 4 is accurate and it has been agreed that the same is pre-

admitted into evidence.

Special Instructions (Not to be referenced at trial)

23. No witness may refuse to answer any questions based on a witness's Fifth Amendment rights.

No attorney may instruct a witness not to respond based on a witness's Fifth Amendment

rights.

24. The Plaintiff was of sound body and mind and was of legal age to enter into a contract on

August 19, 2019. The defense may not argue that any parties lacked the capacity to enter into

a contract.

25. No objection may be raised on the grounds that a document or exhibit was altered by printing

it in black-and-white.

26. All witnesses are considered to be competent to testify in court.

Vincent LaGuardia Gambin

Judge

8/28/23

Date

WITNESS LIST

The following witnesses are available and all witnesses must be called by the parties:

For the Plaintiff

For the Defendant

Alex Ross

Dr. Devin Myers

Cameron Grey

Jamie Bossa

Robin Turner

Jude Collins

EXHIBITS AVAILABLE TO BOTH PARTIES

The parties have stipulated to the authenticity of the trial exhibits listed below. The

court will, therefore, not entertain objections to the authenticity of these trial exhibits.

The parties have reserved any objections to the admissibility of any of these exhibits

until the trial of the above- captioned matter. The trial exhibits may be introduced by

either the Plaintiff or the Defense, subject to the Rules of Evidence and stipulations of

the parties contained in the materials. The exhibits are pre-marked and are to be

referred to by number, as follows:

Exhibit

No.

Exhibit Description

Palm Coast University Student Contract

Plagiarism Policy and Procedure

Evan Miller Email

Alex Ross Paper on Taylor Swift

PCU Academic Integrity Hearing Transcript

Letter Regarding High School Plagiarism

Emails Between Ross and Collins

TurnItIn Timestamp Sheet

AI Detection Methods

Phone Screenshots (Texts from Alex Ross to ActNow

Members)

IN THE 21ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM COUNTY, FLORIDA

ALEX ROSS

PLAINTIFF

PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF

TRUSTEES

DEFENDANT

CASE NO. 23-006275-CA-01

JUDGE VINCENT LAGUARDIA

GAMBIN

AFFIDAVIT OF ALEX ROSS

After being duly sworn upon oath, Alex Ross hereby states as follows: I am twenty-

two years old and am competent to make this affidavit.

I’m currently living with my parents in Palm County. Having grown up in South

Florida, I’ve seen how the cost of housing has skyrocketed in some areas. My best friend’s

family had to move away four years ago because they couldn’t keep up with the rising

cost after having lived in Florida for over 30 years. That’s why I chose to major in

engineering once I started at Palm Coast University. I want to create affordable housing

options for Floridians. Somewhere along the way, I realized that I could make a bigger

impact with a law degree under my belt. I was finishing up my senior year at PCU in

Spring of 2023 when I was expelled by the Dean after Dr. Myers accused me of cheating

on my final. I was already walking a pretty thin line prior to all this.

I was accepted to PCU on an academic scholarship that requires me to maintain a

3.5 GPA overall. However, I got into a spot of trouble earlier in the semester that

nearly got me kicked out.

I’m president of PCU’s Act Now Club. Act Now is a student led organization that

works to promote equity for all students on campus and defend students against unjust

policies. During COVID-19, the school implemented the use of HonorLock to prevent

cheating. HonorLock requires the user to scan their workspace and place their phone out

of their reach while a live proctor monitors them. It also locks down your browser so you

can’t look up any answers. While I understood the use of HonorLock during the pandemic,

it’s created a burden on students now. The program used to be fully paid for by the school,

but about a year ago students had to begin paying $5 per session to utilize the program. A

few professors were requiring students to take tests on HonorLock every week, which

quickly added up for students that were living on a tight budget. This meant that some

students couldn’t afford to take their exams and were suffering academically. Act Now

decided to take action.

We initially reached out to the administration to try and organize a town hall

meeting, so students could explain to the administration the problems they were facing.

However, the administration quickly shot down the idea via email. That’s when I had

the idea to organize a peaceful protest on campus on the main lawn. We’d held protests

there before, and the school usually permitted it so long as we didn’t interfere with other

students or classes that were in session.

However, the protest didn’t go as planned. A few students took things too far and

actually entered classrooms and disrupted live classes. Even though I stayed outside and

didn’t participate, I was placed on probation by Dean Collins. S/He said that as president

of the club, the protest and the chaos was my responsibility. Because the University

received negative media coverage on this matter, Dean Collins seemed to pay “special”

attention to me.

In my last semester of mu senior year, I took a marketing class with Dr. Myers. Dr.

Myers is known as a no-nonsense, difficult professor. I knew that Dr. Myers was very close

with Dean Collins and was up for tenure. I would see Dean Collins and Dr. Myers hanging

out together in some of the bars around campus and it was clear that they were close

friends. This made me extremely concerned about taking a class with Dr. Myers, but Dr.

Myers was the only professor teaching the last class that was required for my graduation.

Before my last semester of my senior year, I was conditionally accepted to a

prestigious law school. All I needed to do was maintain my 3.5 GPA. The law school knew

about my academic probation but accepted my explanation as to what occurred. However,

it was made clear to me that any other incidents would jeopardize my conditional

acceptance.

I knew that since I was on probation, I couldn’t afford to earn less than a C in Dr.

Myer’s class. I’d managed to maintain a C average in his class throughout most of the

semester. However, 6 weeks before the end of the semester he announced that instead of

giving us a midterm, s/he was going to make our Final Essay worth 40% of our grade. I

knew that if I didn’t pass the final, my GPA would dip too low and I would lose my

scholarship and my opportunity to attend law school. I knew that I could not afford any

problems with my grades or any other problems or I would lose my conditional acceptance

to law school.

Because of the importance of the final assignment, I immediately buckled down

and began preparing to write this paper. I even attended all of Dr. Myer’s office hours.

Robin Turner, Dr. Myer’s Teaching Assistant, would usually sit down with me during this

time and help me with the paper. I needed that essay to be perfect. It was the most stressful

thing I’ve ever done. By the time the due date came around, I was definitely feeling the

pressure. I decided to write the paper regarding Taylor Swift; how her ability to market

her brand maximizes her success. My best friend, Fernando, and I were real “Swifties”

and would go to her concerts whenever she had a concert within 200 miles of campus. I

was fascinated how she developed her branding through a very specific plan of marketing.

I thought that would be a topic that would excite me. I have to say, the paper was more

difficult than I imagined, and it took so much time to gather the informational details. I

admit I utilized an AI program to help gather some information, but I never utilized

anything specific from this AI site in my paper. Why would I? I only utilized AI as a

starting place for the paper. Maybe there was minor information from that AI search, but

it would have been minimal and the paper I wrote was in my own words. I have a 3.5 GPA

and despite the difficulties I had in starting the paper and finding the information, the

wording in the paper was my own words and a result of the specific research I discussed. I

finally managed to finish with about an hour to spare. I submitted the essay to

TurnItIn.com, which evaluates student’s essays for potential plagiarism.

The next day, I received an email instructing me to appear for an academic

integrity hearing. Dr. Myers accused me of cheating on my Final! I was caught completely

off guard. S/He alleged that I had used AI to write most of my paper. I denied doing so

but was told the Board of Trustees would have to investigate. I went to a hearing with the

Academic Advisory Committee and, as luck would have it, Dean Collins was on the

committee. The committee cleared me of any wrongdoing in an 8-1 vote. Of course, Dean

Collins was the only vote against me. The Board of Trustees of PCU confirmed the

Committee's decision. I was so happy that I finally felt there was justice in this case.

However, my joy turned into disbelief when I received a letter from the Dean saying that

I was expelled. How could that be? It was clear that Dean Collins made this decision to

destroy my future. My conditional acceptance was reversed and my dreams of attending

law school were destroyed. I mean, I signed a contract that indicated that the Board of

Trustees had the final say on these issues, yet the Dean arbitrarily overturned this decision.

The Dean’s decision was meant to destroy my future.

Evidently, Dean Collins overruled the Board of Trustees based upon the

Agreement I signed before entering Palm Coast University. This agreement I signed says

the Dean has the final decision regarding dismissing a student due to academic dishonesty.

However, as I pointed out to the Academic Advisory Committee, the Board of Trustees

has the final decision regarding expulsion due to plagiarism. It is right there in black and

white in the student handbook. The Academic Advisory Committee ruled in my favor and

found that I did not plagiarize any materials and this finding was upheld by the Board of

Trustees. The Board of Trustees had the final word on plagiarism, but somehow Dean

Collins found a way to destroy my future.

Yes, I was accused of plagiarism in high school and I admit, I did not properly cite

100

some materials, so I accepted my punishment. That was about 7 years ago, and I learned

101

my lesson and would never plagiarize. This is totally unfair and the Board of Trustees

102

should have upheld their initial decision exonerating me from Dr. Myers unsubstantiated

103

claim that I plagiarized my assignment. It is clear that Dr. Myers and Dean Collins were

104

out to get me.

