Sport Horse Spotlight

Real Estate Spotlight

Sale Spotlight

  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George Morris on the SS list

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

    Hey, I am HL Mom and Horsegirl's Mom. I have both my desktop and laptop running, and I only now noticed the logins are different. I believe that is a relic from when I was hospitalized and only had my laptop (and no passwords!) and had to create a new log-in. Not trying to confuse anyone.

    I don't know who Yankee Duchess is--but I would love to know his or her background! I have no shame in stating this appears to be a more learned person than I am.
    Kaiser Soze!
    "Dogs give and give and give. Cats are the gift that keeps on grifting." —Bradley Trevor Greive

    Comment


    • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

      Then go back and read the post in which she enumerated 4 specific points on which she asked for clarification as to what SafeSport’s actual procedures were. Probably the post in which people attacked her for using the phrase “alleged victim”.
      From a flow chart as the source. I want actual citations. And I also have noted you haven’t given me your opinion on what exactly could be made better about Safe Sport

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NoSuchPerson View Post

        There sure seems to be a lot of overlap, backslapping, and defending between what YankeeDuchess, HLMom, and Horsegirl'sMom are posting. Just sayin'.
        Yep...
        Let me apologize in advance.

        Comment


        • From the Lopez article:

          “But in its ruling to reinstate Jean Lopez Monday, the three-member arbitration panel said their was insufficient evidence to uphold the ban without testimony of the three survivors of his alleged abuse at the Dec. 27 hearing and because Safe Sport officials did not provide the panel with sworn deposition transcripts or affidavits supporting the women’s allegations, according to a confidential Safe Sport document, obtained by the Southern California News group, which outlined the ruling.”

          However,

          “Safe Sport officials said Allard and other attorneys for the survivors turned down an offer to sign affidavits the center proposed offering as evidence in arbitration hearing. Statements made by the three survivors, Kay Poe, Mandy Meloon and Heidi Gilbert, during Safe Sport’s initial investigation of Lopez were entered as evidence for the hearing, according the arbitration ruling document.” (quoted from the article)

          So, did SS fail to provide testimony they already had from the investigation? Did the attorney’s for the survivors really decline to help provide evidence via signed affidavits? Not talking about live testimony at the arbitration here, but submitted written documents, which perhaps could have changed the final decision.

          Seems like a big mess that allowed the Lopez bros to get off the hook.

          Am I missing something right in front of my eyes?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

            Oh my god
            right?! somehow I can just be one person on multiple devices and not pretend to be two people agreeing with each other. I think I've been cothing wrong all along.
            Let me apologize in advance.

            Comment


            • mountainbells you found a loop hole. A loop hole that should be closed somehow much to the chagrin of the people clutching pearls over the poor innocent men folk.

              Comment


              • I think mountainbells did find a loophole, as used by the Lopez brothers.

                Now, HOW do we proposed to close that loophole using rational, unemotional thinking?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 4LeafCloverFarm View Post
                  For me, these two statements seem at odds with one another. But that is just me. Perhaps you could elaborate.


                  There is zero contradiction between those two statements. As a private person without the power to incarcerate anyone, sanction anyone, or mount a violent coup, in my own mind, I am certain that OJ killed two people, GM is guilty as hell, and ***** should not be president.

                  However, if I were in a position of power, such as the judge in OJ’s trial, the arbitrator in GM’s appeal, or I somehow had actual control of the US armed forces in January 2017, in that position of power, I would say “OJ has been acquitted by a jury of his peers”, “GM is still presumed innocent until his appeal fails”, and “it is vital to support a peaceful transition of power, even when the democratic process really messes up”.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mountainbells View Post
                    From the Lopez article:

                    “But in its ruling to reinstate Jean Lopez Monday, the three-member arbitration panel said their was insufficient evidence to uphold the ban without testimony of the three survivors of his alleged abuse at the Dec. 27 hearing and because Safe Sport officials did not provide the panel with sworn deposition transcripts or affidavits supporting the women’s allegations, according to a confidential Safe Sport document, obtained by the Southern California News group, which outlined the ruling.”

                    However,

                    “Safe Sport officials said Allard and other attorneys for the survivors turned down an offer to sign affidavits the center proposed offering as evidence in arbitration hearing. Statements made by the three survivors, Kay Poe, Mandy Meloon and Heidi Gilbert, during Safe Sport’s initial investigation of Lopez were entered as evidence for the hearing, according the arbitration ruling document.” (quoted from the article)

                    So, did SS fail to provide testimony they already had from the investigation? Did the attorney’s for the survivors really decline to help provide evidence via signed affidavits? Not talking about live testimony at the arbitration here, but submitted written documents, which perhaps could have changed the final decision.

