Restraining orders against Tamarion Johnson an mk mi mi od Carlton Dejam.

Donate To GopherHole
R

ruppertflywheel

Banned
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
12,226
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Restraining orders against Tamarion Johnson and Carlton Dejam.

according to Rival's .
 


I don't know what the **** ruppy was trying to type, but I did find this:



Two Minnesota football players have been named in a restraining order that seeks to keep them away from TCF Bank Stadium on football game days, according to documents obtained by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Carlton Djam and Tamarion Johnson haven’t spoken publicly about the matter, but their attorney indicated the duo will oppose the order.

“We just learned at the 11th hour that my clients were served with a (restraining order) with regards to the baseless allegations of misconduct in which they were cleared,” the players’ attorney, Lee Hutton, told the Star-Tribune. “It went through the process. The Minneapolis police meticulously investigated the allegations that went up to a prosecutor to review, and the Minneapolis police decided not to charge my clients.”
The order stems from an alleged incident on Sept. 2 that led to the suspension of four players, including Johnson. The players never faced criminal charges and their suspensions were lifted. The woman who filed the order was reportedly involved in the alleged prior incident, and, according to the paper, she “participates in the university’s home football game operation.”

The stadium was one of two addresses listed in the order, which asks that the players not be allowed at either location for two years.

Johnson, a freshman, is expected to redshirt this year.

Djam, a sophomore running back, has seven carries for 33 yards this season.

Minnesota coach Tracy Claeys hasn’t released a statement about the matter, but the university did to the Star-Tribune.

“It would not be appropriate for the University to comment on this matter to the extent it relates to University students. The University reaffirms, however, that it will honor and comply with court orders.”
 


What could the reason for the stadium location be other than an attempt / retribution to keep them from playing?

Do they think these guys are going to suit up, and mid play break into the crowd and assault someone?
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
What could the reason for the stadium location be other than an attempt / retribution to keep them from playing?

Do they think these guys are going to suit up, and mid play break into the crowd and assault someone?
Click to expand...

Maybe she works there. But I doubt that's what's going on here.
 

It doesn't sound like it final, even if the accuser works at the stadium, there is little chance of any interaction while they're there as players. A competent attorney should have no problem getting the stadium part of the order dropped. Most of the crazy stories about restraining orders occur because of a lack of proper legal representation. This is a pure and simple attempt at retribution.
 

When did Djam get brought into this? He wasn't one of the 4 suspended.
 

Djammit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Confusing

Aren't restraining orders somewhat difficult to obtain without charges? Definitely ends these players as Gophers if it isn't overturned....nobody on the team is going to stay away from the stadium for two years. Unless she is a trainer or sideline personnel person how is a guy in a football uniform going to communicate with her or threaten her? Why not the rest of campus? Makes no sense a judge would grant this to me...and yes, I know nothing except what is written here to come to that conclusion.
 

60's Guy said:
Aren't restraining orders somewhat difficult to obtain without charges? Definitely ends these players as Gophers if it isn't overturned....nobody on the team is going to stay away from the stadium for two years. Unless she is a trainer or sideline personnel person how is a guy in a football uniform going to communicate with her or threaten her? Why not the rest of campus? Makes no sense a judge would grant this to me...and yes, I know nothing except what is written here to come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

They are actually incredibly easy to obtain, regardless of criminal charges. The Judge makes their decision solely on the Petitioner's accusations, 99% of the time with zero evidence. The standard that Judges adhere to for these filings are "If this is true, then it should be granted." This is only for the initial temporary order, with the idea that if anything the accuser says is not true or can't be proven, that will come at a hearing if the Respondent(s) request one (at $300+ each). Based on the 11th hour nature of this, I am assuming Mr. Johnson and Mr. Djam were served with the initial Temporary Order. It is an incredibly flawed system where Judges sign almost everything that comes across their desk, regardless of how true or untrue it may be. One other thing to keep in mind, this is a Civil matter, so proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the metric; the metric is "more likely than not."

*I used to work for the courts with these types of orders, which is where I got these facts and opinions. However I know nothing beyond anyone else here on this specific case.
 


