All Things Gopher Players Appeals Process

Donate To GopherHole

Reminder, PJ Fleck has difficult conversations for breakfast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ewert86PC said:
As I said, the only fact that matters is that five players and a recruit engaged in behavior that, regardless of it being consentual, moral or legal, was able to be interpreted as a violation of student conduct. That violation of student conduct was able to go before the EOAA, where their investigative meat grinder brought in five more players up for punishment.

The fact that five players didn't get the message about not violating the student code of conduct, put the five of their teammates in danger of being suspended by association. It also made the remaining 110 players on the team look like idiots by association because of the practice walkout.

These outcome facts negate anything that may have actually been said because whatever was said was not enough to stop five players from putting themselves ahead of the team.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You need to just stop! With every post you do nothing but make yourself look like an idiot.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I'm still waiting on your DA criteria for proceeding with a sexual assault case.
Click to expand...

I know you didn't ask me, but I don't think there is a specific set of criteria (rape kit, crime scene evidence, witnesses, previous relationship, phone/text records, credibility, etc.) to decide on moving forward. I think it ultimately boils down to whether or not the DA thinks it is a winnable case. And with sexual assault that can be really difficult. Unless there is video or an eyewitness to the actual assault it's tough to call any sexual assault case a slam dunk at trial. All it takes is one juror. I would bet whether to prosecute a sexual assault case is one the toughest calls a DA has to make.
 

Spoofin said:
No victim in this case either according to the police and DA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not enough evidence to prove there was a victim in this case according to the police and DA. Different than saying there was no victim. In the basketball situation the potential victim said there was no victim which makes it pretty open and shut.
 


bizzle22 said:
I know you didn't ask me, but I don't think there is a specific set of criteria (rape kit, crime scene evidence, witnesses, previous relationship, phone/text records, credibility, etc.) to decide on moving forward. I think it ultimately boils down to whether or not the DA thinks it is a winnable case. And with sexual assault that can be really difficult. Unless there is video or an eyewitness to the actual assault it's tough to call any sexual assault case a slam dunk at trial. All it takes is one juror. I would bet whether to prosecute a sexual assault case is one the toughest calls a DA has to make.
Click to expand...

Great post. Thanks for saying it better than I would have.
 


Ewert86PC said:
As I said, the only fact that matters is that five players and a recruit engaged in behavior that, regardless of it being consentual, moral or legal, was able to be interpreted as a violation of student conduct. That violation of student conduct was able to go before the EOAA, where their investigative meat grinder brought in five more players up for punishment.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't know why people keep saying this, the University of Minnesota CANNOT have a rule on the student code of conduct that violates the Constitution.

So you cannot say, regardless of legal or consensual. . . you simply cannot say that. The University of Minnesota is a public institution in the United States, the Constitution still reigns supreme here. It literally cannot be "regardless of legal" or "regardless of consensual".

For whatever reason, some people have been refusing to believe me when I say this. I get it, you don't believe me. Ask yourself this, why would an EOAA appeal eventually reach Federal Court?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't know why people keep saying this, the University of Minnesota CANNOT have a rule on the student code of conduct that violates the Constitution.

So you cannot say, regardless of legal or consensual. . . you simply cannot say that. The University of Minnesota is a public institution in the United States, the Constitution still reigns supreme here. It literally cannot be "regardless of legal" or "regardless of consensual".

For whatever reason, some people have been refusing to believe me when I say this. I get it, you don't believe me. Ask yourself this, why would an EOAA appeal eventually reach Federal Court?
Click to expand...

No, the process allows the victim to determine consentuality after the fact. That is what is the problem As I have read on this board the victim is putting forth a third version of events in the appeals process. The system of the EOAA is designed to remove any shred of the accused being viewed as innocent before the process begins. The entire EOAA process has shown itself to be a way to violate the Civil rights of male athletes.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk
 




Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't know why people keep saying this, the University of Minnesota CANNOT have a rule on the student code of conduct that violates the Constitution.