                    Seems like a big mess that allowed the Lopez bros to get off the hook.

                    Am I missing something right in front of my eyes?
                    Yes, exactly my point!

                    Here is something that non-lawyers should know, given that JAMS arbitrators are generally former judges. The following types of evidence are virtually never accepted in court, and will be viewed as unpersuasive and likely inadmissible by anyone schooled in the law (like the JAMS arbitrators):

                    1. Hearsay (e.g., having the SS investigator testify about what other witnesses told him--which apparently is what SS tried to offer at the Lopez arbitration).

                    2. Witness statements that are not under oath. Whether the statements are oral or in writing, any judge worth his or her salt is going to want the witness to swear under penalty of perjury.

                    Now that SS knows that what they relied on as "evidence" in Lopez was rejected by the judges at JAMS, perhaps they will rethink the need to be able to subpoena witnesses to come and testify if they want their sanctions to hold up. Just a friendly suggestion that will HELP SafeSport make its sanctions stick. :-)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DarkBayUnicorn View Post
                      I think mountainbells did find a loophole, as used by the Lopez brothers.

                      Now, HOW do we proposed to close that loophole using rational, unemotional thinking?
                      Could it be that I already offered a suggestion as to how SS should do this?! Once again...an obvious solution is the same one used in regular JAMS arbitrations, small claims cases, etc: a rule allowing use of subpoenas!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

                        Could it be that I already offered a suggestion as to how SS should do this?! Once again...an obvious solution is the same one used in regular JAMS arbitrations, small claims cases, etc: a rule allowing use of subpoenas!
                        Or require all statements be signed. I still disagree with forcing live testimony more than once.

                        Honest question, how would refusing to sign a statement given to Safe Sport influence the civil trial?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                          There is zero contradiction between those two statements. As a private person without the power to incarcerate anyone, sanction anyone, or mount a violent coup, in my own mind, I am certain that OJ killed two people, GM is guilty as hell, and ***** should not be president.

                          However, if I were in a position of power, such as the judge in OJ’s trial, the arbitrator in GM’s appeal, or I somehow had actual control of the US armed forces in January 2017, in that position of power, I would say “OJ has been acquitted by a jury of his peers”, “GM is still presumed innocent until his appeal fails”, and “it is vital to support a peaceful transition of power, even when the democratic process really messes up”.
                          Presidents can’t decide guilt or innocence. The Judge does only if it’s a bench trial and people even in criminal court are still considered guilty during the appeals process.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                            There is zero contradiction between those two statements. As a private person without the power to incarcerate anyone, sanction anyone, or mount a violent coup, in my own mind, I am certain that OJ killed two people, GM is guilty as hell, and ***** should not be president.

                            However, if I were in a position of power, such as the judge in OJ’s trial, the arbitrator in GM’s appeal, or I somehow had actual control of the US armed forces in January 2017, in that position of power, I would say “OJ has been acquitted by a jury of his peers”, “GM is still presumed innocent until his appeal fails”, and “it is vital to support a peaceful transition of power, even when the democratic process really messes up”.
                            Fair enough.

                            I guess I personally don't see the appeal (under SS) any differently from an appeal of an HR decision or an appeal of a court trial. The appeal may change the final outcome, yes. But, I guess I don't hold my judgement for that process. Perhaps that makes me a bad person or ill-informed or whatever someone might call it. For instance, I don't have to wait for an appeal of someone like Larry Nassar to determine he is guilty of the crimes to which he was accused, tried and convicted. But some smart attorney might come along, find a loop hole or procedure that wasn't followed or something, file an appeal and get him out of his sentence. Would I then call him innocent? Absolutely not.
                            ~~ How do you catch a loose horse? Make a noise like a carrot! - British Cavalry joke ~~

                            Comment


                            • Maybe if people actually read the links on SS page that tell exactly what the process are and the procedures. They have them advises the accused and the accuser.
                              They do not list time frames for everything- neither does the law. Investigations can take as long as they take, and they keep all parties informed.

                              Maybe if those in such a tizzy actually educated themselves they wouldn’t look like raving morons.
                              Come to the dark side, we have cookies

                              Comment


                              • Great posts by DarkBayUnicorn! That lays out everything that is wrong with the "Overhul" group.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                                  There are WAY more victims of rape and sexual assault than there are people falsely accused.

                                  https://www.rainn.org/statistics/vic...exual-violence

                                  here is a link for some statistics and that’s just from what has been reported.

                                  The percent of wrongfully accused is not ever going to out weigh the victims. It’s a straw man argument.
                                  “The percent of wrongfully accused is not ever going to out weigh the [percent] of victims.” True statement. Absolutely true. I don’t need more statistics.

                                  Also absolutely irrelevant. A credible and legitimate process needs some degree of procedural protection for the minuscule, even theoretical, accused but innocent person. Unless you somehow know, a priori, or by consulting god, that exactly 100% of the accused are indeed guilty, there need to be procedural protections. The legitimate question is, what level of procedural protections correctly balances to protection of the accused with the ability of SafeSport to successfully ban those found guilty.

                                  Please, please explain to me why the fact that only 6% or 2% or 1% of sexual assault claims are false implies that there is no legitimate discussion on the desirability of altering some aspects of the SafeSport process.
                                  Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Aug. 27, 2019, 03:48 PM.

                                  Comment


                                  • It seems like the Lopez Bros and their lawyers didn't have to do anything about "a loophole"..the claimant's attorneys and SS took care of it for them. Maybe I got it wrong. Question: Are statements given by claimants during the investigation, sworn or otherwise rendered useful by a judge? IOW, would the already submitted, original statements by the claimants be even considered by a judge (or in this case, an arbitrator).? Is there even a way to find out the answer? Fisk123?

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                      “The percent of wrongfully accused is not ever going to out weight the [percent] of victims.” True statement. Absolutely true. I don’t need more statistics.

                                      Also absolutely irrelevant. A credible and legitimate process needs some degree of procedural protection for the minuscule, even theoretical, accused but innocent person. If you somehow know, a priori, or by consulting god, that exactly 100% of the accused are indeed guilty, there need to be procedural protections. The legitimate question is, what level of procedural protections correctly balances to protection of the accused with the ability of SafeSport to successfully ban
                                      those found guilty.

                                      Please, please explain to me why the fact that only 6% or 2% or 1% of sexual assault claims are false implies that there is no legitimate discussion on the desirability of altering some aspects of the SafeSport process.
                                      Again what part do you want to alter? What part do you think could be tweaked to make it fool proof? I cannot comment or discuss altering Safe Sport if I don’t know how you think it should be altered.

                                      ETA: The point of those statistics I linked was to demonstrate how misplaced the worry is over false accusations. I’m more concerned with the numbers in the link.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by DarkBayUnicorn View Post
                                        I think mountainbells did find a loophole, as used by the Lopez brothers.

                                        Now, HOW do we proposed to close that loophole using rational, unemotional thinking?
                                        I think it is only a loophole if there is a concurrent or upcoming civil suit right?

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by 4LeafCloverFarm View Post

                                          Fair enough.

                                          I guess I personally don't see the appeal (under SS) any differently from an appeal of an HR decision or an appeal of a court trial. The appeal may change the final outcome, yes. But, I guess I don't hold my judgement for that process. Perhaps that makes me a bad person or ill-informed or whatever someone might call it. For instance, I don't have to wait for an appeal of someone like Larry Nassar to determine he is guilty of the crimes to which he was accused, tried and convicted. But some smart attorney might come along, find a loop hole or procedure that wasn't followed or something, file an appeal and get him out of his sentence. Would I then call him innocent? Absolutely not.
                                          Part of the issue is that in the SafeSport procedure I don’t think that it is the investigation part that leads to the announcement of ban that is supposed to be impartial and balanced. I see the investigation and announcement of sanction as analogous to the police investigation and the DA bringing charges and the determination of the penalty, conditional on the determination of guilt.

                                          When the ban is announced, GM can decline to appeal, analogous to pleading guilty, and accept the sanction, or appeal, which requires SafeSport to meet the burden of proof that the respondent is guilty, by a preponderance of the evidence.
                                          SafeSport is analogous to the police and prosecutor, not the judge. The respondent is analogous to the defendant. The two opposing parties (SafeSport and respondent) are adversaries is front of the independent arbitrator (analogous to the judge) during the appeal.
                                          Unlike the criminal justice system, I think that the respondent does not get his initial “day in court” in front of an independent “judge” until the appeal. For that reason I have some sympathy with delaying the sanction until after the appeal fails. Therefore, even though I know that GM is guilty as hell in the privacy of my own mind, I can agree with his supporters that he hasn’t fully had his day in court until after the appeal fails.
                                          Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Aug. 27, 2019, 01:34 AM.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X