TSJ Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#176      

fatt lacosse

F
fatt lacosse
ignoring the TRO entirely, he is still scheduled to appear next thursday.

does anyone have any idea what to expect from this? not in terms of the outcome but in terms of what is happening with the case during that appearance
 
#178      

GatorMcKlusky

G
GatorMcKlusky
How many hundreds of thousands of dollars (or even millions) and thousands of employee/lawyer hours will be spent on this incident instead of the normal running of a university athletic department? What are we going to do to make sure we don't have to go through this again? What have other schools done right that we have done wrong? I can tell you this, when my son played football at an ACC (now Big Ten) school about a decade ago, the star player spent the football season sleeping in the football facility because the coaches felt that was the only was to keep him eligible throughout the entire fall season. Isn't there a better solution?
 
#179      

logjam

logjam
logjam
sacraig said:
fail merry go round GIF
Click to expand...
200-4.gif
 
#180      

OU_Illini

O
OU_Illini
Here is the Notice of Removal that was filed. It includes Hobson's Verified Statement and the Lawrence PD's Investigative Reports re: the surveillance video, cell phone imaging, and statements of the accuser and her friend.

Per the Federal Court docket, U of I's response to the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is not due until 1/23/24, which is the standard time for a response to a motion. TSJ would probably then have 7 days to file a reply.
 

Attachments

  • TSJ Notice of Removal Doc.pdf
    2.3 MB · Views: 762
#181      

FloridaMan

F
FloridaMan
CharliedonSurf said:
Right. The board of trustees is represented by their in-house counsel and likely outside counsel who are ethically bound to protect the interests of the Board and institution, not necessairly the IL men's bball team or TSJ.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which is why I expressed fear in yesterday's thread that they would insert themselves into this and muck things up. There are years and years of history to predict such behavior. Just my opinion, but they often create more problems than they solve - especially so when it comes to the DIA. They are nothing if not political hacks - again, JMO.
 
#182      

WeWillWhen

WeWillWhen
WeWillWhen
LouHenson said:
I guess I get the venue change due to the optics for the university, but if I was a future “potential” UI athlete this would concern me. If the university is perceived as not supporting its student athletes why would I go to school there?

The process Whitman created is fine, it just has been outdated in 8 years mostly due to the advent of NIL which changes everything. Any athlete charged should be able to have their ability to present in front of this board. This just seems like Judge, Jury and executioner all in 3 peoples hands?
Click to expand...
Lawyer here. By asserting claims under Title IX, which is a federal statute, they gave UIUC the option to remove the case from state court to federal court. Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases that raise questions of federal law.

Very generally speaking, Federal judges are viewed as being more sophisticated and impartial than state court judges. I stress, that is a huge stereotype I am making; many state court judges are excellent and many federal judges are not. I am only offering that as a possible explanation for why UIUC decided to remove the case. No matter what we on a message board think, UIUC has an interest in defending its processes.

I believe that there is only one federal judge currently seated in Urbana. He is a BA and JD graduate of UIUC. Perhaps that has something to do with his decision to recuse himself. So, the case had to go to a judge outside of Urbana. It went to Judge Colleen Lawless in the federal court in Springfield. I know nothing about her besides what’s on her Wikipedia page. The reassignment process typically is random, so I don’t read anything into it.

Will be interesting to see what happens.
 
#185      

DJM

D
DJM
It was transferred due to the possible involvement of Title lX

In TJ’s motion is his argument he should not be bound by the DIA’s decision to suspend but rather he should fall under Title 9. See page 6 par. 23 which states “Illinois has refused to review TJ’s situation to title 9, despitethe fact an Illinois employee in the scope of his employment at UI transported and oversaw TJ’s trip to Lawrence.
Title 9 applies when there are “circumstances over which the recipient (UI) exercises substantial control over both the respondent (TJ) and the context in which the sexual harassment occurs (I assume the trip KU with U of I personnel or employees.” See page 16 par. 49.

Page 10 par. 35 and page 16 par. 49 assert title 9 should be applied to TJ’s situation (”. (see Pop Isaac situation where he was in the Bahamas for the sole purpose of representing the school and was supervised by school personnel. Tech is basically saying, since title 9 committee holds him in good standard then we are going to let him play)
Remember the UI’s statement and Josh’s press conference where both stated he was not there as a rep of UI nor was he under the supervision of UI. In other words, he was there on his own accord and not subject to title 9 but rather the DIA policy. This is reinforced by Josh stating he personally reviews the policy with the students. But he did not mention the players sign anything acknowledging or binding him to this procedure. In support of TJ’s argument to get this out from underneath the DIA policy on Page 9 par. 29 states “TJ does not recall signing any documents wherein he agreed to the DIA policy”. So, the argument is the DIA should not be stepping into this situation but again Title 9 should apply.
Almost all large companies have similar training AND require acknowledgement and agreement to be bound by the policies and there procedures and powers.
See page 9 par. 29 where it states “TJ does not recall signing any documents wherein he agreed to the DIA policy”. Again, the argument is he is not bound by the policy and DIA should keep their noses out of this and let Title 9 apply. However, it does cause me some concern that his statement is vague, I don’t recall signing. If he signed something then a copy would have been given to him or could easily be accessed. My fear in regards to this is the UI will attach a copy of it to their response.
 