So you cannot say, regardless of legal or consensual. . . you simply cannot say that. The University of Minnesota is a public institution in the United States, the Constitution still reigns supreme here. It literally cannot be "regardless of legal" or "regardless of consensual".

For whatever reason, some people have been refusing to believe me when I say this. I get it, you don't believe me. Ask yourself this, why would an EOAA appeal eventually reach Federal Court?
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying. And it makes sense. But then how did the Student Code of Conduct come to be in the first place? The U of M has attorneys on staff, and I assume they don't just sit around and twiddle their thumbs all day. At least a couple of them had to be involved in creating or at least reviewing the Code of Conduct. Would be interesting to see one of these cases actually make it to the SC. Have looked up many of the previous lawsuits in similar situations, and most of them boil down to procedural issues though I can't recall how many were at public vs private institutions. Not disagreeing with you, just asking the question.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't know why people keep saying this, the University of Minnesota CANNOT have a rule on the student code of conduct that violates the Constitution.

So you cannot say, regardless of legal or consensual. . . you simply cannot say that. The University of Minnesota is a public institution in the United States, the Constitution still reigns supreme here. It literally cannot be "regardless of legal" or "regardless of consensual".

For whatever reason, some people have been refusing to believe me when I say this. I get it, you don't believe me. Ask yourself this, why would an EOAA appeal eventually reach Federal Court?
Click to expand...

I think some folks are quibbling and others are making blanket statements. I think a better way to say what some others have tried to say is that something can be a violation of the student code of conduct even if it is not illegal via any federal, state, or local laws. Therefore, the argument that the players were not charged criminally is somewhat meaningless to the whole student code of conduct investigation. The U of M can have their code of conduct and enforce it. They can have a more stringent standard and definition of sexual assault that is not the same as the CSC statutes in the state of Minnesota. They can take administrative action against students who violate rules of conduct. They can expel, suspend, etc... for things that would not even get you in trouble outside of that school. However, those rules and the way they enforce them can't violate the constitution. It is important to remember that this is not a criminal investigation and many of the procedures and standards required in the criminal system do not apply.

From a purely legal standpoint, it will be interesting to see how everything plays out with this case in particular.
 

rugger14 said:
I think some folks are quibbling and others are making blanket statements. I think a better way to say what some others have tried to say is that something can be a violation of the student code of conduct even if it is not illegal via any federal, state, or local laws. Therefore, the argument that the players were not charged criminally is somewhat meaningless to the whole student code of conduct investigation. The U of M can have their code of conduct and enforce it. They can have a more stringent standard and definition of sexual assault that is not the same as the CSC statutes in the state of Minnesota. They can take administrative action against students who violate rules of conduct. They can expel, suspend, etc... for things that would not even get you in trouble outside of that school. However, those rules and the way they enforce them can't violate the constitution. It is important to remember that this is not a criminal investigation and many of the procedures and standards required in the criminal system do not apply.

From a purely legal standpoint, it will be interesting to see how everything plays out with this case in particular.
Click to expand...

The U of M can do all of those things, as long as it doesn't break other laws. So if their process is biased against men then it is in violation of Title IX. That is what is happening in courts all over. Young men who got steamrolled in cases are fighting back and showing a bias against men when the systems is set up to favor the accuser. Like allowing the accuser a lawyer in the hearing but not the accused. Like giving the accuser proper notice about their rights and not to the accused. Like giving the accuser 3 hours to make her case and giving the accused 1 hour. Like bringing conduct charges against a student who was not even in the building based on handing the accuser a book with all the players faces in it and her picking it out without any other evidence being offered. As Bob stated, just because you agreed to a Conduct Code doesn't preclude the Constitution and Federal from coming into play. And Title IX makes it illegal to discriminate based on sex, not just women.
 



