TSJ Thread

[IlliniKat91]

Agree wi

Agree, however, I have to believe if Terrance is found guilty of this, then a larger issue is why Whitman allowed him to play at all this year.
So, if a TRO is granted, it would seem to signal that the case against him is weak.

They won't be looking at evidence from the case to determine the TRO. From what I read, the argument is that the University violated Title IX. That's what'll hinge on, not the strength of the Douglas Country DA's case against him

 

[mrh vet]

Take a look at the Zoom photo that Dan posted from Scott Richey's article. I think it's ominous looking at that the image from the DCSO (Douglas County Sherriff's Office) Correctional Facility video (lower right) in the same video conference with Terrence Shannon (upper left). There are several big matchups coming in this next meeting on 2/23. The most obvious one will pit Mark P. Sutter (upper right) and Tricia Bath (lower left) against DA Suzanne Valdez and however is assisting her (maybe again Asst DA Brian Dieter, who was also in the 1/18 meeting, but wasn't in the photo).

Another part of a long-waged battle will continue between Judge Sally Pokorny and DA Valdez. The fact that these two women don't like working with each other, and, seemingly, don't like each other, could be a good thing for TSJ. The real question there is, could that growing bad blood help Shannon and his lawyers persuade Pokorny that there isn't probable cause on one or both charges on 2/23. Regarding the bad blood, it shouldn't work that way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

It shouldn't is right but when you make your bed you have to live with it. Judge Pokorny testified against the DA in her disciplinary hearing. No, she does not like her and no she does not like working with her but per testimony in the disciplinary hearing she does not trust her. Pretty powerful stuff. If the TRO fails what should otherwise be a routine prelim will likely be his best shot

 

[abchew2]

Delete, wrong thread

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

Agree wi

Agree, however, I have to believe if Terrance is found guilty of this, then a larger issue is why Whitman allowed him to play at all this year.
So, if a TRO is granted, it would seem to signal that the case against him is weak.

Whitman allowed him to play from 9/15 - 12/27 because there was no formal charges filed until 12/27.

JW and UI have no idea what other evidence the Lawrence PD & DA have , if any .

The fed judge who is hearing the TRO case also has no idea about the strength of the evidence in the rape charge .

 

[Illiniindian]

They won't be looking at evidence from the case to determine the TRO. From what I read, the argument is that the University violated Title IX. That's what'll hinge on, not the strength of the Douglas Country DA's case against him

Yes, but I thought Terrance’s lawyers will argue that the TRO should be granted based on how circumstantial the evidence is.

However, thank you for the clarification.

 

[abchew2]

They won't be looking at evidence from the case to determine the TRO. From what I read, the argument is that the University violated Title IX. That's what'll hinge on, not the strength of the Douglas Country DA's case against him

I gotta believe if the TRO is granted and then Brad plays him they don’t believe the evidence is strong (which is what many insiders have reported here). Whitman isn’t an idiot and as tough as it may be, they would take it to another level if they really saw this backfiring on the University. They can take the heat of playing him when they are confident he will not be found guilty when all is said and done. They can’t really hide behind “the courts allowed it” if he is found guilty and they play him.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

I suppose it’s possible (likely, even?) the judge made her ruling and notified all the parties involved, we just don’t know it yet. If that’s the case, it’s obviously not a ruling in TSJ’s favor.

 

[FAR Penthouse]

Take a look at the Zoom photo that Dan posted from Scott Richey's article. I think it's ominous looking at that the image from the DCSO (Douglas County Sherriff's Office) Correctional Facility video (lower right) in the same video conference with Terrence Shannon (upper left). There are several big matchups coming in this next meeting on 2/23. The most obvious one will pit Mark P. Sutter (upper right) and Tricia Bath (lower left) against DA Suzanne Valdez and however is assisting her (maybe again Asst DA Brian Dieter, who was also in the 1/18 meeting, but wasn't in the photo).

Another part of a long-waged battle will continue between Judge Sally Pokorny and DA Valdez. The fact that these two women don't like working with each other, and, seemingly, don't like each other, could be a good thing for TSJ. The real question there is, could that growing bad blood help Shannon and his lawyers persuade Pokorny that there isn't probable cause on one or both charges on 2/23. Regarding the bad blood, it shouldn't work that way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Unless Kansas is vastly different fron Illinois the prelim only applies to Felony charges, not misdemeanors.

 

[illinifan1971]

Hopefully there is a ruling today and judge declares him innocent and throws out this TRO! Fingers crossed!

 

[Konnie]

There is an interesting discussion with an attorney, Mitch Gilfilan, who gave some unbiased comments about the TRO. It is a PODCast on 1-18-24 on the WDWS wedsite around the - 28:40 time.

Play



-27:52

Hour 1 | Mitch Gilfillan | 1-18-24​

 

[2qtslow]

The longer this goes the more I think the judge is considering ruling in TJ’s favor

I'm a lawyer, and I think his chances have improved tremendously.

I'd still put them under 10%, but that is a whole better than they were last week.

 

[BlueLeader]

There is an interesting discussion with an attorney, Mitch Gilfilan, who gave some unbiased comments about the TRO. It is a PODCast on 1-18-24 on the WDWS wedsite around the - 28:40 time.

Play



-27:52

Hour 1 | Mitch Gilfillan | 1-18-24​

This is great but Gilfilan for some reason didn't bring up the largest pro-Title IX arguement and that is that the trip was apparently expensed:

 

[Illini4Chief]

There is an interesting discussion with an attorney, Mitch Gilfilan, who gave some unbiased comments about the TRO. It is a PODCast on 1-18-24 on the WDWS wedsite around the - 28:40 time.

Play



-27:52

Hour 1 | Mitch Gilfillan | 1-18-24​

Great podcast.....makes some good clarity to the "mess"......seems the hinge here is Dyshawn Hobson. Is Hobson the one that drove to Kansas? Is he a paid/compensation employee of the University.....The status of what role Hobson is.....seems to be the key point?

 

[IlliniKat91]

This is great but Gilfilan for some reason didn't bring up the largest pro-Title IX arguement and that is that the trip was apparently expensed:

The one to have him turn himself in was, but what about September? If that wasn't expensed, I would think that weakens the Title IX argument

 

[SuperintendentChalmers]

The one to have him turn himself in was, but what about September? If that wasn't expensed, I would think that weakens the Title IX argument

The September trip was not expensed and the manager did not request payment for the time he spent on the trip. That's a major point in the school's brief opposing the TRO.

 

[derrick6]

I have a bad feeling that the judge is waiting till Friday afternoon, the typical time for a bad news press release, ro release her ruling.

Bad news for whom? Two sides here and I would imagine ruling in favor of the TRO is more controversial than the alternative.

That said, I do agree with the probable outcome.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

The one to have him turn himself in was, but what about September? If that wasn't expensed, I would think that weakens the Title IX argument

I think a solid argument could be made that if you expensed one aspect of the case, then you’ve essentially conceded that this is a Title IX case as a whole. But of course, IANAL.

 

[Wrightandjohnstreet]

This is great but Gilfilan for some reason didn't bring up the largest pro-Title IX arguement and that is that the trip was apparently expensed:

this isn't the same trip. this receipt you shared is Jan 1st and Jan 2nd, which are the dates they drove him back there to turn himself in after he was charged. they did not expense anything from the trip in question to Lawrence in September - was confirmed that Alexander told the GA he could but nothing was ever submitted. Weakens the argument in my opinion

 

[texillwek]

this isn't the same trip. this receipt you shared is Jan 1st and Jan 2nd, which are the dates they drove him back there to turn himself in after he was charged. they did not expense anything from the trip in question to Lawrence in September - was confirmed that Alexander told the GA he could but nothing was ever submitted. Weakens the argument in my opinion

In my mind, the mere fact he advised that September trip could be expensed makes me think it was UI-sanctioned. Whether it was expensed or not doesn't change that.

Like, in my job, I am to be reimbursed for mileage if I drive my own vehicle. If it ends up being an insignificant amount, I don't bother going through the motions for reimbursement but that doesn't negate the fact that it was "business travel".

Just my two cents (for which I will not be seeking reimbursement)

 

[Wrightandjohnstreet]

In my mind, the mere fact he advised that September trip could be expensed makes me think it was UI-sanctioned. Whether it was expensed or not doesn't change that.

Like, in my job, I am to be reimbursed for mileage if I drive my own vehicle. If it ends up being an insignificant amount, I don't bother going through the motions for reimbursement but that doesn't negate the fact that it was "business travel".

Just my two cents (for which I will not be seeking reimbursement)

yeah think it could be perceived either way by the judge, but its certainly weaker than if they actually submitted it and the university reimbursed it on record.

 

[Butters]

In my mind, the mere fact he advised that September trip could be expensed makes me think it was UI-sanctioned. Whether it was expensed or not doesn't change that.

In his affidavit, Josh explicitly says the DIA would NOT have approved reimbursement because Hobson (the grad assistant) was not acting in his official capacity. So, according to him at least, the September trip COULD NOT be expensed.

 

[Illini90]

The September trip was not expensed and the manager did not request payment for the time he spent on the trip. That's a major point in the school's brief opposing the TRO.

where this gets tricky is a coach told Hobson to drive them and look after them.

 

[SuperintendentChalmers]

In his affidavit, Josh explicitly says the DIA would NOT have approved reimbursement because Hobson (the grad assistant) was not acting in his official capacity. So, according to him at least, the September trip COULD NOT be expensed.

A coach using school funds to partially fund an offseason, out-of-state pleasure trip for two players would raise a new set of problems.

Was Alexander ordering a lower-level employee to complete this task or was he offering wise advice in the way that any mature person might if a college student they knew were planning a red-eye driving trip, particularly after already being involved in a drowsy driving accident?

 

[LvilleILL]

We should have an answer on the TRO pretty soon

 

[Illini90]

We should have an answer on the TRO pretty soon

Any feeling on which way it’ll go?