These are also the exhibits not fully contained with the previous document I posted. Not as much interesting stuff in these, but provides background and character info about Shannon.
Thanks for comment. We will see if negative responses bother him or the team.Athletes don't think like this, they aren't afraid of everything in life, and they certainly won't look at the most negative POV of every situation. I can tell you, I'm not in the locker room or their housing, but I bet every single one of them is happy as hell that he is back, and won't give 2 !!!!! about what some fans are saying in an opposing gym. They hear that and be more encouraged to beat them by 30 instead of 20
I'm not sure we are disagreeing on anything beyond perhaps some sloppy language on my part. I regard taking away and/or greatly infringing the right to make a lot of money playing basketball as infringing on a property interest, but I've not reread the opinion so I'm not going to try to prove the judge saw it the same way."To state a valid claim for relief under § 1983, Plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a constitutional right or a right secured by federal law, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law"
So §1983 ties directly to the relevant constitutional right (but only w.r.t. state officials, not private school presidents, private employers, etc): "The Fourteenth Amendment prevents a state from depriving a person of “property” or “liberty” without due process of law."
The judge ruled that TSJ has some likelihood of success on both the property and liberty claims...
The property claim, however, boiled down to the scholarship contract, which alludes to additional due process that TSJ was not afforded. By itself, this would leave room for future scholarship contracts that are worded differently.
The liberty claim is broader (I see now that my previous posts glossed over this): "A state actor infringes on a liberty interest only by ‘cast[ing] doubt on an individual’s ... reputation’ to such a degree that ‘it becomes virtually impossible for the [individual] to find new employment in his chosen field." NIL and draft projections clearly show that TSJ has a career in basketball. However, I don't think the judge clearly explained how TSJ likely demonstrated "that the state inflicted reputational damage". In one of the cases cited, reputational harm occurred because "the University found [that student] guilty of sexual violence under Title IX", and in the other because of "public accusations of misconduct by state officials". In TSJ's case, the public officials (to me at least) did not find him guilty or accuse him of misconduct; they merely acted based on the criminal charges made by someone else. Thinking out loud, I wonder if the DIA panel/process gives the appearance of making a judgement of guilt, so the decision to uphold the suspension hurts his reputation.
I'm still really dwelling on just how far reaching this ruling would be if it stands. IMHO, there are going to be situations where an athlete should be suspended right away (egregious crimes with very convincing public evidence). Maybe the "balance of harms" consideration allows suspensions in those cases. The judge mentioned that "Illinois does not believe that Plaintiff is a threat to other students or the Illinois community" because he was allowed to continue as an on-campus student. So it becomes an all-or-nothing approach. If there's a threat to students/community, the university can suspend (from classes, campus, and athletics) right away while determining the threat. Otherwise they must follow due process. I think I can live with that.
Alternatively, if the university had a hard policy of suspending (from athletics) anyone charged with certain felonies, and were very careful in their public statements that they have no comment on likelihood of guilt, and are only doing this to avoid distractions to other students, then I think the university could claim that they are not inflicting reputational harm beyond what is already occuring because of the charges.
Here I think I do disagree; at least a little. The scholarship contract was Count II, I think. The judge ruled only on Counts I and VI and not on the scholarship contract count.My other (rambling) post mentions some of this, but in short:
1. He has a scholarship contract, and the judge thinks UIUC might not have followed that contract appropriately (because it points to OSCR, which affords certain due processes).
2. The state (state school president) can't harm his reputation (without due process) in a way that severely affects his chosen career. The judge thinks this may have happened.
This struck me as weird as well. Which mock drafts did she look at? She did not say. Are such drafts competent evidence? What if they are all over the map? Can she choose the ones she wants to believe without taking evidence on the entire field of prediction?Great post. I wanted to add something to one part of it. One issue the Judge seemed to take very seriously is her mention of TSJ falling 17 places in the mock draft after the suspension. I personally don't think much of mock drafts but apparently she did.
Judges can take judicial notice of pretty much anything they want and ignore what they choose to ignoreThis struck me as weird as well. Which mock drafts did she look at? She did not say. Are such drafts competent evidence? What if they are all over the map? Can she choose the ones she wants to believe without taking evidence on the entire field of prediction?
I am very glad TJ won because I want to see him play. I don't entirely understand how the judge got where she did, but I sure am happy she got there.
Exactly. I hate that the term “rape charge” in this case. It unfairly taints the accused.Face it. Every fan for any team other than ours is going to have a problem with this. Bias affects all our perceptions. I thought Goodman was fine - saying that he or Dauster can't know the facts was about the best you can hope for from the national media.
As fans we know how tenuous this allegation is - no interaction between the accused and victim, only 2 minutes that not on cameral, occurred in a crowded place. DA is apparently an activist, and probably most other DAs would not have brought these charges without more. This isn't a case where the girl shows up bloody at the hospital and there is DNA evidence connecting the accused with the victim. Generally, charges are backed by sufficient evidence to conclude the wrongdoing was likely to have occurred, not just a bald assertion of something occurring in front of a bunch of people that didn't observe anything.
I think this is a fairly unique case. The non-Illini fan public just hears "rape charges" and assumes the DA and police did their job and have the goods to back up the charges.
Says right here which mock draft projections judge used: Bleacher Reports…This struck me as weird as well. Which mock drafts did she look at? She did not say. Are such drafts competent evidence? What if they are all over the map? Can she choose the ones she wants to believe without taking evidence on the entire field of prediction?
I am very glad TJ won because I want to see him play. I don't entirely understand how the judge got where she did, but I sure am happy she got there.
JW may have had a hand in establishing the current policy in place, ( not knowing how long this policy has been in place) but I would guess there were several individuals and university officials or boards (including attorneys) that reviewed the policy before it was approved and put into place. Totally agree that it's his job now to initiate appropriate changesAgree, but I think I read that Whitman was the one who instituted the three person panel policy to give an opportunity for an athlete to expedite getting back to fully participating because Whitman realized the legal process took too long a time. As I said in a previous post, after TSJ was arrested, and the three person panel didn’t reinstate him, I think Whitman realized his policy was flawed and was hoping that the Shannon TRO would be granted. (After the insiders initially hinted that the DIA was pro TSJ, I even had the crazy thought that maybe the TRO was Whitman’s own idea). With the federal court order, now it IS his job to change the policy that he created to make it contain due process.
The whole thing reeks to high heaven but at least he's reinstated and will have a chance to exonerate himself (hopefully). I was nauseous when I heard he was accused of rape, but the more I looked into it, I began to realize it wasn't as bad as it sounded. Not acceptible but not what everyone thinks of when they hear the word "rape," and it's so far from certain that he's guilty, I don't believe he should have been charged.Exactly. I hate that the term “rape charge” in this case. It unfairly taints the accused.
Depends on the font.I know both lawyers and judges have a lot of 'heretofore's and forthwith's' rolling around in their petitions and their judgements, but for a judge to take 38 pages to simply install a TRO is kinda hefty... don't ya think ? ! !
It was actually an injunction...Depends on the font
The argument for the TRO is showing the suspension harmed TSJ. I don’t know if his stock dropped due the charges or the suspension but dropping 17 places is millions of dollars. So I think it was smart for the judge to look what the argument was. For TSJ you can prove the suspension caused harm. For the university it’s less tangible does TSJ really hurt your reputation and if so how do measure thatThis struck me as weird as well. Which mock drafts did she look at? She did not say. Are such drafts competent evidence? What if they are all over the map? Can she choose the ones she wants to believe without taking evidence on the entire field of prediction?
I am very glad TJ won because I want to see him play. I don't entirely understand how the judge got where she did, but I sure am happy she got there.
And the margins, of course … are you typing this for the 62-year old Partner or the the 42-year old partner?Depends on the font.
JW should not need to re-invent the wheel here . There certainly must be other examples / templates already created out there in big time college athleticsJW may have had a hand in establishing the current policy in place, ( not knowing how long this policy has been in place) but I would guess there were several individuals and university officials or boards (including attorneys) that reviewed the policy before it was approved and put into place. Totally agree that it's his job now to initiate appropriate changes
Students?For those living on campus currently, any sense as to the reaction from the students?
+1JW should not need to re-invent the wheel here . There certainly must be other examples / templates already created out there in big time college athletics
I share all of these same thoughts also. mock drafts are only peoples' opinions and they can vary greatly, just like the AP poll votes. I think I saw the mock drafts were included in the evidence documents in an earlier post. nevertheless, I'm glad the judge ruled the way she did.This struck me as weird as well. Which mock drafts did she look at? She did not say. Are such drafts competent evidence? What if they are all over the map? Can she choose the ones she wants to believe without taking evidence on the entire field of prediction?
I am very glad TJ won because I want to see him play. I don't entirely understand how the judge got where she did, but I sure am happy she got there.
He wasn’t only on one mock draft. I haven’t followed all sites but I got to believe all of them showed a very similar trajectory that only furthered their case I would think. I know only one site was cited but they had to do a bit of research I would think.I share all of these same thoughts also. mock drafts are only peoples' opinions and they can vary greatly, just like the AP poll votes. I think I saw the mock drafts were included in the evidence documents in an earlier post. nevertheless, I'm glad the judge ruled the way she did.
Honestly I don’t think it’s that weird. These mock drafts represent the opinions of “experts” in the field of evaluating NBA potential. It just happens that they’re evaluating a topic that is incredibly speculative. None the less their opinions, even if imperfect illustrate his argument that being suspended impacts his ability to maximize his future earnings.This struck me as weird as well. Which mock drafts did she look at? She did not say. Are such drafts competent evidence? What if they are all over the map? Can she choose the ones she wants to believe without taking evidence on the entire field of prediction?
I am very glad TJ won because I want to see him play. I don't entirely understand how the judge got where she did, but I sure am happy she got there.
AmenMitch Gilifillan (Sp?) made a great point in the video interview someone posted above, that TSJ has NOT been formally charged with ANYTHING at this point. There has been an accusation made, and an ethically questionable DA has taken a unilateral action. Nothing more than that. So in fact, TSJ actually WAS suspended simply because someone accused him if something.
Indeed, it's a bit strange. Count II directly referenced the scholarship contract, and the judge didn't talk about Count II per se.Here I think I do disagree; at least a little. The scholarship contract was Count II, I think. The judge ruled only on Counts I and VI and not on the scholarship contract count.