#186      

Mr. Tibbs

Mr. Tibbs
southeast DuPage
Mr. Tibbs
FloridaMan said:
Exactly. Which is why I expressed fear in yesterday's thread that they would insert themselves into this and muck things up. There are years and years of history to predict such behavior. Just my opinion, but they often create more problems than they solve - especially so when it comes to the DIA. They are nothing if not political hacks - again, JMO.
Click to expand...
tru dat

they have disappointed me , in general , for YEARS .
the politics they cling to and practice just don't suit me
 
#187      

fatt lacosse

F
fatt lacosse
i believe i now understand all of the legal things here except for the scope of next thursday's court appearance.

so now i'm trying to understand why shannon's lawyer filed for the TRO at this juncture, and there could only be two reasons

1. the case being dismissed, charges being dropped or this whole thing going away somehow is not in any way on the table next thursday, it's beyond the scope of that step of the legal process

2. TSJ camp doesn't really believe the case will be dismissed if it proceeds further

am i wrong to think this?
 
#188      

Warren Carter Fanclub

Warren Carter Fanclub
Warren Carter Fanclub
FloridaMan said:
Exactly. Which is why I expressed fear in yesterday's thread that they would insert themselves into this and muck things up. There are years and years of history to predict such behavior. Just my opinion, but they often create more problems than they solve - especially so when it comes to the DIA. They are nothing if not political hacks - again, JMO.
Click to expand...
I understand the optics side of it, but there is no way the University was blind sided by the TRO filing and can't imagine TSJ's attorneys, Josh and Brad didn't feel like the Board of Trustees were going to, at the most, just put up any more than a token fight to look good to the public. This doesn't make sense. But then again, it's the U of I Board of Trustees.
 
#189      

Fighter of the Nightman

Fighter of the Nightman
Chicago, IL
Fighter of the Nightman
WeWillWhen said:
Yeah, I just don’t see any possibility that a 12 person jury could ever find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on these facts.

This isn’t a “he said/she said,” this is an “entire room full of people didn’t see it/she said” — even the accuser’s friend didn’t see anything happen. THAT, coupled with what appears to be a total lack of physical evidence + that this supposedly all happened in 30 seconds with no words exchanged and another woman on TJ’s arm + the accuser not reporting this until after going home and hunting for a perp online, creates reasonable doubt.

If, in addition, there is any substance to the online rumors that this accuser has a history of doing this … wow. I have trouble understanding how the charge was brought.
Click to expand...
This perfectly summarizes why some of us are so annoyed by some people lecturing us about the seriousness of the charge or that Illinois is a respected academic institution or that sexual assault victims didn’t receive justice 20 years ago … I’m not running for office! I’m not assembling a platform! I don’t care about anything but the facts in this case that we have available and whether or not they seem like enough to accuse TJ of such a serious offense. Personally, I think everyone here knows deep down that they do NOT seem like enough. And I’d wager some are doing some serious mental gymnastics and word salad just to painstakingly appear in a certain light on the *issue of sexual assault* or something, leading to condescending accusations that we are like “looking at this through O&B glasses.” 🙄

Each case is different. And so far, this case stinks to high Heaven. And nobody should be talked down to for coming to that (rather obvious IMO) conclusion here.
 
#190      

thefalcon5

T
thefalcon5
AdamFletchersBicep said:
This seems to not be in line with the thought that the university is ‘in on it’ with the goal of getting TSJ back on the court quicker. Seems quite the opposite actually
Click to expand...
Definitely puts the university/Whitman/BU is a tough spot if the TRO is granted.

You almost have to rewrite the policy dictating suspension. Then Whitman/BU have to decide if they want to play TSJ. I think those who read this and other boards as well as follow along have a pretty good understanding and realize the decision to play or not to play TSJ is simple, but the gen pop do not.

Not all too surprising the university forced this to be kicked up to a fed level, IMO. I do think if it’s granted that it’s much more concrete appearing and not just some home cookin. It’ll be easier for those less informed to swallow.
 
#192      

CharliedonSurf

C
CharliedonSurf
I think the motion for TRO stated his January 18th criminal hearing is for his arraignment. I.e. read the charges in open court, enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, discussing how case will proceed deadlines. Etc. It's essentially his first appearance in court on the case...obviously a plea agreement could have been reached before then I'm which case they'd tell the judge that they have an agreement etc.
 
#193      

skyIdub

skyIdub
Winged Warrior
skyIdub
Fighter of the Nightman said:
This perfectly summarizes why some of us are so annoyed by some people lecturing us about the seriousness of the charge or that Illinois is a respected academic institution or that sexual assault victims didn’t receive justice 20 years ago … I’m not running for office! I’m not assembling a platform! I don’t care about anything but the facts in this case that we have available and whether or not they seem like enough to accuse TJ of such a serious offense. Personally, I think everyone here knows deep down that they do NOT seem like enough. And I’d wager some are doing some serious mental gymnastics and word salad just to painstakingly appear in a certain light on the *issue of sexual assault* or something, leading to condescending accusations that we are like “looking at this through O&B glasses.” 🙄

Each case is different. And so far, this case stinks to high Heaven. And nobody should be talked down to for coming to that (rather obvious IMO) conclusion here.
Click to expand...

As the Fonz would say, exactomundo.
 
#194      

GatorMcKlusky

G
GatorMcKlusky
Any insider wanna let us know how the rest of team's psyche is these days? As an Illini fan, I'm always prepared for the worst...and I'm never disappointed.
 
#196      

DJM

D
DJM
WhiteHorseWings said:
Generally due to better judges and more so less home court advantage. Not sure home court applies to either here.
Click to expand...
Incorrect
Because it involves federal law or the interpretation thereof.
Title lX is a Federal law
 
Status
Not open for further replies.