GopherinPhilly said:
The U of M can do all of those things, as long as it doesn't break other laws. So if their process is biased against men then it is in violation of Title IX. That is what is happening in courts all over. Young men who got steamrolled in cases are fighting back and showing a bias against men when the systems is set up to favor the accuser. Like allowing the accuser a lawyer in the hearing but not the accused. Like giving the accuser proper notice about their rights and not to the accused. Like giving the accuser 3 hours to make her case and giving the accused 1 hour. Like bringing conduct charges against a student who was not even in the building based on handing the accuser a book with all the players faces in it and her picking it out without any other evidence being offered. As Bob stated, just because you agreed to a Conduct Code doesn't preclude the Constitution and Federal from coming into play. And Title IX makes it illegal to discriminate based on sex, not just women.
Click to expand...

So we will see how this plays out.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't know why people keep saying this, the University of Minnesota CANNOT have a rule on the student code of conduct that violates the Constitution.

So you cannot say, regardless of legal or consensual. . . you simply cannot say that. The University of Minnesota is a public institution in the United States, the Constitution still reigns supreme here. It literally cannot be "regardless of legal" or "regardless of consensual".

For whatever reason, some people have been refusing to believe me when I say this. I get it, you don't believe me. Ask yourself this, why would an EOAA appeal eventually reach Federal Court?
Click to expand...

Because the process is found to be unfair to the accused? Not obsessed with this like some but nothing I've read says anything about limiting a student code of conduct. After a long string of court cases and appeals aspects of Title IX might eventually be found to be unconstitutional. But to make blanket assertions that it is now unconstitutional based on 2-1 decisions seems a little premature.

As of now, the basic premise of using Title IX hasn't been found to be illegal. And the process certainly shouldn't be compared to something a fascist, nazi, McCarthy, Stalin, communist, KKK, inquisition (take your pick) type of government would do. Nobody is being thrown in prison or executed, yet some hysterically keep using these words. And I do get some lives have been put in turmoil and reputations are on the line. Got news for you, even courts of law put lives in turmoil and damage reputations even if you are entirely innocent.

It's a civil hearing supposedly based on the same procedures that cleared Lynch. He was arrested, spent time in jail, was suspended, and is now playing. This came a year after the taped sex party and two years after a basketball player assaulted his girlfriend so you know the EOAA was aware of the culture yet that hearing went off without any drama.

Of course, that case didn't have ten players, a grandstanding lawyer, a coach perhaps in over his head, a team boycott, administrators in CYA mode, a leaked report, media putting up pictures of the ten together, a fired coach, etc.

Not sure where this is going, but I know I'll think the EOAA procedure should still be kept if the final result is that nether side is totally happy. This all or nothing of "we've got to eradicate this rape culture" versus "that is absolutely against the constitution" seems to ignore common sense to me. Just because the police or a prosecutor doesn't feel a case is warranted shouldn't mean that a university doesn't have the right to protect their students from physical or psychological harm and demand that their students are accountable for their behavior. The difficulty is in making sure it's done fairly.
 


Dilemina said:
http://www.mndaily.com/article/2017/01/umn-gophers-football-sex-assault-hearing

Don't know if this story was posted yet, but it says that according to new rules set up in 2011, the ruling does not need to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" it only needs to be " more likely than not".

And we will hear the results of the EOAA hearing by Friday.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The 2011 'Dear College Letter', changed the evidence standard not from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but ' substantial evidence', the difference is important. In formal government hearings the 'substantial evidence standard' is what is used. We need to keep in mind that there this is a hearing and not a trial, it's only a matter of time, before a court rules that to be the case. Once that happens the 'Dear College Letter" will be quickly overturned, because all of the case precedent, requires 'substantial evidence. A former CSU-Pueblo football player has already filed a case along those lines.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
The U of M can do all of those things, as long as it doesn't break other laws. So if their process is biased against men then it is in violation of Title IX. That is what is happening in courts all over. Young men who got steamrolled in cases are fighting back and showing a bias against men when the systems is set up to favor the accuser. Like allowing the accuser a lawyer in the hearing but not the accused. Like giving the accuser proper notice about their rights and not to the accused. Like giving the accuser 3 hours to make her case and giving the accused 1 hour. Like bringing conduct charges against a student who was not even in the building based on handing the accuser a book with all the players faces in it and her picking it out without any other evidence being offered. As Bob stated, just because you agreed to a Conduct Code doesn't preclude the Constitution and Federal from coming into play. And Title IX makes it illegal to discriminate based on sex, not just women.
Click to expand...