105

I swear or affirm the truthfulness of everything stated in this affidavit. Before giving a statement,

106

I was told I should include everything that I know may be relevant to my testimony and I followed those

107

instructions. I know that I can and must update this affidavit if anything new occurs to me until the

108

moment before opening statements begin in this case.

109

I am familiar with all of the Exhibits with the exception of Exhibits 8 and 9. I am not familiar with

110

any other exhibits in this case. I swear or affirm the truthfulness of everything stated in this affidavit. Before

111

giving a statement, I was told I should include everything that I know may be relevant to my testimony and

112

I followed those instructions. I know that I can and must update this affidavit if anything new occurs to me

113

until the moment before opening statements begin in this case.

114

Signed,

Alex Ross

August 20

, 2023

IN THE 21ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM COUNTY, FLORIDA

ALEX ROSS

PLAINTIFF

PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF

TRUSTEES

DEFENDANT

CASE NO. 23-006275-CA-01

JUDGE VINCENT LAGUARDIA

GAMBIN

AFFIDAVIT OF CAMERON GREY

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

My name is Cameron Grey. I am the founder and CEO of GPTZero, a tech firm that has developed

sophisticated software tools for detecting the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writings. I

founded the company only about a year ago after I left my last position as the Head of Research and

Development at a rival company, XYZ on not very great terms to say the least.

1.2 Involvement in this Case

I was originally retained by Plaintiff’s counsel after Plaintiff learned of his expulsion and wanted to appeal to

the school and asked me if I could help explain the method of AI detection and the faults that may come with

it. I was disappointed but not surprised to hear that my old company had falsely flagged an essay as utilizing

AI. When I investigated the matter and conducted my own analysis, I decided to take this case pro bono. It’s

also true that this case could help bring attention to my software company. While we don’t currently have a

contract with Turnitin, if we can demonstrate that our software is better at detecting AI then maybe we can

secure a contract which would help put our company on the map and make it profitable.

2. Qualifications and Experience

2.1 Academic Background

I graduated Suma Cum Laude with a double major – B.S. in Computer Science and a B.A. in Applied

Linguistics – from Pomona College. Following my undergraduate degrees, I obtained my Masters in Computer

Science from Stanford University in 2017.

2.2 Publications and Experience Testifying

I currently only have two publications. The first one was my master’s thesis which looked at applying Machine

Learning Language Models to Analyze and Critique Technical Writing published in the peer-reviewed New

England Journal of Machine Learning. I also recently had an additional paper published in the highly regarded

and peer reviewed Foundation and Trends in Machine Learning in 2022. The title of the paper was Detection

of AI Language Models: A Holistic Approach.

I have also testified now in 3 other cases regarding the use of artificial intelligence in academia though two of

them were in arbitration and one was testifying before a school board.

2.3 Professional Experience

Upon graduating from Stanford University, I began working for Oracle as a Senior Researcher and Software

Developer. However, after working there for about a year I was approached by DEFENSE EXPERT for my

qualifications and background in machine learning and linguistics. I was well aware of who s/he was as s/he

is well known and well respected in the software engineering industry. I honestly couldn’t believe that s/he

knew who I was or that s/he would even give me a chance. S/He told me that one of his people had stumbled

upon my master’s thesis and thought I would be a great fit in his/her new venture. S/He said that with the

increase in AI s/he predicted that it would soon be widely available to the market at large. S/He was right, of

course, as evidenced by ChatGPT. S/He told me that s/he was concerned with the idea that AI could be nearly

indistinguishable from Human writing and worried about disinformation. S/He told me that s/he wanted to

develop a way of identifying and flagging writing as AI so that people could be well informed. I thought it

was an amazing idea and gladly jumped on board. During my time as the head of R&D I was asked to use a

narrower algorithm when detecting AI. Due to some – let’s call them – disagreements, I decided to leave the

company and start my own firm. Following my departure, s/he sued me under the non-compete clause and

other crazy allegations. I can’t talk about specifics but all I can say is that the matter is settled and GPTZero

is not going anywhere.

3. Methodology and Tools Used for Analysis

3.1 Explanation of GPTZero's Software and its Functionality

The underlying mechanism of GPTZero relies on deep learning models that have been trained on vast datasets

of academic writing of both human and AI texts. These models recognize distinct patterns and structures

unique to each source, which enables the software to make a probabilistic determination about the origin of a

text.

The detection mechanism employed by GPTZero's software is primarily based on the principles of language

models, which are the fundamental building blocks of AI text generation tools like ChatGPT.

Language models are trained to predict the next word in a sentence given all the preceding words. They learn

from vast amounts of text data and identify patterns and structures in the language. Consequently, when

generating text, these models tend to produce output that closely follows the learned patterns.

In essence, if an AI were writing a sentence, it would statistically choose the next word based on the patterns

it learned during its training. This predictive nature makes AI-generated texts somewhat formulaic and

different from human writing, as humans often incorporate more creativity, randomness, and context-

awareness in their writing.

3.2 Predictive Analysis

To detect AI involvement, GPTZero's software much like COMPETITORS, essentially reverses the language

model's function. Instead of predicting the next word, the software looks at the given word (or sequence of

words) in the text and calculates the likelihood that it would be the predicted output of a language model. The

software does this for the entire text, creating a sort of likelihood map.

The software then analyzes this likelihood map to generate a probability score. If the text consistently follows

the most predicted language patterns (as per the language model), the software concludes a higher probability

that it was AI-generated. However, if the text frequently deviates from such patterns, the software leans

towards human authorship. This overall score is adjusted for certain biases and a margin of error, providing a

final probability of AI involvement in the creation of the text.

When I ran Alex Ross’s essay through my software, it only received an AI score of 15%. This can be

interpreted to mean that 10% of the essay received a low complexity score, so it is possible that 10% of the

essay was written by AI. However, I must emphasize that no AI detection is perfect and I believe that this

number may actually be 0% given other factors and the margin of error explained later.

3.3 Additional Analysis

Given that AI Detection is an imperfect tool, I have always advocated others to consider writing on a more

holistic approach rather than solely relying on predictive analysis.

One thing that someone must consider is following arguments and themes introduced within a piece of writing.

One then analyzes how that theme/argument is consistent and logical. Because AI simply predicts the next

word, when it comes to larger texts, there may be faults in logical argumentation as it can get lost as the text

gets longer. That is because while humans may be more erratic in choosing individual words, their argument

and logic flows much better than AI.

When I analyzed Alex Ross’s paper I noticed that the logic of the paper seemed to follow quite well. Each

paragraph logically followed the next and the sentences within each paragraph were logically linked.

I also noticed that the language, i.e. the vocabulary in Alex Ross’s paper was quite similar to the vocabulary

that they used in another paper I was provided written in 2018. This was before widespread access to AI and

therefore it is likely impossible that this paper was written by AI. I noticed similar vocabulary and sentence

structure was used. When I studied linguistics, this was one of the most interesting factors about human

writing. Vocabulary and sentence structure can often be like a fingerprint. While some people have similar

fingerprints, each person has their own style. And it is clear from my review that these styles of writing are

consistent, but not perfect. This difference in style could be simply due to Alex Ross’s writing evolving as

they continued through college.

It's worth noting that while this methodology is robust, it's not infallible. Texts can have overlapping

characteristics, and AI is improving at mimicking human-like text. Thus, any AI detection conclusion must

consider these nuances, the margin of error, contextual elements, and of course a human-review.

3.4 Margin of Error

As stated earlier, no predictive analysis software is perfect and each software does have some margin of error.

While COMPETITOR claims his margin of error to be as low as 5%, our software is much newer so we do

not have an exact number. My best estimate would place the margin of error at about 10%. This does not mean

that one can simply take the predictive analysis score and subtract 10% for the correct number. Rather this

means that when each portion of the essay is analyzed it is given a complexity score. If that complexity score

is low enough it will tag it as AI written. It then calculates what percentage of the essay was tagged as AI

written. The margin of error on any of these software programs simply indicates its likelihood to calculate a

lower than correct complexity score and tag something as AI written. So, while it is impossible to predict the

true number, our software is more likely to tag something as AI written while COMPETITOR is not. So, while

our software outputted a score of 10% I believe that the score may actually be lower.

4.0 Conclusion

Based on my holistic review of Alex Ross’s paper I believe the percentage of the document written by AI to

be within a percentage of 0%-5%. While I believe it is possible that AI was used to write small portions of the

paper, I conclude that it is unlikely. Even though my software found that 10% of the paper was likely written

by AI, I believe that given our margin of error and the other factors I considered in Section 4.2, I do not believe

this score to be indicative of the true percentage written by AI.