I looked up Ex Parte Restraining Orders, when requested by the respondent, a hearing is required within 10 days, so it's probable that the order stands for this weekend.
 



nsmike said:
It doesn't sound like it final, even if the accuser works at the stadium, there is little chance of any interaction while they're there as players. A competent attorney should have no problem getting the stadium part of the order dropped. Most of the crazy stories about restraining orders occur because of a lack of proper legal representation. This is a pure and simple attempt at retribution.
Click to expand...

Not if she works for the team. I did the "equipment manager for a day" program and there are women assistants EVERYWHERE except the actual locker room. You figure it out.
 

cjcarter8 said:
When did Djam get brought into this? He wasn't one of the 4 suspended.
Click to expand...

I'd think that he might be roommates with Johnson. Longtime friends of Gopher Sports at Fox 9 led their news with coverage of the debate between Liar and Liar. The second story was about the restraining order. The reporter said that the players weren't allowed at their dorm or TCF as part of the restraining order.
 

I thought this was the Johnson family throwing a fire blanket over their kid's redshirt.
 



A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
What could the reason for the stadium location be other than an attempt / retribution to keep them from playing?

Do they think these guys are going to suit up, and mid play break into the crowd and assault someone?
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that there could be a vindictiveness component to the request, but if the stadium is where she works and the dorm is where she lives, she will get a lot of traction in court arguing that she is entitled to feel safe in her home and workplace.
 

2nd Degree Gopher said:
I don't doubt that there could be a vindictiveness component to the request, but if the stadium is where she works and the dorm is where she lives, she will get a lot of traction in court arguing that she is entitled to feel safe in her home and workplace.
Click to expand...

The dorm I get.

The stadium not so sure. It seems feasible to restrict their contact and be at a stadium with everyone there and such depending on how it plays out.
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
The dorm I get.

The stadium not so sure. It seems feasible to restrict their contact and be at a stadium with everyone there and such depending on how it plays out.
Click to expand...

Hard to say without knowing what she does on game day, but if, for example, she's on the sideline as part of the training staff, there would be no way for her to do her job without possibly encountering the players. The Strib article notes that one of the allegations against Johnson is that he taunted her on the street at some point in this process. If that's true, then it was an incredibly stupid thing to do no matter what else happened. I am sure that Hutton told his clients not to engage the accuser in any way and certainly not to antagonize her.
 

2nd Degree Gopher said:
Hard to say without knowing what she does on game day, but if, for example, she's on the sideline as part of the training staff, there would be no way for her to do her job without possibly encountering the players. The Strib article notes that one of the allegations against Johnson is that he taunted her on the street at some point in this process. If that's true, then it was an incredibly stupid thing to do no matter what else happened. I am sure that Hutton told his clients not to engage the accuser in any way and certainly not to antagonize her.
Click to expand...

Yeah like I said, depending on how it plays out.

It would be interesting to hear the hearing over this and how it goes.
 

highwayman said:
Not if she works for the team. I did the "equipment manager for a day" program and there are women assistants EVERYWHERE except the actual locker room. You figure it out.
Click to expand...

The women does not work for the team and there is about zero interaction between the operation she participates in and the players on the sidelines and in the locker room.
 

CurveballJesus said:
They are actually incredibly easy to obtain, regardless of criminal charges. The Judge makes their decision solely on the Petitioner's accusations, 99% of the time with zero evidence. The standard that Judges adhere to for these filings are "If this is true, then it should be granted." This is only for the initial temporary order, with the idea that if anything the accuser says is not true or can't be proven, that will come at a hearing if the Respondent(s) request one (at $300+ each). Based on the 11th hour nature of this, I am assuming Mr. Johnson and Mr. Djam were served with the initial Temporary Order. It is an incredibly flawed system where Judges sign almost everything that comes across their desk, regardless of how true or untrue it may be. One other thing to keep in mind, this is a Civil matter, so proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the metric; the metric is "more likely than not."

*I used to work for the courts with these types of orders, which is where I got these facts and opinions. However I know nothing beyond anyone else here on this specific case.
Click to expand...

I'm a family law attorney that does quite a bit of Harassment Restraining Order work as well. Excuse my inability to resist chirping in with the legalese...but building on the above...