Excellent post, Philly....how this **** has gotten this far is baffling to me. The guys that had sex with the woman were gone from Day 1 but if the other 5 guys are penalized in any way, I hope they sue the hell out of the University. Winfield Jr appears to be what every father would want his son to be and yet his name is dragged through the mud. Disgusting and disgraceful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rugger14 said:
I think some folks are quibbling and others are making blanket statements. I think a better way to say what some others have tried to say is that something can be a violation of the student code of conduct even if it is not illegal via any federal, state, or local laws. Therefore, the argument that the players were not charged criminally is somewhat meaningless to the whole student code of conduct investigation. The U of M can have their code of conduct and enforce it. They can have a more stringent standard and definition of sexual assault that is not the same as the CSC statutes in the state of Minnesota. They can take administrative action against students who violate rules of conduct. They can expel, suspend, etc... for things that would not even get you in trouble outside of that school. However, those rules and the way they enforce them can't violate the constitution. It is important to remember that this is not a criminal investigation and many of the procedures and standards required in the criminal system do not apply.

From a purely legal standpoint, it will be interesting to see how everything plays out with this case in particular.
Click to expand...

I think this is how to break it down:

The jurisdiction for bringing the action rests solely in the enforcement of Title IX.

Title IX is a Federal Law.

It's enforcement cannot violate the Constitution of the United States. Otherwise, Title IX would trump the constitution.

The code of conduct is a school matter. They would likely have no power to bring action in this, but for the tenuous extension of Title IX. The Code of Conduct would be a school issue, whereby the school clearly has jurisdiction. Or perhaps, they may also be able to boot out of school after criminal adjudication.

However, I doubt they can extend the code of conduct to all private actions. I don't know that, but if they could, they would not have needed Title IX to be extended via weak ass argument.
 

Will public lynching and singling out of black football athletes for punishment count as a Title IX violation?
 

bizzle22 said:
Not enough evidence to prove there was a victim in this case according to the police and DA. Different than saying there was no victim. In the basketball situation the potential victim said there was no victim which makes it pretty open and shut.
Click to expand...

Well then how about we go with innocent until proven guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

So - this is without any snark as I am ignorant of the laws involved (I am not a lawyer). What does the right to a scholarship to play football have to do with the constitution? As just a regular citizen, I don't recall any part of the constitution that speaks to college athletics. What right do these players have at Minnesota VS Northwestern (public VS private)? Don't players get stripped of their spot on the team around the country for nothing more than disrespecting coaches? I mean Donovahn Jones apparently was kicked off the team for a bad reaction at a team function. If you are going to bring up the constitution, let's actually discuss it....specifically.
 


GopherHomer said:
That is a slogan from the court of law...which this is not.
Click to expand...

Try to follow along. We were talking about the court side of things. The conversation was about what the police and DA decided and what that does/doesn't mean. As we all know, what the police and DA determine means little to the EOAA and this process, but that wasn't the conversation you responded to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherHomer said:
So - this is without any snark as I am ignorant of the laws involved (I am not a lawyer). What does the right to a scholarship to play football have to do with the constitution? As just a regular citizen, I don't recall any part of the constitution that speaks to college athletics. What right do these players have at Minnesota VS Northwestern (public VS private)? Don't players get stripped of their spot on the team around the country for nothing more than disrespecting coaches? I mean Donovahn Jones apparently was kicked off the team for a bad reaction at a team function. If you are going to bring up the constitution, let's actually discuss it....specifically.
Click to expand...