Signed,

Cameron Grey

August 30

, 2023

IN THE 21ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM COUNTY, FLORIDA

ALEX ROSS

PLAINTIFF

PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF

TRUSTEES

DEFENDANT

CASE NO. 23-006275-CA-01

JUDGE VINCENT LAGUARDIA

GAMBIN

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBIN TURNER

After being duly sworn upon oath, Robin Turner hereby states as follows: I am twenty-six years old

and am competent to make this affidavit.

I graduated from Palm Coast University with my bachelor’s in accounting. I spent a few years teaching

math at my local middle school before I returned to PCU as a full-time student. I’m currently in my second

year as a graduate student, working my way towards a master’s degree in actuarial sciences. Grad school is

expensive, so each semester, I apply for the work study program at PCU. This allowed me to work as a teaching

assistant for a professor named Dr. Devin Myers. However, after I informed the university that attorneys for

the plaintiff asked me to testify at trial, I was removed as Dr. Myers’s TA. I still don’t know which professor

I’ll be working for this coming semester, or if my work study application will even be renewed.

To say that Dr. Myers is unpopular with the student body would be an understatement. Myers teaches

MAR3002 (Marketing Concepts and Operations), which is a required course that business majors need to pass

in order to graduate. Since it’s a 3000s level course, the four sections that Dr. Myers teaches are composed

entirely of undergraduate juniors and seniors, but that doesn’t stop Dr. Myers from treating it like a graduate-

level course. In class, if a student arrived late, Myers would immediately stop the lecture and began berating

the student for their attendance.

Alex Ross was one of Dr. Myers’s students during the spring 2023 semester. On Alex’s first day of

the class, I was happy to see Alex. I’d had the plaintiff in two classes during previous semesters (with other

professors), and Alex was always respectful and submitted assignments on time. After Dr. Myers’s lectures,

Alex would sometimes stay to chat and ask questions. It always seemed to me that Alex was very involved

with the material that was covered. That being said, some of the questions Alex would ask also gave me the

impression that Alex wasn’t grasping the information. For example, after an entire presentation discussing the

impact of non-fungible tokens on the economy, Alex raised a hand and said, “Can you remind me what an

NFT is again?” Dr. Myers just sighed in response. Though I will say that Alex was only ever absent for two

classes that semester – I took attendance for Dr. Myers’s class, so I’m certain of this.

It was also my job to grade some assignments for Dr. Myers, which is how I found out that that Alex

was struggling in the class. Alex had A’s in the classes I’d had Alex in previously, but Alex was barely

maintaining a C average in MAR3002. Even worse, Dr. Myers didn’t like Alex one bit. I have no idea why

Myers was so mad with Alex all the time (or if there was even a specific reason to begin with), but Dr. Myers’s

feelings were apparent in every interaction they had. Anytime Alex would try to speak with Dr. Myers after a

lecture, Myers would shove a hand in Alex’s face and say, “I don’t have time for you. You know what you

did to me.”

As a TA, I would host office hours for Dr. Myers. Myers is the type of professor that doesn’t like to

be bothered, so I was the one responsible for helping students out with big assignments. On February 15, 2023,

Dr. Myers announced that a five-page essay would substitute the final exam for the class. The prompt was to

write an essay analyzing the marketing strategies in a particular industry or economy – this was nothing the

students hadn’t done before in the class. The assignment was due on May 5, and a month before the assignment,

Dr. Myers officially created the submission portal for the assignment through TurnItIn (plagiarism software

that the university provides teachers). This paper was worth a huge chunk of everyone’s grade.

Between the time that Myers created the submission portal, and the time that the essay was due, I had

office hours every Tuesday and Thursday (eight in total). Alex was at every single one of those office hours,

and most of the time, Alex was the only student I worked with. During that first meeting, Alex said, “my grade

is do or die on this essay, so I need to make it count.” I asked Alex what Alex was thinking about writing the

paper on. Alex responded, “That’s what I was hoping you could help me with.” That’s when I made it very

clear to Alex that I couldn’t help too much. I think my exact words were, “I’m not going to write this thing for

you myself.” Alex’s shoulders sank when I said that. I told Alex, “What I can do is help you brainstorm and

research.” We spent that meeting, and the next two, doing exactly that.

As it turned out, Alex was a huge Taylor Swift fan, and given Swift’s big reputation in the media

around the time of the essay, Alex decided to write the essay on Swift’s marketing campaigns in the music

industry. I thought that sounded like a great idea! In the following office hours, I asked Alex about the progress

on the paper. Alex always gave me some variation of, “It’s coming along.” Alex would then ask a whole bunch

of questions. They were mostly about information that was already covered in class, and some weren’t entirely

relevant to the essay. This confirmed my suspicions that Alex was more lost than anything. During these

meetings, Alex would spend time writing on a notepad while I explained different business and marketing

concepts. I never saw what Alex was writing (it could’ve been anything, really) since I was sitting across the

table, but I’m sure it had to do with the paper. And I was able to see that Alex had written a lot of notes over

the course of our meetings, several pages in fact.

In our May 2 meeting, I specifically asked Alex to bring his/her laptop to show me what Alex had

written so far – this way, I could provide feedback. The essay was due on a Friday at midnight, so the last time

I saw Alex was midday on Thursday, May 4. When Alex showed up, Alex explained that Alex’s laptop had

broken the week prior, and Alex would need to rent one out from the school’s library. Why Alex hadn’t told

me this when I asked Alex to bring in the essay, I don’t know.

This is when I became extremely worried that Alex hadn’t even started working on the essay. It

must’ve been apparent on my face because Alex immediately began to describe what Alex recalled writing

before the laptop broke. This did little to ease my worries, but I figured that if Alex could describe ad nauseum

the marketing intricacies of Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, then Alex could write a perfectly suitable essay within

the next day and a half. At the end of that meeting, I gave Alex some constructive feedback. I ended by saying,

“It would’ve been really helpful if I could’ve seen what you had written down.” Alex sighed and said, “It’s

just that this essay has been so hard. I wish someone could just write it all for me.” I laughed at Alex’s joke

and wished Alex good luck.

I heard about Alex’s expulsion a couple of weeks into summer break. Dr. Myers called me asking if I

was interested in being a TA again; during that phone call, Myers joked that “we won’t need to deal with that

liar of a student anymore.” I asked who Dr. Myers was talking about, and that’s when Dr. Myers filled me in

on the accusations against Alex. I was shocked. I didn’t say anything on the phone to Dr. Myers because I

didn’t feel it was my place to get involved, but it just didn’t make sense to me that Alex would plagiarize the

essay. Even if Alex hadn’t started working on the essay by our last meeting, it seemed like Alex had a good

grasp on the subject matter. And why would Alex attend all those office hours with me if the plan was to just

have a computer write the essay? Dr. Myers wanted to be the only one to grade the final essays, so I never

actually read Alex’s essay. However, when I saw the timestamps of the grading of the paper, it was clear that

Dr. Myers spent so little time grading Alex’s papers, and I find that concerning. I did learn at that time there

was a rumor that Alex did file some type of complaint against Dr. Myers and putting things together, it was

pretty clear that Dr. Myers had some type of grudge against Alex.

I am familiar with the following exhibits: Exhibit 3 is an email that PCU sent out about AI on campus.

Exhibit 8 is a log showing timestamps of Dr. Myers’s grading progress for the final essay in MAR3002;

although I wasn’t involved in the grading, I still had access to this side of TurnItIn’s submission page. I am

not familiar with any other exhibits in this case. I swear or affirm the truthfulness of everything stated in this

affidavit. Before giving a statement, I was told I should include everything that I know may be relevant to my

testimony and I followed those instructions. I know that I can and must update this affidavit if anything new

occurs to me until the moment before opening statements begin in this case.

Signed,

Robin Turner

August 21, 2023

IN THE 21ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM COUNTY, FLORIDA

ALEX ROSS

PLAINTIFF

PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF

TRUSTEES

DEFENDANT

CASE NO. 23-006275-CA-01

JUDGE VINCENT LAGUARDIA

GAMBIN

AFFIDAVIT OF DR. DEVIN MYERS

After being duly sworn upon oath, Dr. Devin Myers hereby states as follows: I am fifty-seven years

old and am competent to make this affidavit.

I’m a professor at Palm Coast University, where I teach classes on business, economics, and

marketing. I graduated from Harvard University with my bachelor’s degree in finance, and then from Yale

with my Ph.D. in applied statistics with a focus on economics. I spent several years writing for the New

York Times where I had a monthly column that would educate readers on the current state of the American

stock market. Once I was bored with that, I transitioned into a more formal educational setting by becoming

an associate professor at Palm Coast University. I’m not a tenured professor, though; my tenure review will

take place two months after this trial.

At PCU, I teach four sections of MAR3002 (Marketing Concepts and Operations). The university

recognizes how important my pedagogy is, which is why they made the class mandatory for any students

majoring in business. My classes are composed of undergraduate juniors and seniors. I’m aware of the

reputation I have among the student body, and it is a notoriety that I have intentionally manufactured. My

classes are structured to force students to think critically about concepts in our economy. Too many students

come into college thinking they can easily earn a high GPA by majoring in something “pointless” like

business. I’m their wake-up call. Alex Ross was one of these students. I was warned during the winter break

before the 2023 spring semester about Ross being in my class. I was having lunch with Jude Collins, the

Dean of PCU’s College of Arts and Sciences. Dean Collins provided a list of students in my upcoming roster

who were on academic probation. “You might want to provide these students with some encouragement,”

Dean Collins said to me. I took the dean’s suggestion with a grain of salt.

To use a crude analogy, my methodology is to throw the students into the deep end and see if they

sink or swim. If they can’t survive in my class without support, they should pursue another major. Anyhow,

Dean Collins had put a star next to Alex Ross’s name, and I asked why. Dean Collins informed me that Ross

was on probation because of a protest that got out of hand on university grounds. I learned that Ross was the

president of the Act Now organization, which is a polite way of saying that Ross was a thorn in the

university’s side. Act Now is a club that loves to protest events or policies in the university. Clearly, no one

ever taught those shameful kids not to bite the hand that feeds them. I was familiar with the protest that put

Ross on academic probation; the Act Now club was protesting an anti-cheating policy that the university had

in place after COVID-19. I understood immediately that Ross was going to be the type of student that

thought taking shortcuts would be an easy way to pass my class.

On the first day of the semester, Ross was ten minutes late to my class. The university’s policy is

that if a student misses first-day attendance, they are to be dropped from the class. Ross gave me some half-

witted excuse that Ross “couldn’t find the classroom in such a big building.” I told Ross that I considered

dropping Ross’s name from my class roster since Ross had technically missed attendance. Normally, my

lecture on the importance of attendance is enough to get students to stop acting up, but Ross proved that

wouldn’t be the case.

I placed my TA in charge of taking attendance for my classes, so I’m not quite sure how many

classes Ross was absent for, but it had to have been quite a few. I don’t recall Ross providing much to our in-

class discussions, and the few times Ross would ask questions, it was evident that Ross wasn’t following

along. Ross was one of those students that hid behind their laptop screen (scrolling through Facebook, no

doubt), so Ross’s grades in my class were no surprise to me. By the end of the semester, Ross was barely at a

C minus.

I think final exams are pointless, which is why I have a five-page paper as a substitute for my

classes. I assigned my students their final essay on February 15, 2023. The prompt was for the students to

pick any industry of their choosing and focus on the marketing techniques and strategies used in that

industry. For example, if the movies had been released a few months earlier, students could have written

about how advertisements for Barbie and Oppenheimer influenced audiences and the film industry. The

paper was due on May 5 at 11:59 PM. Though I had my TA help me grade multiple-choice exams, Robin

Turner tended to develop soft spots for many of the students. I couldn’t have that bias interfere with the

grading for such a big assignment. Therefore, I was the only one who graded the final essays for all of my

classes.

I began my grading on the morning of May 6. My students were to turn in their essays through

TurnItIn, which is a plagiarism detection software. I proceeded alphabetically through my grading until I got

to Ross’s essay. TurnItIn did not flag Ross’s essay for review, meaning that the software did not believe

plagiarism took place. However, when I opened Ross’s essay, it was clear that something was off. I was

familiar with other writing samples from Ross. Throughout the course, I assigned three multiple choice

exams, and at the end of each exam, there were several short-response questions. Ross’s writing in those

exams didn’t sound like the writing Ross submitted in the final paper.

In recent semesters, the university has had faculty meetings regarding the increasing popularity of

artificial intelligence. I am, by no means, an expert in AI, but from my understanding, students are able to

use certain programs to write their essays for them. The problem has become so widespread that the

university even sent a school-wide email banning AI on campus and blocking its use on all school

computers. Personally, I’ve been horrified at how quickly and easily technology can churn out an essay. I

believe that AI is the death of critical thinking and that it should never be used under any circumstances.

Once I put two and two together, I understood that the reason Ross’s essay sounded strange was

because it had probably been written by AI! I flagged Ross’s essay and reported the student to the dean.

Afterwards, I spoke with my TA and explained the situation. Robin was shocked, but agreed with me when I

said this should’ve been expected behavior from Alex Ross.

My understanding of the process was that the dean then sent the issue to the academic integrity

board, who scheduled a hearing with Ross. I was present for that hearing. I was informed that it was unusual

for the accusing professor to attend these hearings, but that didn’t matter to me. Ross needs to be made an

example out of for Ross’s use of artificial intelligence. The academic integrity board unfortunately didn’t

find that any plagiarism had taken place, but part of me expected that. This was the first time that the board

had to hear about artificial intelligence as a means of plagiarism as opposed to the “old fashion” way of

directly copying another student.

After the ruling, I asked to speak with Dean Collins and expressed my frustration. I vehemently

disagreed with the board’s ruling and expressed to Dean Collins that Ross’s essay was not at all similar to

Ross’s previous work. Dean Collins nodded along as I spoke and ultimately said that Collins would take into

consideration what I had said when deciding on Ross’s future at Palm Coast University. Ross was, after all,

on academic probation. When I later learned that Ross had been expelled from the university, I was pleased

to be rid of such a nuisance of a student. And now that Ross is filing this lawsuit against the university, I

have no qualms testifying against Ross and calling out a liar when I see one.

I am familiar with the following exhibits: Exhibit 2 is PCU’s Academic Integrity Policy. Exhibit 3 is

an email administration sent out regarding AI being banned on campus. Exhibit 4 is Alex Ross’s essay.

Exhibit 5 is a transcript of Dallas Warren’s testimony during Ross’s academic integrity hearing; I was

present at this hearing and confirm that the transcript accurately depicts what was said. Exhibit 8 is my

grading report from TurnItIn; it accurately depicts how long I took to grade each essay. I am not familiar

with any other exhibits in this case.

I swear or affirm the truthfulness of everything stated in this affidavit. Before giving a statement, I

was told I should include everything that I know may be relevant to my testimony and I followed those

instructions. I know that I can and must update this affidavit if anything new occurs to me until the moment

before opening statements begin in this case.

Signed,

Dr. Devin Myers_____

Devin Myers

August 19

, 2023

IN THE 21ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM COUNTY, FLORIDA

ALEX ROSS

PLAINTIFF

PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF

TRUSTEES

DEFENDANT

CASE NO. 23-006275-CA-01

JUDGE VINCENT LAGUARDIA

GAMBIN

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMIE BOSSA

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

My name is Jamie Bossa. I am the founder and CEO of BossAI a subsidiary of my company, Boss Enterprises,

a leading tech firm founded in the 1980s. We pioneered the invention of the mainstream Internet including

search engines, social media, and cloud computing. While I used to be the CEO of Boss Enterprises, I stepped

down about 10 years ago to be able to travel the world with my hard-earned money. I know some people say

that I stepped down due to some controversy over me “creating a hostile work environment” and “demanding

a lot of my employees” but that is simply not true.

1.2 Education

I attended Stanford University studying Computer Science from August 1978 to February 1979. I actually

never graduated from college and decided after less than a year of being in it that I would be better served

starting my own company. So, for a few years out of my parents’ garage I began starting my own company,

Boss Enterprises. We started by selling BASIC interpreters back in the day when you needed floppy disks to

being a leading software company in the United States and worldwide. We have consistently ranked in the top

5-10 in the Forbes Top 100 companies. Even though I did not graduate college, I am considered one of the

foremost experts on technology, and now AI. In fact, while I may not have graduated from Stanford they did

bestow upon me an honorary doctorate in Computer Science, though I am not sure that counts for much.

1.3 Experience with AI

Just as I was heavily involved with the widespread creation of computers to the average citizen, I have been

involved in the pioneering of AI. AI has always been a concept in computer science, even well before I started

my company. However, it had a very different context in the 1950s and 1960s than what it does today. The AI

that people think of nowadays began being researched and perfected in the 1990s in research labs around the

country. I have personally donated about $10 billion over the past 10 years solely for AI research. As such, I

have been given the opportunity to see first-hand and up close exactly how the AI is being developed and the

implications on humanity as a whole.

The things that I have seen would blow most peoples’ minds which is exactly why I founded BossAI. BossAI

is a branch of Boss Enterprises solely focused on counteracting the deleterious effects of AI in modern society.

While some people advocate that the development of AI should be limited or ceased all together, I whole

heartedly disagree. I believe that AI development is a natural evolution of technology. However, it is still clear

to me that if it remains unchecked AI could have dangerous consequences in society and the job marketplace.

So, I founded BossAI to identify when and how AI was used so that people could be informed and warned of

fake or made-up inventions by AI.

1.4 BossAI

When I founded BossAI in 2015 we began by compiling research on AI and methods. Then we slowly

progressed to AI detection in about 2016. It was a few years after that I decided to grow the team by hiring a

person dedicated software engineer to our linguistics department. The linguistics department of BossAI was

designed to identify and flag AI writing. We of course also have different departments focused on other AI

creations such as photo/video, artwork, and computer programs. When I put out word that we were looking

for someone to head up the linguistics department of BossAI, someone introduced me to Cameron Grey. While

I thought s/he would be a great fit and gave him a chance after meeting him, I could not be more wrong. While

I still think that Cameron Grey is extremely knowledgeable about the field, I do not think they were a good fit

for our company.

1.5 Involvement in this Case

I was approached by Defense Counsel to testify in this case when it first began and to defend the work done

by BossAI in this case. While I originally declined due to issues with my schedule, when I found out that my

work in Singapore was being delayed by another 2 years and that Cameron Grey was the other expert, I decided

that perhaps I could fit it into my schedule. Admittedly, I am being paid for my time in reviewing the

documents, preparing this statement, and for my testimony. Once everything is done I believe that I will have

been paid approximately $250,000. While I understand that number may seem high, my speaker fee alone is

normally $150,000. So, given the amount of time that I have spent on this case, I am actually charging very

little for my time.

1.6 Prior experience

Given that my time is so valuable, I have never testified as an expert witness before. However, I have testified

plenty of times as a Corporate Representative for Boss Enterprises in lawsuits that occurred in our early years

by competitors who wanted to stifle our innovation. Additionally, I have given hundreds of speeches and

lectures throughout the world in AI and software.

2. Methodology and Tools Used for Analysis

2.1 Documents Reviewed

In preparing for this case today, I reviewed the paper of Alex Ross, the prior essay of Alex Ross written in

2017, and the report of Cameron Grey. I also consulted with many leading individuals in AI research including

the heads of AI research at MIT, Harvard and Carnegie Mellon.

2.2 How AI Works

As explained by Cameron Grey, AI works by collecting a large dataset of information and identifying patterns

within them. For example, let us say that you feed an AI model 100,000 documents. You then ask it to write

a similar document. If 80% of those documents start with the word “I” then your AI model is likely to start its

paper with the word “I”. Then statistically based on all of the documents that it reviewed, the word “believe”

is the most likely word to follow the word “I”. This continues over and over until the AI forms a sentence such

as “I believe that cats are better than dogs”. Now this is a very simplified explanation of AI writing and

truthfully it is much more complex and takes a lot of parameters into account when generating the next word.

The interesting thing about AI is that if you ask any AI expert exactly how their AI works, they would not be

able to tell you. Because while long ago we used to have to explicitly write out the parameters for a computer

to consider, AI works so well because it allows the computer to come up with its own parameters. That is why

AI works best when being fed large amounts of datasets and used often.

2.3 How BossAI works

BossAI works by reverse engineering the AI writing process. As stated earlier, let us take the fictional

statement, “I believe cats are better than dogs”. BossAI works by grabbing the first word and predicting what

the next word will be. If the first word is “I” then BossAI would predict the next word to be “believe”. If the

next word in the sentence matches up with the prediction, then this leads to a low complexity score. However,

let’s say that BossAI believes the next word to be “in” and “cats” is not even in its top 10 predictions then the

word “cat” is an extremely unusual choice and thus leads to a much higher complexity score. This occurs over

and over again throughout the entire document until Boss AI has a complexity score for every portion of the

essay. It then calculates what percentage of the essay has a low complexity to meet a certain threshold that we

are confident that AI was used.

As stated earlier, AI and AI detection work best when being given large amounts of datasets. Because I have

access to some of the leading AI research and dozens of premier universities, I am proud to say that BossAI

was trained with approximately 500 gigabytes of data and approximately 200 million parameters which is

significantly more than GPTZero’s training data.

When I ran Alex Ross’s paper through BossAI, it gave me a score of 47% indicating that 47% of the essay

was likely written by AI. When I ran Alex Ross’s 2018 paper (which was written well before the commercial

availability of AI and thus unlikely to be written by AI) BossAI produced a score of 12%. This can make sense

as Alex Ross was younger and perhaps their writing was more simplistic and formulaic. However, I still

decided to forward that essay to my engineering team to perhaps determine why it received such a high score

when it should be 0. At the time of the trial, they were unable to produce a reason.

2.4 Margin of Error

As a result of our large training data set, our expected margin of error is significantly lower than the field’s

average. Our margin of error is approximately 5%. What this means is that our software will incorrectly

calculate the complexity score by about 5%. Truthfully, when BossAI began our partnership with educational

companies to identify AI in student work, we have always put a warning advising teachers to not solely rely

on this score. There should still be a level of human review to ensure that our software performed correctly.

3.0 Conclusion

Based on my review of the evidence, I am confident that Alex Ross’s paper was written with the help or

assistance of an AI tool. While I cannot say that the exact percentage is 47% as indicated by BossAI, I can say

to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that BossAI correctly identified the AI writing and that it is

significantly larger than the 10% that Cameron Grey purports it to be.

Signed,

Jamie Bossa

August 30th, 2023

Jamie Bossa

IN THE 21ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM COUNTY, FLORIDA

ALEX ROSS

PLAINTIFF

PALM COAST UNIVERSITY BOARD OF

TRUSTEES

DEFENDANT

CASE NO. 23-006275-CA-01

JUDGE VINCENT LAGUARDIA

GAMBIN

AFFIDAVIT OF JUDE COLLINS

After being duly sworn upon oath, Jude Collins hereby states as follows: I am fifty-eight years old

and am competent to make this affidavit.

I received my bachelor’s in computer science from the University of Florida and a master’s degree

from Duke University. After attaining my master’s, I worked as a computer hardware engineer for 15 years

before I eventually transitioned into teaching. I taught computer science courses at Palm Coast University

for twenty years and was appointed Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at PCU eight years ago.

I take a lot of pride in guiding the next generation of leaders towards their careers. However, there

is always a bad seed or two in the bunch. Alex Ross was one of those students. Alex Ross managed to find

themselves in trouble from the moment they arrived at PCU. During their freshman year, Alex Ross joined

ACT NOW, a student-led organization that likes to disrupt campus life over so-called perceived injustices.

That same year, ACT NOW organized a protest over new GPA requirements for student-athletes that I had

passed. My car was damaged during the protest and cost me several thousands of dollars to repair. Alex

Ross came up as a potential suspect, but I was never able to find any concrete proof that they were

responsible. Since then, I have kept a close eye on them.

Needless to say, Alex Ross’s name has come up several times throughout the years in the latest

incident having occurred in association with ACT NOW’s shenanigans. Their latest stunt was a wild protest

over the continued use of Honor Lock. Honor Lock is a program that requires the user to scan their

workspace and place their phone out of their reach while a live proctor monitors them during remote exams.

It was implemented during COVID-19 to preserve academic integrity. The University covered the full cost

of the program during the pandemic; however, funding was cut after students started to come back on

campus. A few professors have continued to use it for their exams, and it costs students about $5 per

session.

I received an email from Alex Ross on September 30, 2022, requesting a hearing on the continued

use of Honor Lock in certain classes. I reviewed Alex Ross’s concerns and spoke with the administration,

who confirmed that it was every individual professor’s right to set-up their exams in the manner that they

see fit and that students agreed to that professor’s terms when they register for the course. I sent an email

back to Alex Ross on October 4th denying the request, since it would have been a waste of time.

The next day, ACT NOW had organized a massive, impromptu protest on campus. I received calls

and emails from several professors claiming that protestors had entered their classrooms. While I respect

students’ right to free speech and protest, the university prohibits protestors from entering any buildings

where classes are in session. Additionally, protests are usually coordinated ahead of time with campus

police to ensure the safety of both people on campus and the protestors.

An anonymous source showed me the text message that Alex Ross had circulated organizing the

protest. As president of the club, I held Alex responsible for the protest and placed Alex on probation. I

gave Alex a strict warning that s/he could not get into any more trouble before the end of the year. But to

no one’s surprise, Dr. Myers accused Alex Ross of plagiarism the very next semester.

Dr. Myers is a highly respected member of the faculty and I have known Dr. Myers for years, both

personally and professionally. I consider us friends, but we always remain professional when it comes to

our work relationship. Dr. Myers has a great deal of teaching experience, and this is the first time that s/he

had ever come to me over a student’s plagiarism. PCU’s plagiarism policy gives professors the discretion

to decide whether to report plagiarism to the Dean. However, once an act of plagiarizing has been reported,

I must organize an impartial third-party investigation into the matter. I took Dr. Myers’ accusation seriously,

and immediately organized a meeting of the Academic Advisory Board to investigate the situation. On May

18, 2023, the Board met and listened to testimony and evidence presented by both Professor Myers and

Alex Ross. I was present throughout the entire hearing, including testimony from Ross’s roommate who

confirmed that they had never seen Ross study or prepare for the assignment. I have never read the paper

Alex submitted to Dr. Myers nor am I an expert in AI, although I am learning. That is something that PCU

needs to be aware of now. Dr. Myers also is not an expert in AI, but I trust his /her vast experience that s/he

can recognize plagiarism.

The Academic Advisory Board deliberated for a few days, before ultimately finding in an 8-1 vote

that there was insufficient evidence of plagiarism in this instance. Yes, I was the only dissenting vote at the

hearing, but the Board did not know Alex like I did. I knew her past conduct on campus. I also was aware

of the fact she was found to have plagiarized an assignment in high school. The contract that Alex signed

ultimately gave me, as the Dean, the discretion to override the Academic Advisory Board. I believe the

totality of the facts justified my actions to expel Alex from PCU. I mean, if Alex would plagiarize something

in high school, it makes sense that she would do it in college, especially with so much riding on Dr. Myers’

final examination. I reviewed the board’s findings, but ultimately disagreed with their suggestion that there

was insufficient evidence. It was clear to me that Alex Ross was a troublemaker who thought they could

take the easy way out and use AI instead of actually completing the assignment for themselves.

Every student must sign a student contract prior to their enrollment at PCU. Per the terms of that

agreement, the student agrees to comply with all academic policies and failure to do so can result in their

dismissal. I ignored the Board’s decision, and I expelled Alex Ross for academic dishonesty. The Board of

Trustees was not happy with my decision and claimed I had no authority to expel Alex, but they eventually

supported my decision. I felt it was important to show support for my friend and colleague, Dr. Myers.

It is just like Alex to bend the rules to get out of trouble. If you read the Palm Coast University

Agreement that Alex signed before s/he started at Palm Coast University, it is clear that the Dean, for the

school where the student has his/her major, has the final decision regarding the dismissed student due to

academic dishonesty. Although this provision does not specifically mention plagiarism, isn’t that academic

dishonesty? I know there is a specific provision in the student handbook that discusses the Plagiarism Policy

and gives the Board of Trustees the final say on expulsion as a result of plagiarism. I am no lawyer, but if

Alex signed the agreement, she should abide by it. Evidently the Board agreed with my interpretation

although this whole situation has caused the school to investigate the policies and procedures of the school

of Arts and Sciences.

I don’t feel bad for Alex at all – s/he got what was deserved! I admit I don’t know enough about

AI to determine whether Alex plagiarized, but I put my trust in my friend and colleague, Dr. Myers. Besides,

Alex has been nothing but trouble for Palm Coast University.

I am familiar with the following exhibits: Exhibit 1, the Palm Coast University Student Contract,

Exhibit 2, the Palm Coast University Plagiarism Policy and Procedure, Exhibit 3, the memorandum from

Evan Miller, Exhibit 4, Alex Ross’s paper that was subject of plagiarism accusation, Exhibit 5, the transcript

of the Academic Integrity Hearing, and Exhibit 8, a log showing timestamps of Dr. Myers’ grading progress

for the final essay in MAR3002. I am also familiar with Exhibit 6, as it is part of Alex Ross’s admissions

file, and Exhibit 10. I am not familiar with any other exhibits in this case. I swear or affirm the truthfulness

of everything stated in this affidavit. Before giving a statement, I was told I should include everything that

I know may be relevant to my testimony and I followed those instructions. I know that I can and must

update this affidavit if anything new occurs to me until the moment before opening statements begin in this

case.

Signed,

Jude Collins

August 17

, 2023

Exhibits

Palm Coast University Student Contract

UNIVERSITY CONTRACT

This University Contract (the "Agreement") is made on August 19, 2019 by and between Palm Coast

University, located in Palm County, Florida, and Alex Ross, located in Palm County Florida (the

“Student”).

1. Enrollment Terms. The Student hereby enrolls in Palm Coast University starting on

August 26, 2019. The Student agrees to fulfill all academic requirements and to abide by all

University policies, rules, and regulations as outlined in the University catalog and student

handbook.

2. Tuition and Fees. The Student shall pay tuition and fees in accordance with the payment

schedule set forth by the University. The Student acknowledges that tuition and fees are

subject to change and agrees to pay all such changes. The Student shall be responsible for

any late fees incurred due to late payment.

3. Refund Policies. In the event that the Student withdraws from the University, the

University will refund tuition and fees in accordance with the University's refund policy as

outlined in the University catalog.

4. Academic Policies. The Student agrees to attend all classes and to comply with all

academic policies, including but not limited to attendance requirements, grading policies,

and academic integrity policies. The University reserves the right to dismiss a Student for

academic reasons, including but not limited to failure to maintain a minimum grade point

average. Any final decision regarding dismissal of a student due to academic reasons shall

be made by the Dean of the School of the student’s major course of study.

5. Student Conduct. The Student agrees to comply with all University policies regarding

student conduct, including but not limited to the University's code of conduct, housing

policies, and alcohol and drug policies. The University reserves the right to dismiss a

Student for violating University policies.

EXHIBIT

6. Housing and Residence Life. If the Student chooses to live in University housing, the

Student agrees to abide by the University's housing policies, including but not limited to

room assignments, quiet hours, and guest policies.

7. Health and Safety. The University agrees to provide a safe and healthy environment for all

students. The Student agrees to comply with all University policies regarding health and

safety, including but not limited to fire safety, emergency response procedures, and

reporting incidents.

8. Data Privacy. The University agrees to protect the privacy of the Student's personal and

academic information. The Student acknowledges that the University may collect, use, and

disclose personal information in accordance with the University's privacy policies.

9. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon written notice. In

the event of termination, the Student shall be responsible for any unpaid tuition and fees

and may be subject to additional penalties as outlined in the University catalog.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement on the date first above

written.

Alex Ross _Jack Ryan_________________

Alex Ross Provost

EXHIBIT

Palm Coast University

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism is the use of someone else’s work, words, or ideas as if they were one’s own. Thus,

most forms of cheating on examinations are plagiarism; but the term is usually used in reference to

papers rather than examinations.

If one uses a source for a paper, one must acknowledge it. What counts as a source varies greatly

depending on the assignment, but the list certainly includes readings, lectures, websites,

conversations, interviews, and other students’ papers. Every academic discipline has its own

conventions for acknowledging sources. Instructors should make clear which conventions students

must use. In all situations, students who are confused about the specific punctuation and formatting

must nonetheless make clear in written work where they have borrowed from others—whether it

be a matter of data, opinions, questions, ideas, or specific language. This obligation holds whether

the sources are published or unpublished.

Submission of an entire paper prepared by someone else is an especially egregious form of

plagiarism and is grounds for the imposition of a particularly serious penalty, including expulsion

from the University.

1. Suspected plagiarism should first be addressed by the instructor of the course where the

suspected plagiarism has occurred. The instructor should meet with the student to present

evidence of suspected plagiarism and to discuss the instructor’s concerns. As a result of this

conversation, the instructor may:

a. Provide a verbal or written warning to the student (with copies or written

documentation or written report of verbal warning to student to Student and

Academic Services)

b. Require the student to repeat the assignment.

c. Reduce the student’s grade for the assignment in accordance with the criteria

outlined in the course syllabus.

d. Give the student a zero for the assignment as specified in the course syllabus.

2. The instructor may also refer a suspected issue of suspected academic misconduct to the

Dean of the School in which the student is enrolled. To do so, the faculty should:

a. Assign an ‘X’ grade for the course until the matter is resolved.

b. Refer the issue to the Dean regarding the Academic Conduct (to begin an impartial

third-party hearing.

c. Notify the student in writing that the issue has been referred to the Dean.

3. The Dean’s will conduct an informal hearing according to the following steps:

a. Receive a description and supporting evidence of the issue from the instructor.

b. Determine whether a violation of academic conduct occurred.

c. Specifies the sanction, if appropriate. In general, sanctions may take the form of:

1. Disciplinary warning

2. Reprimand

3. Restitution

4. Disciplinary Probation

5. Suspension

6. Dismissal

d. Notify the student the Dean’s decision and rights to further appeal to Palm Coast

University’s Academic Integrity Board

4. The Academic Advisory Board reviews all decisions at the request of the student after the

Dean has evaluated the case.

5. The decision of the Academic Advisory Board (majority vote) must be approved by the

Palm Coast University Board of Trustees, and the Board’s decision will be final and

binding upon all parties.

Exhibit 2

Page 2 of 2

Evan Miller

To: [DOMAIN]

From: <[email protected]>

Date: January 23, 2023, 10:03 AM

Subject: Plagiarism and Artificial Intelligence

Dear students,

As the 2023 Spring Semester at Palm Coast University kicks off, we wanted to

address your increasingly popular inquiries about the use of artificial intelligence programs as they

relate to your coursework and PCU’s academic integrity policy.

The sad reality is that since this is such a new topic, there is little helpful information that we

can provide you with about AI. What we know for now is that while AI bots online don’t directly

pull information from the Internet, they do consolidate that information into a specific format. So,

while AI doesn’t engage in the “copy-paste” behavior that normally comes to mind when you think

of plagiarism, AI still accesses the work of other people and claims it as its own.

As with many tools, AI’s helpfulness only goes as far as the user’s responsibility (see Lawyer

Disbarred for Using ChatGPT in The New York Times). However, because we know so little about

this developing field of technology, we are forced to impress some limitations (at least until we do

understand it more). So, for now, PCU is implementing a temporary ban on the use of artificial

intelligence. Students are prohibited from using any form of AI when preparing and submitting

assignments for classes. Any use of AI will be considered a breach of PCU’s academic integrity

policy. We will provide you with further updates and developments on this issue as the university

decides on them.

Sincerely,

Evan Miller

Palm Coast University

Assistant Dean of College of Arts and Science

Exhibit 3

Alex Ross

Professor Devin Myers

MAR 3002 – Marketing Concepts and Operations

May 5, 2023

Taylor Swift: A Mastermind in Marketing

There’s no household name more widely recognized than Taylor Swift. The globally

renowned singer has spent almost two decades establishing herself as a dominant presence in the

music industry with instant hits like “Blank Space” and “Shake It Off.” While her songwriting skills

were enough in and of themselves to gain her success, Swift’s presence as a businesswoman is what

has allowed her to successfully conquer the music industry. Her exceptional talent and strategic

marketing prowess allow her to create a unique connection with her fans, and her brand identity and

image has pushed her through some of the most difficult legal challenges faced by an artist of her

caliber. This essay delves into Taylor Swift’s marketing strategies, exploring how she has managed

to build and maintain her brand, connect with her target audience, and stay relevant in an ever-

changing industry. By examining her key marketing approaches, this analysis aims to shed light on

the factors contributing to her immense success.

One of Taylor Swift's most remarkable marketing achievements lies in crafting a strong brand

identity and image. Throughout her career, she has evolved from a country music prodigy to a pop

sensation, adeptly managing her transformation without alienating her existing fan base. Indeed, it

was this transition between her country and pop eras that established Swift as such a worldwide

sensation. Her fourth album, RED, was met with intense criticism in which Swift was accused of not

having a solidified genre; her Speak Now album was unapologetically country, and to be followed

by an album that dabbled in pop rock and indie music was apparently unacceptable to music critics

Exhibit 4

Page 1 of 4

(Garcia 7). Instead of crumbling under this pressure, Swift made the innovative decision to

completely rebrand her image, ditching the banjo and Southern twang to explore 80s synth-pop. And

when her fifth album, 1989, was released, Rolling Stone named it the best pop album of the 2010s,

and the second-best pop album of the century (Aaron 5).

In class, the importance of branding was harped on as a cornerstone of marketing strategies.

Swift was no stranger to this lesson. Her brand’s reinvention was flooded with cheesy Ray Band

shades and an album cover styled as a hipster-esque polaroid. “Swift managed to capture the

aesthetic of the time in order to convey a message that she was not stuck in country, but rather ready

to thrive in the highly competitive pop music industry” (Rambeau 14). Swift had to further reimagine

her brand several years later when she was attacked on social media as a result of Kim Kardashian

posting a video (that was later revealed to be edited to make Swift seem like a liar) of her speaking

with Kardashian’s then-husband Kanye West. The comments section of Swift’s most recent social

media post at the time were flooded with snake emojis of people accusing her of “playing the victim”

(ENews 3). Swift then took this imagery of a snake and incorporated it heavily into her next album,

Reputation; her “Look What You Made Me Do” music video features Taylor Swift sitting on a throne

surrounded by slithering snakes, and during the Reputation Stadium Tour, an inflatable snake head

hovered over the audience for an entire segment (Netflix 0:30:52).

Swift’s marketing strategies continue to be observed when it comes to her fans. While she

effortlessly presents herself as relatable, authentic, and personable to create a bond with her audience

that goes beyond her music, Taylor Swift also invites fans to feel as if they have played a significant

part in her journey through the music industry; songs like “Long Live” and “New Year’s Day” are a

direct ‘thank you’ letter to fans that have stuck with her through this journey. Swift has always

“prioritized direct engagement with her fans”, often inviting them to her home to play an album

Exhibit 4

Page 2 of 4

before it’s released (Garcia 5). She regularly communicates with them through social media, offering

glimpses into her personal life and showcasing her genuine personality (Phyllis 2). And she even

invited fans into her world by releasing a documentary where she expressed insecurities, she has

surrounding sensitive topics (Miss Americana, Netflix). By doing so, she reinforces the image of

being a down-to-earth artist, which resonates with her predominantly young and passionate fan base.

Swift’s most recent invitation to fans involved her reclaiming her music. By way of brief

explanation, the original recordings of Taylor Swift’s first six albums belonged to Scott Borchetta,

who sold those recordings to music executive Scooter Braun. Swift has gone on record expressing

her intention to own her own music, as well as explaining the bad blood between herself and Braun

(CBS Sunday Morning, 4:42). This, paired with the announcement that Swift would begin

rerecording her first six albums under the branding of “Taylor’s Version,” fueled fans to support her

in this legal maneuver. Indeed, Swift encourages this behavior from fans by leaving what she calls

“easter eggs” in her music videos (her “The Man” music video from her Lover album, for example,

features graffiti on a wall possibly depicting the order in which Swift will rerelease her albums).

Releasing two more original albums – folklore and evermore – during a global pandemic ensured

that fans would remain by her side when the world was on lockdown.

Evidence of the impact of Swift’s marketing campaign can be seen

in the early success of The Eras Tour, which is Swift’s most recent and currently ongoing tour.

Following the release of her latest album, Midnights, Swift implemented yet another bold marketing

tactic; instead of theming her tour after her newest album and playing songs mainly from Midnights,

she instead marketed The Eras Tour as a journey through her career and plays a three and a half hour

show inclusive of songs from across all her albums. Although there’s no conclusive monetary value

for how much Swift made during the tour, Swift’s publicity alone is proof enough. Looking at Florida

alone, the city of Tampa made Taylor Swift mayor for a day during her time performing there, and

Exhibit 4

Page 3 of 4

the “superintendent of Hillsborough County even put out a letter rejecting student requests for

excused absences” (Davis 1).

Taylor Swift's marketing strategies have proven to be a blueprint for success in the

entertainment industry. By carefully cultivating her brand image, building strong relationships with

her fans, staying innovative and adaptable, collaborating strategically, and managing controversies

with grace, she has not only sustained her career but also achieved unparalleled success. Her

marketing brilliance continues to be an inspiration to both aspiring musicians and established artists,

illustrating the power of combining talent with effective marketing tactics. As the music industry

continues to evolve, Taylor Swift's legacy as a marketing trailblazer is likely to remain intact for

years to come.

Exhibit 4

Page 4 of 4

PALM COAST UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY HEARING

MINUTES SHEET

In Attendance:

FACULTY STUDENT

Jude Collins, Dean Alex Ross, Accused

Ava Sanjabi, Treasurer WITNESS

Sofia Castillo, Secretary Dallas Warren

Annelise Palacio, Communications

Devin Myers, Professor

---

TRANSCRIPT OF THE

TESTIMONY OF

DALLAS WARREN

---

DATE: MAY 18, 2023

TRANSCRIPTION BY:

QUINN JACOBS

VIDEOGRAPHER:

SPENCER ROWAN

REPRESENTING STUDENT:

ALEX ROSS (SELF)

REPRESENTING FACULTY ADVISORY BOARD: AVA SANJABI

PROFESSOR OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING ADVISORY BOARD TREASURER

Alex Ross, Accused

WITNESS

Dallas Warren

Exhibit 5

Page 1 of 7

VIDEOGRAPHER: We’re now on the record. My name is Spencer Rowan.

I’m the videographer for today. I’m joined alongside my transcriber,

Quinn Jacobs. This integrity hearing is regarding the plagiarism

allegations brought against Alex Ross. The information presented

today is being provided by the witness, Dallas Warren. Attendance

has already been taken. Will everyone please identify

themselves? (All witnesses and 9 members of the Academic Committee

introduced themselves)

SANJABI: My name is Dr. Ava Sanjabi, I’m appearing on behalf of the

Faculty Advisory Board. Good morning.

ROSS: My name is Alex Ross. I think it’s really messed up that the

university gets an entire team of people to attack me while I was

notified last minute of this hearing and need to represent myself.

VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the witness please introduce themself?

WARREN: Umm, I’m Dallas.

VIDEOGRAPHER: Let me remind you, Dallas, that you’ve promised to

tell the faculty advisory board the truth regarding the information

you’ve been asked to provide today, okay?

WARREN: Yeah, sounds good.

VIDEOGRAPHER: Ms. Sanjabi, you may begin your questioning.

Q. Good morning, Dallas. I’m going to ask you a few questions about

Alex Ross, okay?

A. Good morning.

Q. How do you know Alex?

Exhibit 5

Page 2 of 7

A. We’re roommates. Alex and I are also in the same club together.

Q. For how long have you been roommates?

A. Two years. I still live with Alex.

Q. So you were living with each other two weeks ago? Around early

May?

A. Correct.

Q. Did Alex ever speak to you about any classes?

A. Yeah, we vent to each other about classes all the time.

Q. Do you remember speaking with Alex about any class

in particular?

A. Alex is a pretty good student. The only professor I remember

hearing about was Dr. Myers. Which, let’s be honest, everyone and

their mother has complained about Dr. Myers, so –

Q. Let’s just keep your answers responsive to my

questions, alright?

A. Oh. Sorry, my bad. No offense, Dr. Myers.

Q. What would Alex complain about with regards to Dr. Myers.

A. Alex told me that Dr. Myers was a really tough grader that

assigned a lot of work, and that Myers was the only class that Alex

might fail this semester.

Q. Did Alex ever talk to you about any of those assignments?

Exhibit 5

Page 3 of 7

A. For most of the semester, Alex seemed stressed about some kind

of final essay or something for Dr. Myers.

Q. Do you know when Alex worked on that final?

A. I don’t know, I was swamped with my own course work so I can’t

remember much. Plus, I was in the library most of the time while

Alex liked to work from our apartment.

Q. Can you give us your best guess as to when Alex worked on this

final essay for Dr. Myers?

A. I mean, I only saw Alex working on the essay once. I walked into

the apartment and saw Alex sitting on the couch. Alex told me that

the essay was due later that night.

Q. What did you see Alex doing?

A. Well, Alex was on a school laptop. Alex’s laptop was broken, so

I told Alex to check one out from the library.

Q. And did you talk to Alex when you saw her with this laptop?

A. I did, I asked what Alex was doing. Alex said something like,

“I’m downloading a VPN so that this essay can start writing

itself.”

Q. I’m sorry, a what?

A. Huh?

Q. You said a what?

A. V-P-N.

Exhibit 5

Page 4 of 7

Q. What’s a – if you know, can you tell us what a VPN is?

A. Oh, it’s like, well, it stands for virtual private network. It

tricks your computer into thinking that you’re somewhere else. Like,

let’s say I want to watch the Andrew Garfield Spider-Man movies on

Netflix, but Netflix in the US doesn’t have any of those movies. I

can download a VPN and trick my computer to think that I’m in Italy

where those movies are actually available.

Q. Are you speaking from personal experience?

A. I mean, I personally think Toby is the better Peter Parker while

Andrew is the better Spider-Man. But Tom Holland is the best of both

–

Q. Forget I asked. Do you know what Alex meant by “this essay can

write itself?”

A. No. I mean, I asked Alex to clarify. Alex hesitated and said,

“there are just certain websites that I can’t access through the

school computers.” Which is true, you know? We’re paying all this

tuition, but we can’t even check out a laptop that doesn’t have a

whole bunch of websites blocked?

Q. Any idea what websites Alex was trying to access?

A. Not a clue.

Q. Do you know when Alex submitted the essay?

A. Alex walked into my room about two hours later saying it was

done.

Exhibit 5

Page 5 of 7

Q. Have you ever seen Alex using CHATAI?

A. Sure, plenty of times. Who doesn’t use CHATAI at this point?

Q. Around when did you see Alex using CHATAI?

A. Couldn’t tell you anything specific, sorry.

Q. And is CHATAI blocked by the school computers?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you, Dallas. I think we’re done here.

ROSS: Whoa, hey, hold on! I can’t ask any questions?

VIDEOGRAPHER: Umm, it’s not really customary for the accused student

to ask questions to the witnesses at these hearings.

ROSS: Yeah, but is there anything that says I’m not allowed to ask

questions?

VIDEOGRAPHER: Not really.

ROSS: Then I’d like to ask some questions.

VIDEOGRAPHER: Oh, uh, okay. By all means.

Q. And I’d just…um, I’d like to restate that I was unable to prepare

anything ahead of time for this meeting due to the short notice.

Hi, Dallas.

A. Hey, Alex.

Q. Can you tell us why you’re even here answering questions to begin

with?

Exhibit 5

Page 6 of 7

A. It’s not like I volunteered or anything, you know?

Q. Right, yeah, that’s what I’m getting at.

A. I was a part of the HonorLock protest that was organized by Act

Now, the club here at PCU. And, well, it got out of hand and a

security officer apprehended me. I was going to lose my

financial aid until you got in trouble with the university –

Q. Until I was accused by the university, you mean.

A. Sure, whatever. Anyways, the dean approached me asking if I had

any information I could give about you getting accused of plagiarism

and all.

Q. You mean Dean Collins?

A. Yeah. Collins said that if I spoke here today, I wouldn’t lose

my financial aid and all I needed to do was take some six-week long

summer course on student responsibility and I’d be good to go.

Q. Okay, thanks Dallas. I’m done.

A. No hard feelings?

Q. I, uh…we’ll talk later.

[TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Exhibit 5

Page 7 of 7

Palm County High School

1576 Old School House Road

Palm City, Florida’s 33333

March 15, 2018

Principal Rosemary Brady

Palm County High School

1645 Central Avenue

Palm City, Florida 33333

Dear Principal Brady:

Enclosed you will find a term paper which was turned in as a class assignment for AP English, Spring

semester, by Alex Ross. The work struck me as being unlike the student's earlier papers, and portions of the

research sounded familiar. I did some checking and discovered that the majority of the paper is lifted

directly from a source without attribution. I have included the source, and have marked sample passages on

the term paper with their corresponding pages in the source. I have also included a copy of the syllabus with

my instructions on plagiarism, and a copy of the assignment.

I did meet with the student on March 13, 2018, and he/she stated that he/she did copy the paper, but that

s/he had been ill and was unable to complete the assignment on his/her own. He/she appeared genuinely

contrite, but it seemed clear that he/she knew he/she should have given credit to the original author.

According to your instructions, I have assigned the student a grade of INC and am referring the incident to

your office.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Dr. Paul Zini

The student’s academic file has been noted and student has been placed on academic probation for

one semester.

Rosemary Brady

Principal, Palm County High School

Cc: Alex Ross

Exhibit 6

Jude Collins

To: <[email protected]> From: <[email protected]>

Date: October 4, 2022, 4:52 PM Subject: RE: HonorLock Hearing

Alex,

You should have taken my silence regarding your previous emails as a sufficient response.

Let me assure you: there is not a universe that exists in which Palm Coast University will listen to

students asking for us to remove anti-plagiarism protections. Doing so would be synonymous to

walking around campus with a megaphone saying, “PCU allows cheating on all its exams!”

Additionally, I would like to remind you that any unregistered protest that takes

place on Palm Coast University’s campus will be shut down immediately by our security

team. How our enrollment committee determined you were bright enough to be admitted to

the university, I have no idea. Since you weren’t bright enough to get the message about

our stance on this absurd hearing proposal, I’ll make this very clear. I strongly suggest that

you drop this notion that PCU will stop using HonorLock.

Sincerely,

Jude Collins

Palm Coast University

Dean of College of Arts and Sciences

Exhibit 7

Page 1 of 2

Alex Ross

To: <[email protected]>

From: <[email protected]>

Date: October 4, 2022, 2:05 PM

Subject: HonorLock Hearing

Dear Dean Collins,

This is the fifth time I have emailed the university’s administration asking to open a

dialogue with the students regarding the PCU’s recent use of HonorLock as an online

proctoring software. Even after we’ve returned to class in-person after the pandemic,

PCU’s student body is still being forced to use an incredibly invasive anti-plagiarism

software that is unnecessarily intrusive on our rights as students. I have respectfully asked

your office several times to hear the students out on an issue that we feel strongly about but

have received no response.

PCU.edu allows me to get read receipts. I know you’ve been seeing my emails! Blatantly

ignoring your students will get you nowhere. If PCU refuses to hear us out, then Act Now

will fully embrace its first amendment rights as a student organization and protest

HonorLock.

Regards,

Alex Ross

Palm Coast University | Senior

Act Now Club President

Exhibit 7

Page 2 of 2

USER

STUDENT ID

EXAM

SUBMITTED

INCIDENT

LEVEL

GRADING

TIME

FINAL

GRADE

E. Holiday

0946532

05/05/2023

at 8:23am

Low

0: 15:43

A+

R. Song

0197865

05/05/2023

at 12:20pm

Low