Terrence Shannon Jr. reinstated

Status
Not open for further replies.
#351      

IlliniFan42

IlliniFan42
IlliniFan42
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.
 

Attachments

  • Exhibits L-Q.pdf
    5.8 MB · Views: 119
  • Exhibits R-T.pdf
    3.2 MB · Views: 88
  • Exhibits U-X.pdf
    4.9 MB · Views: 72
#352      

Vinegarben

V
Vinegarben
vabeachbear said:
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
Click to expand...
Thanks for comment. We will see if negative responses bother him or the team.
 
#353      

2qtslow

2qtslow
2qtslow
ever said:
"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.
Click to expand...
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.

I think a big part of the problem the judge had was with the U trying to have it both ways. They said we have to suspend him because he was accused of such a horrible crime, but they also said this potentially horrible criminal was a threat to precisely no one, so he could remain on campus, attend classes, use the facilities and just generally act like any other student. Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.
 
#354      

2qtslow

2qtslow
2qtslow
ever said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#355      

2qtslow

2qtslow
2qtslow
fuggles said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#356      

s261

S
s261
2qtslow said:
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.
Click to expand...
Judges can take judicial notice of pretty much anything they want and ignore what they choose to ignore
 
#357      

Jimbo

J
Jimbo
alaskaillini said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I hate that the term “rape charge” in this case. It unfairly taints the accused.
 
#358      

chiefini

chiefini
Rockford, Illinois
chiefini
2qtslow said:
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.
Click to expand...
Says right here which mock draft projections judge used: Bleacher Reports…
IMG_8394.png
 
#359      

doowink

D
doowink
chiefini said:
Agree, 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.
Click to expand...
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 changes
 
#360      

winepros

W
winepros
Jimbo said:
Exactly. I hate that the term “rape charge” in this case. It unfairly taints the accused.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#363      

Navy_illini

N
Navy_illini
2qtslow said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 that


Going forward it will be interesting to see how this case affects others and the ripple effects
 
#365      

Mr. Tibbs

Mr. Tibbs
southeast DuPage
Mr. Tibbs
doowink said:
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 changes
Click to expand...
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 athletics
 
#369      

CharliedonSurf

C
CharliedonSurf
Illinois already has a process in place that tsj lawyers and court seemed to state meet DP concerns. Now are they going to use it to try and suspend him again? I tend to think not but who knows.
 
#370      

hiberto

H
hiberto
2qtslow said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#371      

abchew2

A
abchew2
hiberto said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#372      

Illinifrank67

Illinifrank67
Illinifrank67
2qtslow said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#373      

LouHenson

LouHenson
LouHenson
I think the only way TSJ does not complete the year playing for Illinois is if he were truly guilty.

My reasoning for this would be if the DA offers him some significantly reduced charge (say misdemeanor sexual battery) and he were to accept that. Why? Well if his entire desire is to play in the NBA (and he really did something) that would be the “safest” route. No question he could be drafted and play in the NBA with that on his record. Illinois of course would suspend him again based on that plea.

Now on the other hand, and I do (with no factual knowledge) believe he did nothing. Then if I were him I would be going balls to the walls to take it to trial. He will know what the evidence is against him and his legal team will tell him his “risk” factor. I just know if it was me and I did not do it, I would not plea guilty to spitting on the sidewalk. In this case there is zero chance he is not allowed to play out the year at Illinois.
The university is already looking at potential civil litigation from him if he is not convicted. May or may not happen, but don’t think the UofI would place even further exposure on the institution by trying to make some statement and attempting to suspend him again?
 
#374      

Ojy

O
Ojy
Illini09 said:
Mitch 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.
Click to expand...
Amen
 
#375      

ever

E
ever
2qtslow said:
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.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it's a bit strange. Count II directly referenced the scholarship contract, and the judge didn't talk about Count II per se.

But in her discussion of Count VI (regarding §1983), under "Property Interest" on p21, she says "Because this is in the higher education context, however, 'any property interest is a matter of contract between the student and the university.'" (citing the Purdue case), and "he must establish that the contract entitled him to a specific right that the university allegedly took."

Then, specifically regarding TSJ's contract with UIUC, she says: "The DIA policy specifically requires that 'f the Panel decides to withhold the student-athlete from any athletic activity or related support service, it will do so in compliance with, and consideration of, all applicable University, state and federal regulations. … One of those applicable polices is the OSCR Policy wherein students accused of sexual misconduct at the University have a right to notice of the proceedings, participation in the administrative hearings, an investigative process, and an ability to review and respond to the evidence."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.