That is what I was getting at with this post:

atsgopher said:
I think this is how to break it down:

The jurisdiction for bringing the action rests solely in the enforcement of Title IX.

Title IX is a Federal Law.

It's enforcement cannot violate the Constitution of the United States. Otherwise, Title IX would trump the constitution.

The code of conduct is a school matter. They would likely have no power to bring action in this, but for the tenuous extension of Title IX. The Code of Conduct would be a school issue, whereby the school clearly has jurisdiction. Or perhaps, they may also be able to boot out of school after criminal adjudication.

However, I doubt they can extend the code of conduct to all private actions. I don't know that, but if they could, they would not have needed Title IX to be extended via weak ass argument.
Click to expand...

The specific portion(s) of the Constitution would be the 5th and 14th amendments.

Essentially, you'd be right, if that is what the U had done. However, the U did not just kick guys off the team. They did so because of the EOAA investigation. The EOAA investigation was "legally justified" via Title IX. Can't have a fed law without the constitutional protections.
 

atsgopher said:
That is what I was getting at with this post:



The specific portion(s) of the Constitution would be the 5th and 14th amendments.

Essentially, you'd be right, if that is what the U had done. However, the U did not just kick guys off the team. They did so because of the EOAA investigation. The EOAA investigation was "legally justified" via Title IX. Can't have a fed law without the constitutional protections.
Click to expand...

Even if we assume you are right about the EOAA, they only gave recommendations of the punishment. They don't have the authority to follow through on the punishment. The U or the AD/coaches would be the ones that actually deliver the punishment. So then the punishment is based upon conduct that is based upon team rules and not a federal investigation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Mulligan said:
Because the process is found to be unfair to the accused? Not obsessed with this like some but nothing I've read says anything about limiting a student code of conduct. After a long string of court cases and appeals aspects of Title IX might eventually be found to be unconstitutional. But to make blanket assertions that it is now unconstitutional based on 2-1 decisions seems a little premature.

As of now, the basic premise of using Title IX hasn't been found to be illegal. And the process certainly shouldn't be compared to something a fascist, nazi, McCarthy, Stalin, communist, KKK, inquisition (take your pick) type of government would do. Nobody is being thrown in prison or executed, yet some hysterically keep using these words. And I do get some lives have been put in turmoil and reputations are on the line. Got news for you, even courts of law put lives in turmoil and damage reputations even if you are entirely innocent.

It's a civil hearing supposedly based on the same procedures that cleared Lynch. He was arrested, spent time in jail, was suspended, and is now playing. This came a year after the taped sex party and two years after a basketball player assaulted his girlfriend so you know the EOAA was aware of the culture yet that hearing went off without any drama.

Of course, that case didn't have ten players, a grandstanding lawyer, a coach perhaps in over his head, a team boycott, administrators in CYA mode, a leaked report, media putting up pictures of the ten together, a fired coach, etc.

Not sure where this is going, but I know I'll think the EOAA procedure should still be kept if the final result is that nether side is totally happy. This all or nothing of "we've got to eradicate this rape culture" versus "that is absolutely against the constitution" seems to ignore common sense to me. Just because the police or a prosecutor doesn't feel a case is warranted shouldn't mean that a university doesn't have the right to protect their students from physical or psychological harm and demand that their students are accountable for their behavior. The difficulty is in making sure it's done fairly.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

alchemy2u said:
Excellent post.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

+1. Great stuff. You are saying what the silent majority is thinking. Tired of some wannabe obsessed lawyers giving their opinions.
 


Spoofin said:
Well then how about we go with innocent until proven guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That would be correct. The accused players are innocent in the eyes of the law. I have never disputed that. All I was saying was that the police and DA aren't necessarily saying the girl is not a victim.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom