Stallion Spotlight

0201171029b-1

Real Estate Spotlight

Spratt_air 1
  • 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

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You�re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it�details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums� policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it�s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users� profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses � Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it�s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who�s selling it, it doesn�t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions � Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services � Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products � While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements � Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be �bumped� excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues � Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators� discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you�d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user�s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

George Morris on the SS list

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

  • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post


    Indeed, I know nothing about the upper levels of the H/J community. Everything I know about George Morris I learned on this thread.

    Who is being accused of “spreading false information about BNTs being banned by SafeSport BECAUSE they are a BNT”?

    I thought Cupcake was bashing Horsegirl’s Mom for saying that a non truncated sample was necessary to get meaningful statistics on the rate at which bans are overturned on appeal. Horsegirl’s Mom was absolutely right about that.

    I didn’t even object to Cupcake slinging around a mild insult, just pointed out that “clutching pearls” is sort of tired at this point.
    Why are you picking fights over stuff that doesn’t matter? You have done enough in this thread to help the anti Safe Sport people. All you know of George Morris is in this thread..... why then are you trying to be relevant? You said the same thing in the Rob Gage thread. Prey tell why are you even apart of this discussion?

    What exactly is your agenda? The only threads on this BB you have contributed to is the Rob Gage thread and this one. In both you admit to not knowing anything about them.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post
      I want to add to I don’t think your awful nor do I have any malice against you. I just think you need to step out of your trial attorney shoes and you need to stop ignoring evidence that proves your theories wrong. I think your logic is in the right place, I just don’t think you are educated enough on sex crimes and what people go through. That’s not meant to be a criticism by the way. I know an awful lot because it’s something I do extra for work.
      Well thank you for saying that, Denali. I'll agree--I know a lot more about being a lawyer than what it is like to be a victim of a sex crime, which I am fortunate enough not to have experienced. We all tend to view the world through the prism of what we know best.

      If you do work relating to sex crimes, then you know there are agonizing issues at the intersection of sex crimes and the legal system. Prosecutors face the same problem that SafeSport may sometimes face: they want to prosecute a sex crime defendant, but the victim doesn't want to testify. (Same thing happens in domestic violence cases). Prosecutors can and do subpoena the victims to testify--sometimes even children. I never worked in sex crimes but I imagine it would be heartbreaking.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

        Well thank you for saying that, Denali. I'll agree--I know a lot more about being a lawyer than what it is like to be a victim of a sex crime, which I am fortunate enough not to have experienced. We all tend to view the world through the prism of what we know best.

        If you do work relating to sex crimes, then you know there are agonizing issues at the intersection of sex crimes and the legal system. Prosecutors face the same problem that SafeSport may sometimes face: they want to prosecute a sex crime defendant, but the victim doesn't want to testify. (Same thing happens in domestic violence cases). Prosecutors can and do subpoena the victims to testify--sometimes even children. I never worked in sex crimes but I imagine it would be heartbreaking.
        What I know about trials is both attorneys put on a show and that is what wins. I truly believe your heart is in the right place. Here is what you have got to understand. Many cases go unreported. I’ll speak only to my own profession. In the military we have to reporting options. Restricted and unrestricted. The majority choose restricted because they are afraid of retribution. Restricted allows the victims help without the publicity of an unrestricted report. They will even get a transfer and no one is the wiser. Unrestricted involves the command and NCIS. So same as a rape victim going to the police. It really is traumatic to go to law enforcement because people can and will say the person was drinking, the person was slept around etc. It’s hard. What’s also hard is the majority of rape and sexual assaults are committed by people the victim knew and trusted.

        Again I totally get the line of legal thinking you have even though I disagree with it. But the the facts I stated above are really what you need to know. I get an easy loop hole closer to prevent an over turn like what happened in the Lopez case would be subpoenas. But think about it this way, would you want your daughter to, it’s an extreme I know, end up in jail for contempt of court because she couldn’t mentally handle testifying during arbitration? Would you put your daughter through that?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ynl063w View Post
          And after he explained his situation to everyone who accepted his invitation to his house, he did not have any kind of unwanted physical or sexual contact with anyone in the neighborhood, minor or adult.
          But how would you know this? Unless you are able to Quantum Leap Scott Bakula-style into all your neighbor's bodies and minds, you have no idea if it's true. You can say he was never publicly arrested for molesting anyone, that would be true. But if he is as charming as you say, he could have easily groomed someone(s) and they would never have told you. Even if you asked everyone in your neighborhood every single day, you still don't know for sure. That's the nature of these crimes.

          I am not bashing you for believing him. It's possible his story was mostly or entirely true. But how could you possibly know he never did anything to anyone else?

          I'm terribly sorry about your brother. So awful.

          Comment


          • Just chiming in to say I have appreciated Horsegirl's Mom's (and others) contributions. I, as an equine professional, don't have Clue #1 where to start googling any of this nor the time to do so, and I am definitely more educated than I was 30+ pages ago. So, to pull someone's specific example, when someone IRL comes at me with "But Bonnie Navin said!!!" I will have answers, thanks to HGMs (& others) questions, and y'alls' begrudging & salty answers to them.

            I don't know why some think this conversation is just happening in the COTH sandbox of a half-dozen participants. And helloooo, most of us aren't lawyers. We might need this stuff spelled out, perhaps even repeated. Thanks to HGM's incredibly patient tenacity, *a lot* has been broken down into bits us laymen can actually digest & then regurgitate with some semblance of authority.

            In closing, could we perhaps stop with the self-appointed refereeing? By COTH standards, this is some rather thought-provoking discussion, more my style than the daily ration of breech brands & trainer bashing. I don't really have time to be logging in and fretting over How to Post on COTH Without Getting Railed to demonstrate my participation in this conversation, but I am enjoying the read.
            EHJ | FB | #140 | watch | #insta

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

              Again I totally get the line of legal thinking you have even though I disagree with it. But the the facts I stated above are really what you need to know. I get an easy loop hole closer to prevent an over turn like what happened in the Lopez case would be subpoenas. But think about it this way, would you want your daughter to, it’s an extreme I know, end up in jail for contempt of court because she couldn’t mentally handle testifying during arbitration? Would you put your daughter through that?
              And how do you weigh that against the possibility of another child, perhaps your daughter, being molested?

              Honest question. Clearly I just demonstrated in my post above that I don't know enough to be opining on the use of subpoenas, so I am not, but there is a moral struggle beyond the line you're drawing.
              EHJ | FB | #140 | watch | #insta

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                Why are you picking fights over stuff that doesn’t matter? You have done enough in this thread to help the anti Safe Sport people. All you know of George Morris is in this thread..... why then are you trying to be relevant? You said the same thing in the Rob Gage thread. Prey tell why are you even apart of this discussion?

                What exactly is your agenda? The only threads on this BB you have contributed to is the Rob Gage thread and this one. In both you admit to not knowing anything about them.
                I finally see where your hostility is coming from. You perceive me of “having done enough on this thread to help the anti-SafeSport people”.

                I am ardently pro SafeSport. I think George Morris is guilty as hell. I’m the one who has been calling Bonnie Navin out for brazenly claiming that “90%” of bans are overturned on appeal. I never remotely believed it and it looks like we are getting closer to getting the statistics we need.

                Why all the hostility to Horsegirl’s Mom and to me if we point out that a nontruncated sample is necessary?

                The legitimate statistics based on a nontruncated sample might look slightly less favorable to SafeSport than those based on a truncated sample? You’d prefer to lie with statistics if that makes SafeSport look better?

                I fully support SafeSport. To me the way to improve the legitimacy and credibility of SafeSport is to consider ways it might be made better at succeeding in getting the bad guys, and assuring trainers that there are good procedural protections for someone false accused.

                I think there is some validity in the charge by ISWGers that the ban is imposed prior to a finding of “guilt” because the respondent does not have the opportunity to make his case in front of an independent adjudicator until the appeal. Sometimes you have to give the devil his due, and not just scream “You’re the devil”.

                The difference between us is that you think the best way to defend SafeSport is to have a knee-jerk negative response to anyone who entertains the notion that a change in procedure might improve it. Some of your posts have come so obviously from jerking knees as opposed to your brain, that I found them difficult to understand. In particular, the one in which I pointed out that in my view the part of the process which was designed to be “fair” was more the appeal part than the investigation part. You stated that since neither party appears before an arbitrator during the investigation, that seemed fair to you. Even though, with no arbitrator, SafeSport unilaterally issues a sanction based on its assessment of its own investigation.

                I think the more effective way to defend SafeSport is to get the valid statistics, and discuss whether possibly there might be ways to improve it.

                I also think that liberal use of insults or giggling when someone calls me a “raving moron” or acting smug when you wrongly decide I‘m an alter does not add to the force of your arguments.

                Why does it matter that I didn’t know RG or GM as equestrians? By far the most useful poster here is FiSk123, and she is not an equestrian at all.

                That said, I will endeavor again not to reply to your posts.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by omare View Post
                  I thought safe sport extended to amateurs in addition to minors? Generally I could see a person that was seen as "abusing" their position of authority (or violating in a similar way their professional code of ethics) that put them on the sex offender list would rightly be banned from sports to protect both minors and amateurs.
                  It’s not limited to just minors and amateurs. It can be anybody, including an adult employee, since that situation could also involve an imbalance of power. I believe the short term suspension of Tommy Serio involved an employee, from the version I heard. And again, that case seemed to show that safe sport worked as intended. He was suspended briefly (for about two weeks?) during the investigation, then taken off the suspension list immediately following the conclusion of the investigation.

                  It’s possible that they are concentrating on cases involving minors at the moment, especially if they are short staffed. Those might seem more urgent and also clear-cut, as well as illegal in many cases.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by dags View Post

                    And how do you weigh that against the possibility of another child, perhaps your daughter, being molested?

                    Honest question. Clearly I just demonstrated in my post above that I don't know enough to be opining on the use of subpoenas, so I am not, but there is a moral struggle beyond the line you're drawing.
                    Honestly in my experience having an a way to report sexual assault/rape without the general public knowing who prevents a lot and helps a lot. Safe Sport isn’t there for the accused. It’s there for the victims. Safe Sport is about the victims. That gives people closure, knowing they can carry on with their sport knowing their assailant can’t.

                    Sometimes closure isn’t about people going to jail. It’s about seeing someone being sanctioned for their behavior. Sometimes it’s about telling your story to people who believe you and try their best to sanction the person who committed the crime. Sometimes it’s just about telling your story and having people believe you and helping you move forward.

                    Safe Sports goal is to eliminate sexual predators. That’s a great goal. I bet Safe Sport knows it’s a lofty goal. Like I said, sometimes it’s good enough to have an avenue for people to say what happened. Maybe it doesn’t lead to an immediate sanction. But allowing victims to tell their story, believing them and helping them is way more powerful than a jail sentence. That’s why Safe Sport is a good thing. They listen. They don’t pass judgement and call the person a liar. They just ask for more if they need it.

                    Comment


                    • Well, while we're at it, I'll put in my oar also. I do have some basic understanding of the legal system gleaned over the years and I once had to testify in court. I was very well coached in how to sit, what to wear, "not too much leg", when to pull out a kleenex, etc. In the end, presentation was as important as the actual testimony in my case. Fortunately, it was not a traumatic situation for me, I can only try to imagine how horrible it could be for an assault victim to confront your attacker across a courtroom.

                      I also have some personal knowledge of both the TN and GM situations, not all of which I can share here. But this has been a major learning experience for me. I started out being a bit knee-jerk critical of SafeSport, but I do now see the absolute necessity of it. Cumbersome or not, it's high time the horse world got dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

                      My thanks to everyone who has shared their specialised knowledge of the SS process and how it works. It's refreshing to hear the mostly civilised discussion here, in contrast to the IS NOT!!! IS TOO!!! UR MEEN!!! tone of Facebook. Keep on posting - I'm willing to keep on learning.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                        I finally see where your hostility is coming from. You perceive me of “having done enough on this thread to help the anti-SafeSport people”.

                        I am ardently pro SafeSport. I think George Morris is guilty as hell. I’m the one who has been calling Bonnie Navin out for brazenly claiming that “90%” of bans are overturned on appeal. I never remotely believed it and it looks like we are getting closer to getting the statistics we need.

                        Why all the hostility to Horsegirl’s Mom and to me if we point out that a nontruncated sample is necessary?

                        The legitimate statistics based on a nontruncated sample might look slightly less favorable to SafeSport than those based on a truncated sample? You’d prefer to lie with statistics if that makes SafeSport look better?

                        I fully support SafeSport. To me the way to improve the legitimacy and credibility of SafeSport is to consider ways it might be made better at succeeding in getting the bad guys, and assuring trainers that there are good procedural protections for someone false accused.

                        I think there is some validity in the charge by ISWGers that the ban is imposed prior to a finding of “guilt” because the respondent does not have the opportunity to make his case in front of an independent adjudicator until the appeal. Sometimes you have to give the devil his due, and not just scream “You’re the devil”.

                        The difference between us is that you think the best way to defend SafeSport is to have a knee-jerk negative response to anyone who entertains the notion that a change in procedure might improve it. Some of your posts have come so obviously from jerking knees as opposed to your brain, that I found them difficult to understand. In particular, the one in which I pointed out that in my view the part of the process which was designed to be “fair” was more the appeal part than the investigation part. You stated that since neither party appears before an arbitrator during the investigation, that seemed fair to you. Even though, with no arbitrator, SafeSport unilaterally issues a sanction based on its assessment of its own investigation.

                        I think the more effective way to defend SafeSport is to get the valid statistics, and discuss whether possibly there might be ways to improve it.

                        I also think that liberal use of insults or giggling when someone calls me a “raving moron” or acting smug when you wrongly decide I‘m an alter does not add to the force of your arguments.

                        Why does it matter that I didn’t know RG or GM as equestrians? By far the most useful poster here is FiSk123, and she is not an equestrian at all.

                        That said, I will endeavor again not to reply to your posts.
                        Still hung up on the moron comment that wasn’t directed at you.

                        Listen cupcake knowledge of the culture and a basic understanding of Safe Sport is what people are asking for. You have neither. Why you defend Horsegirl’s Mom is beyond me when her and I have managed to have an adult conversation without you.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                          Still hung up on the moron comment that wasn’t directed at you.

                          Listen cupcake knowledge of the culture and a basic understanding of Safe Sport is what people are asking for. You have neither. Why you defend Horsegirl’s Mom is beyond me when her and I have managed to have an adult conversation without you.
                          OK, maybe I don’t understand where the hostility is coming from.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                            OK, maybe I don’t understand where the hostility is coming from.
                            It’s clearly all in your head. I don’t have any hostility towards you. Your just not that important in my life.

                            I will say your posts on here have done a 180 compared to the Rob Gage thread.

                            Never mind you take up the mantel for other posters.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                              OK, maybe I don’t understand where the hostility is coming from.
                              If only I had a dollar for every time someone asked this individual this question. *sigh*

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by atl_hunter View Post

                                If only I had a dollar for every time someone asked this individual this question. *sigh*
                                Says the person who always thought it cool to sleep with minors.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post


                                  Again I totally get the line of legal thinking you have even though I disagree with it. But the the facts I stated above are really what you need to know. I get an easy loop hole closer to prevent an over turn like what happened in the Lopez case would be subpoenas. But think about it this way, would you want your daughter to, it’s an extreme I know, end up in jail for contempt of court because she couldn’t mentally handle testifying during arbitration? Would you put your daughter through that?
                                  My 2 cents about requiring a sexual assault victim to testify. No, never. I was abused as a minor years ago. I am older, but the statute of limitations had not run out for me to file civil charges. I chose to file a report with SS against the person that abused me. I chose to meet with the investigator. I chose to talk to SafeSport's attorney. I agreed to testify at the arbitration hearing. I agreed to be cross-examined by the accused attorney. And the morning of the hearing I was sick to my stomach and not sure I was strong enough to do it. Some days I think I could handle a civil suit, other days I am sure I would not want to put myself through that. I still remember the day of arbitration as if it was yesterday. I would not have wanted SS to force me to testify, nor do I think anyone should be forced to testify. The Accused is not required to testify either - it is their choice. Would it sway your opinion if they didn't testify? What if the witnesses agree to be cross-examined, but the accused does not? Is that fair?
                                  One note, SS attorney's do not represent the victims; they represent SS. So, there is a financial cost to the witness if they desire to have an attorney present. I spoke once to SS's attorney about 48 hours before the hearing. As a witnesses, you are not prepped, you are not coached. You may be asked to tell your story as a narrative, or it may be more of a question and answer. It depends on how the arbitrator decides to run it and you find that out at the beginning of the hearing, not in advance.
                                  Last edited by Keep it Simple; Aug. 29, 2019, 04:44 PM. Reason: typo

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Keep it Simple View Post

                                    My 2 cents about requiring a sexual assault victim to testify. No, never. I was abused years ago, but the statute of limitations had not run out for me to file civil charges. I chose to file a report against the person that abused me. I chose to meet with the investigator. I chose to talk to SafeSport's attorney. I agreed to testify at the arbitration hearing. I agreed to be cross-examined by the accused attorney. And the morning of the hearing I was sick to my stomach and not sure I was strong enough to do it. Some days I think I could handle a civil suit, other days I am sure I would not want to put myself through that. I still remember the day of arbitration as if it was yesterday. I would not have wanted SS to force me to testify, not do I think anyone should be forced to testify. The Accused is not required to testify either - it is their choice. Would it sway your opinion if the didn't testify? What if the witnesses agree to be cross-examined, but the accused does not? Is that fair?
                                    One note, SS attorney's do not represent the victims; they represent SS. So, there is a financial cost to the witness if they desire to have an attorney present. I spoke once to SS's attorney about 48 hours before the hearing. As a witnesses, you are not prepped, you are not coached. You may be asked to tell your story as a narrative, or it may be more of a question and answer. It depends on how the arbitrator decides to run it.
                                    YankeeDuchess read this again and again.

                                    Keep it Simple Big hugs. I get it. I hope others do too. No one should have to endure what you went through.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by dags View Post
                                      I will have answers, thanks to HGMs (& others) questions, and y'alls' begrudging & salty answers to them.
                                      You're completely ignoring the primary reasons for the "begrudging & salty" answers, which include:

                                      - Ignoring answers you don't like and continuing to repeat the questions over and over again

                                      -Twisting the responses and coming back at the respondent to disagree with something the respondent never said in the first place

                                      - Showing no appreciation of people's attempts to provide information, just snapping that the information offered isn't what they wanted

                                      -Repeatedly asking questions that they could easily answer themselves with very little effort (The origin of the acronym "JFGI")

                                      This thread is now over 3000 posts long and no one else posting here has managed to come close to creating the level of aggravation and annoyance generated by HLMom/Horsegirl'sMom and YankeeDutchess.



                                      "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                                      that's even remotely true."

                                      Homer Simpson

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by NoSuchPerson View Post

                                        You're completely ignoring the primary reasons for the "begrudging & salty" answers, which include:

                                        - Ignoring answers you don't like and continuing to repeat the questions over and over again

                                        -Twisting the responses and coming back at the respondent to disagree with something the respondent never said in the first place

                                        - Showing no appreciation of people's attempts to provide information, just snapping that the information offered isn't what they wanted

                                        -Repeatedly asking questions that they could easily answer themselves with very little effort (The origin of the acronym "JFGI")

                                        This thread is now over 3000 posts long and no one else posting here has managed to come close to creating the level of aggravation and annoyance generated by HLMom/Horsegirl'sMom and YankeeDutchess.


                                        I love you. ETA: these same questions were asked and answered in the Rob Gage thread.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Keep it Simple View Post

                                          My 2 cents about requiring a sexual assault victim to testify. No, never. I was abused as a minor years ago. I am older, but the statute of limitations had not run out for me to file civil charges. I chose to file a report with SS against the person that abused me. I chose to meet with the investigator. I chose to talk to SafeSport's attorney. I agreed to testify at the arbitration hearing. I agreed to be cross-examined by the accused attorney. And the morning of the hearing I was sick to my stomach and not sure I was strong enough to do it. Some days I think I could handle a civil suit, other days I am sure I would not want to put myself through that. I still remember the day of arbitration as if it was yesterday. I would not have wanted SS to force me to testify, nor do I think anyone should be forced to testify. The Accused is not required to testify either - it is their choice. Would it sway your opinion if they didn't testify? What if the witnesses agree to be cross-examined, but the accused does not? Is that fair?
                                          .
                                          Thank you for sharing this.

                                          To answer your question: Yes, I think it would absolutely sway my opinion--and more importantly, the arbitrator's--if the accused didn't testify. In fact, I think it would be a very rare case where the accused could win without testifying.

                                          It is hard to overestimate the power of live testimony (compared to affidavits), especially to a judge used to presiding over trials where judging witnesses' credibility is everything.

                                          But I'm not saying providing live testimony would be easy for many victims, and I'm glad you reminded us of this.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X