*Hennepin County has a little bit different format for case management of HROs than some other counties. Respondents get an initial hearing upon request, and that hearing will happen quickly (although the logjam of the court system does not always result in deadline being perfectly met). That initlal appearance, though, will only get it tossed if the Court finds that prima facie is not met. In other words, the only burden is whether the allegations, if presumed entirely true, would be sufficient for the HRO. If so, the Court cannot dismiss it outright regardless of credibility concerns. It must set it for trial, which typically takes place 1-8 weeks later (typically 3-6 weeks later based upon recent experience). The Court then rules from the bench at the conclusion of that trial. It's fairly rare for the Court to toss an HRO at the initial appearance because, in theory, the judge that signed the temporary one already vetted it for prima facie. Having said that, it can be done on occassion.

*HROs are a way, way lower standard in terms of the conduct that can serve as the basis for one. Most cases are assessed based upon this criteria: "a single incident of physical or sexual assault, a single incident of stalking under section 609.749, subdivision 2, clause (8), a single incident of nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images under section 617.261, or repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target."

*Respectfully, Hutton's comments about the police investigation, etc. are completely irrelevant and done for the sake of PR more than anything else. There is a lot of conduct that can be a legit basis for an HRO that would never realistically be charged as criminal conduct. No bearing at all.

*Most HRO cases go before a Referee (junior judge whose orders are approved by a judge). Often times, they know the nuances of the Court they are in (such as Harassment Court) better than the judges, frankly. In Hennepin County, I've generally been extremely impressed by our Referees. They get the law right on HROs nearly every time in my opinion.

*It's worth noting that the Referee can Amend the Ex Parte Order at the initial appearance if they think the relief in it is excessive. For example, I've watched them do so regularly when parties lived or worked in the same building. So, it's quite possible that the level of restrictions to dorm access will be reduced, and it's also quite possible that the stadium restrictions would be modified to some degree, too. Depends on the totality of the circumstances and whether the Court thinks it can provide adequate interim protection for the accuser while avoiding disrupting day-to-day life of the Respondent as much as possible, pending trial. The nature of the allegations obviously plays a role as well.

*Lastly, HROs are civil cases, but violating one is a criminal offense. That's the underlying incentive for a Respondent to not violate it.

End attorney rant. :)
 

Thanks to both CurveBall and CouchCoach. The background info is much appreciated-even if, perhaps, it lacks Gopher Hole's usual speculative bent.
 

Ignatius L Hoops said:
Thanks to both CurveBall and CouchCoach. The background info is much appreciated-even if, perhaps, it lacks Gopher Hole's usual speculative bent.
Click to expand...

I don't think their statements change anything.

It's clear building 7 couldn't have come down on its own.
 

I see the Star Tribune - at least on the Internet edition- has this story listed 4 times. While I don't think you should hide the story, that's a little overboard. I am sure they could find something positive to write concerning the Gophers, but then it is the Tribune.
 

Jack jones said:
I see the Star Tribune - at least on the Internet edition- has this story listed 4 times. While I don't think you should hide the story, that's a little overboard. I am sure they could find something positive to write concerning the Gophers, but then it is the Tribune.
Click to expand...

Yeah well Jerry can't get out of this one can he!
 

CurveballJesus said:
They are actually incredibly easy to obtain, regardless of criminal charges. The Judge makes their decision solely on the Petitioner's accusations, 99% of the time with zero evidence. The standard that Judges adhere to for these filings are "If this is true, then it should be granted." This is only for the initial temporary order, with the idea that if anything the accuser says is not true or can't be proven, that will come at a hearing if the Respondent(s) request one (at $300+ each). Based on the 11th hour nature of this, I am assuming Mr. Johnson and Mr. Djam were served with the initial Temporary Order. It is an incredibly flawed system where Judges sign almost everything that comes across their desk, regardless of how true or untrue it may be. One other thing to keep in mind, this is a Civil matter, so proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the metric; the metric is "more likely than not."

*I used to work for the courts with these types of orders, which is where I got these facts and opinions. However I know nothing beyond anyone else here on this specific case.
Click to expand...

My wife currently works with the courts and has for nearly 20 years and in the past has applied for a restraining order on a person that was harrasing/stalking her and was denied on multiple occasions since there was no physical altercation and no charges so it certainly is not that easy to get one without charges.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom