Accountability Profiles — Standards FAQ
Patriot University Documentation

Accountability Profiles — Standards FAQ

Skip to main content
< All Topics
Print

Accountability Profiles — Standards FAQ

Posted
Updated
ByPU Publish
0 out of 5 stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%

This document explains who receives an accountability profile on Patriot University, why, and what safeguards govern their content.

Accountability profiles are part of a public knowledge graph designed to serve independent journalists and to provide a factual foundation for any future truth-and-reconciliation effort. Accountability attaches to what officials and public figures did — through their documented actions, not their protected speech.

## Who gets an accountability profile?

Accountability profiles document the actions of public officials and public figures who have played a documented role in matters of democratic accountability. Profiles focus on what individuals did in their official or public capacities — not on their political opinions, party affiliation, or protected speech.

### Public officials

Sitting and former elected officials, Senate-confirmed appointees, and other government officials may receive profiles based on their documented official conduct. Political positions and party membership are never the sole basis for inclusion.

### Private citizens

Private citizens are held to a higher standard for inclusion. A private citizen may only receive a profile if they independently satisfy at least one of five documented, non-speech anchors:

| Anchor | What Qualifies |

|——–|—————|

| Criminal record | Criminal conviction, indictment, or formal charge related to the subject matter — court record required |

| Organizational leadership | Documented founder, officer, director, or operational coordinator role in an organization with documented harmful conduct |

| Financial enablement | Documented significant, targeted financial support that materially enabled specific harmful conduct — FEC or court record required |

| Voluntary public leadership | Voluntarily and publicly assumed a leadership/coordination role via press conferences, media interviews, or public organizing |

| Official non-elected capacity | Used a documented official capacity (election official, law enforcement, government contractor) to advance harmful conduct |

The following are never sufficient for inclusion on their own: political opinions, political affiliation, social media posts, rally attendance, organizational membership without documented leadership, or being listed in any external database or taxonomy.

Every private citizen profile includes a Basis for Inclusion disclosure block that states exactly which anchor was met and explicitly notes that protected speech is not the basis for inclusion.

How are federal judges handled?

Federal judges occupy a distinct institutional category. Their independence is a core structural defense against authoritarian government — the very threat this platform exists to document.

The threshold: personal misconduct, not judicial rulings

A federal judge may only receive an accountability profile if the evidence record includes documented personal misconduct:

  • Ex parte communications with a party or political operation
  • Undisclosed financial interests connected to a party before the court
  • Personal corruption: gifts, travel, or benefits from parties with matters before the court
  • Formal judicial misconduct finding by a Circuit Judicial Council
  • Impeachment proceedings initiated by the House

What does NOT qualify a judge for a profile

  • Erroneous rulings — even rulings unanimously reversed on appeal. The appellate system exists to correct these.
  • Rulings that benefit the appointing president — without evidence of extra-judicial coordination, this is circumstantial.
  • Appointment by a particular president — being appointed by any president is not grounds for inclusion.
  • Unpopular legal theories — judicial independence includes the right to be wrong.

Judicial Impact Analysis (the alternative)

When a judge’s rulings have significant structural impact on democratic accountability but the judge does not meet the personal misconduct threshold, we publish a Judicial Impact Analysis document instead. This format focuses on the structural impact of rulings, not the judge as a person, and includes the full deliberation documenting why the judge does not meet the accountability profile threshold.

How do you handle speech?

Speech is protected by the First Amendment and we do not treat it as evidence of wrongdoing on its own.

  • We document what people did separately from what they said.
  • Speech alone — no matter how objectionable — does not qualify someone for an accountability profile.
  • When speech is part of a pattern that includes non-speech conduct, we document both but distinguish clearly between them.
  • When speech has been found legally actionable (defamation, fraud, incitement as legally defined), we cite the specific legal finding.

For private citizens specifically, our inclusion criteria require at least one non-speech anchor — the Speech Taint Strip Test removes all speech-based evidence and asks whether the remaining evidence independently justifies inclusion.

How do you handle criminal allegations?

Criminal claims are our highest-risk category. We follow precise language rules:

Status How We State It
Convicted “Convicted of [crime] on [date] in [court], Case [number]”
Indicted/Charged “Indicted on [date] on charges of [counts]” — never “committed” or “is guilty of”
Under investigation “Reported to be under investigation for [matter] as of [date], citing [source]”
Alleged only “Allegedly [action]. Source: [single source]. Not independently corroborated as of [date]”

We never use “traitor,” “criminal,” “terrorist,” or similar characterizations without a supporting court record or official finding.

What is the priority system?

Profiles are prioritized based on the strength and nature of documented evidence:

Priority Criteria
P0 Documented direct participation in constitutional violations, seditious conspiracy, or fraud in office — must have court record or congressional finding
P1 Documented pattern of conduct that materially advanced democratic erosion (signed false certification, directed vote suppression, convicted of related crime)
P2 Network-level amplifiers, operatives, and enablers with documented but not individually criminal roles

Political positions, network affiliation, or inclusion in external taxonomies are never sufficient for P0 or P1 classification.

How do you verify profile content?

When creating or significantly updating a profile, our editorial process requires:

  1. Running the appropriate inclusion gate (private citizen or federal judge) to confirm eligibility
  2. Conducting primary-source research via court records, congressional testimony, FEC filings, and credible journalism
  3. Verifying every negative claim against at least one Documented or Credibly Reported source
  4. Labeling any unverified claim as [NEEDS VERIFICATION] — these tags cannot be removed without a verified citation
  5. Confirming the Basis for Inclusion block is present and correctly formatted
  6. Running a sanity check for factual accuracy, unsupported claims, and proportionate severity assessments

Every profile includes a Basis for Inclusion

Every accountability profile — regardless of whether the subject is a public official, public figure, or private citizen — includes a Basis for Inclusion block near the top of the profile. This block states:

  1. The subject’s classification (Public Official / Voluntary Public Figure / Private Citizen)
  2. The specific anchor criterion met
  3. What is explicitly NOT the basis for inclusion
  4. How any speech documented in the profile is characterized

This transparency allows readers to evaluate our editorial judgment and challenge it if they disagree.

Related Documentation

Factual correction requests: If you believe information in any profile is incorrect, please contact factcheck@patriot.university with your name (optional), the specific claim, and any supporting documentation. We review all submissions and correct verified errors promptly.

Was this article helpful?
0 out of 5 stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%
5
Please Share Your Feedback
How Can We Improve This Article?
Table of Contents

Related Articles