• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Voice of the Cats Sexually Harassed Just, MSU Investigation Says

Status
Not open for further replies.

HookedonGriz

Well-known member
DONOR
What a douche bag:

https://mtstandard.com/sports/college/big-sky-conference/montana-state-university/ex-broadcaster-harassed-reporter-msu-finds/article_e9a2f7d0-3926-5a08-bcd6-5a1a2d464f8e.html?utm_content=buffer793d8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC#tracking-source=home-breaking
 
And to think this ass hat vehemently denied these charges and claimed he was taking off due to his fathers health. Hope Just sues him.
 
HookedonGriz said:
What a douche bag:

https://mtstandard.com/sports/college/big-sky-conference/montana-state-university/ex-broadcaster-harassed-reporter-msu-finds/article_e9a2f7d0-3926-5a08-bcd6-5a1a2d464f8e.html?utm_content=buffer793d8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC#tracking-source=home-breaking

It took guts on her part to report it. Good for her and this guy is scum. She had to put up with unwarranted, crass and ridiculous comments from social media. Karma - he is getting and will continue to get his due for this pathetic behavior. Unfortunately this type of behavior is not usually confined to one incident or target. He is going to cross a line someday and then someone’s husband or boyfriend is going to hand him his ass.
 
Is that what you were saying when the UM Title IX proceeding said it found it "more likely than not" that he had done what was alleged, and got a letter from Engstrom purporting to kick him out of school?

MSU is saying he is not an employee and wasn't in a "position of public trust", so they don't have release the records. "a play-by-play announcer Sanderson "does not hold a position of public trust as such is recognized by Montana law. Therefore, it is the University's determination that the requested records are not subject to disclosure."

From the article:

"Just said some comments were so “heartbreaking” and nasty that she deleted her Twitter app for a few days. Particularly painful were assertions on social media that she “wasn’t pretty enough” for Sanderson to have sexually harassed her.

“What does that even mean?” she asked. “Sexual assault and sexual harassment isn’t typically about attraction, it’s about power. For people to say things like that is really frustrating. It’s hard to come up with words about it, honestly.”

I don't care if the full report is released or not, but I will sure read it if it comes out. Still don't understand the Title IX jurisdiction. Not saying there wasn't any; would just like to see it. The "not in position of public trust" would seem to make Title IX jurisdiction even less likely.

Too bad. Really for both of them.
 
HookedonGriz said:
And to think this ass hat vehemently denied these charges and claimed he was taking off due to his fathers health. Hope Just sues him.

Note that the finding, by an investigator hired by the MSU Title IX office, was that he had "more likely than not" done these things. That's one ounce over 50-50.

From the MSU website. Looks like he is employed by MSU.

"Victor Maxson, M.Ed. - Civil Rights Investigator

Victor completes investigations of complaints of discrimination and harassment, including Title IX. Victor can be reached at ___."
 
PlayerRep said:
Is that what you were saying when the UM Title IX proceeding said it found it "more likely than not" that he had done what was alleged, and got a letter from Engstrom purporting to kick him out of school?

MSU is saying he is not an employee and wasn't in a "position of public trust", so they don't have release the records. "a play-by-play announcer Sanderson "does not hold a position of public trust as such is recognized by Montana law. Therefore, it is the University's determination that the requested records are not subject to disclosure."

From the article:

"Just said some comments were so “heartbreaking” and nasty that she deleted her Twitter app for a few days. Particularly painful were assertions on social media that she “wasn’t pretty enough” for Sanderson to have sexually harassed her.

“What does that even mean?” she asked. “Sexual assault and sexual harassment isn’t typically about attraction, it’s about power. For people to say things like that is really frustrating. It’s hard to come up with words about it, honestly.”

I don't care if the full report is released or not, but I will sure read it if it comes out. Still don't understand the Title IX jurisdiction. Not saying there wasn't any; would just like to see it. The "not in position of public trust" would seem to make Title IX jurisdiction even less likely.

Too bad. Really for both of them.

What does your first paragraph refer to? Are you talking about Johnson there?
 
Johnson's investigation was anything and everything, BUT, an investigation. It was a crowd mentality lynching, with no common sense or applied critical investigation...
 
All one has to do is read the texts that he sent directly to Just.....which are public and outlined in the articles....and you know 100% he is guilty. If you can’t see that I can’t help you.
 
AZGrizFan said:
PlayerRep said:
Is that what you were saying when the UM Title IX proceeding said it found it "more likely than not" that he had done what was alleged, and got a letter from Engstrom purporting to kick him out of school?

MSU is saying he is not an employee and wasn't in a "position of public trust", so they don't have release the records. "a play-by-play announcer Sanderson "does not hold a position of public trust as such is recognized by Montana law. Therefore, it is the University's determination that the requested records are not subject to disclosure."

From the article:

"Just said some comments were so “heartbreaking” and nasty that she deleted her Twitter app for a few days. Particularly painful were assertions on social media that she “wasn’t pretty enough” for Sanderson to have sexually harassed her.

“What does that even mean?” she asked. “Sexual assault and sexual harassment isn’t typically about attraction, it’s about power. For people to say things like that is really frustrating. It’s hard to come up with words about it, honestly.”

I don't care if the full report is released or not, but I will sure read it if it comes out. Still don't understand the Title IX jurisdiction. Not saying there wasn't any; would just like to see it. The "not in position of public trust" would seem to make Title IX jurisdiction even less likely.

Too bad. Really for both of them.

What does your first paragraph refer to? Are you talking about Johnson there?

Yes, could have said a name. Edited and forgot to put name in with what I left.
 
EverettGriz said:
Too bad. Really for both of them.

JFC.

Some people will just never get it.

Yes, you don't ever seem to get it. You supported Engstrom to the bitter end, which hopefully isn't going to rest in the the end of UM. You constantly badmouth the Big Sky conference. You know nothing about football, but still spew your BS about it. At least, you claim to be a nationally ranked tennis player. How funny is that.
 
HookedonGriz said:
All one has to do is read the texts that he sent directly to Just.....which are public and outlined in the articles....and you know 100% he is guilty. If you can’t see that I can’t help you.

I remember several years ago I was on a business trip, employee and customer conference. There was a reception dinner\drinks the first night and one of my co workers (female) told me about one of our customers that was hitting on her right off the bat. She told me a couple of the lines he used, one of them was something like, "I love that outfit, it would look great crumpled up on the floor of my room" or something similar. We laughed about it. Later that night her and I texted back and forth a couple times about meeting for breakfast to go over a presentation. I texted something like, "Make sure you're on time, I know it will take you some time to find your outfit that will obviously be crumpled up on somebody's floor." That text could have completely gotten me in deep shit, but in context that was not harassment on my part in any way shape or form.
 
HookedonGriz said:
All one has to do is read the texts that he sent directly to Just.....which are public and outlined in the articles....and you know 100% he is guilty. If you can’t see that I can’t help you.

Okay, show us the texts and explain what the circumstances were. You know they were pretty good friends, don't you?

Okay, a guy, who is a friend of a woman, is texting with the woman at a hotel. The man and woman are not in the same company, ie she doesn't work for him. She is responding. He texts her to come down to the bar and have a drink so he can see more of her. You think that is something horrible?

And then she doesn't complain about this. She waits multiple months, gets a new job out of state, and then makes a formal complaint about him in MT.

Let's see the texts. Let's have a discussion. Not saying what the guy did was right, or not stupid, or cool, but don't think what she did was cool either.
 
poorgriz said:
HookedonGriz said:
All one has to do is read the texts that he sent directly to Just.....which are public and outlined in the articles....and you know 100% he is guilty. If you can’t see that I can’t help you.

I remember several years ago I was on a business trip, employee and customer conference. There was a reception dinner\drinks the first night and one of my co workers (female) told me about one of our customers that was hitting on her right off the bat. She told me a couple of the lines he used, one of them was something like, "I love that outfit, it would look great crumpled up on the floor of my room" or something similar. We laughed about it. Later that night her and I texted back and forth a couple times about meeting for breakfast to go over a presentation. I texted something like, "Make sure you're on time, I know it will take you some time to find your outfit that will obviously be crumpled up on somebody's floor." That text could have completely gotten me in deep shit, but in context that was not harassment on my part in any way shape or form.

What you said was funny, but, yes, in this day and age, it could have gotten you into trouble. And she was a co-worker, as opposed to a newspaper reporter covering your event.

I don't know Sanderson or anything about him. Don't think I'd put my money on him. But don't think I'd put my money on the other party too. You should ask some people who know both of them, and see what they have to say.
 
poorgriz said:
HookedonGriz said:
All one has to do is read the texts that he sent directly to Just.....which are public and outlined in the articles....and you know 100% he is guilty. If you can’t see that I can’t help you.

I remember several years ago I was on a business trip, employee and customer conference. There was a reception dinner\drinks the first night and one of my co workers (female) told me about one of our customers that was hitting on her right off the bat. She told me a couple of the lines he used, one of them was something like, "I love that outfit, it would look great crumpled up on the floor of my room" or something similar. We laughed about it. Later that night her and I texted back and forth a couple times about meeting for breakfast to go over a presentation. I texted something like, "Make sure you're on time, I know it will take you some time to find your outfit that will obviously be crumpled up on somebody's floor." That text could have completely gotten me in deep shit, but in context that was not harassment on my part in any way shape or form.

You sir are the biggest fuck stain Bobcat apologist I’ve ever seen. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit. Two completely different conversations and you’re comparing apples to oranges. If that’s what you took away from Samdersons texts then you areca bigger idiot than I thought, which is saying everything because I already think you’re the king of idiots.
 
PlayerRep said:
HookedonGriz said:
All one has to do is read the texts that he sent directly to Just.....which are public and outlined in the articles....and you know 100% he is guilty. If you can’t see that I can’t help you.

Okay, show us the texts and explain what the circumstances were. You know they were pretty good friends, don't you?

Okay, a guy, who is a friend of a woman, is texting with the woman at a hotel. The man and woman are not in the same company, ie she doesn't work for him. She is responding. He texts her to come down to the bar and have a drink so he can see more of her. You think that is something horrible?

And then she doesn't complain about this. She waits multiple months, gets a new job out of state, and then makes a formal complaint about him in MT.

Let's see the texts. Let's have a discussion. Not saying what the guy did was right, or not stupid, or cool, but don't think what she did was cool either.

Like I said...if you can’t see the purpose and intent behind these, I can’t help you. I know you’re a lawyer and just like to argue sometimes for the sake of an argument, but you can’t be so blinded by “wanting an argument” that you can’t truly see this dude was a full on Creeper:

Sanderson texted:

“Come down here. We can get drunk and make bad decisions! Lol!!!”

“Looks like we have a love connection!!”

“Don’t fight it…”

Just responded to the last text with, “Considering I’m not interested…”

“Got someone else you’re interested in? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? I’m nosey!” Sanderson replied.

“I f--king hate you,” Just replied.

“No you don’t. You LOVE me… And you know it! Hahahaha It’s ok, I won’t tell!” Sanderson replied.

A couple hours later, at 3:19 a.m., Sanderson sent another text to Just.

“We have a shoot around at 9. If you wanna get together at like 10:30, I’d love to see more of you Lol…I’m trying SO hard not to say something inappropriately flirty. Haha. I don’t care really. Where would you want to go?”




Couple that with Just saying he grabbed her ass and reporting it to friends immediately after it happened, who said she was visibly shaken and it’s not hard to see this for what it is.
 
PR, it appears you may not have training on or seen first hand what grooming looks like. I worked with a guy in the mid 80's who has now been sued many times for sexual harassment, and Sanderson's lines look like they come straight from this guy's play book. Ask any trainer in SH if this guys actions fit the profile. The creeps always establish the friendship first, so the victims are both disarmed and then hesitant to resist or report when the harassment starts. I'm only surprised he left a trail of evidence (which he initially denied existed). HIs actions are those of a guy who knows he got caught, not an innocent man.
 
horribilisfan8184 said:
PR, it appears you may not have training on or seen first hand what grooming looks like. I worked with a guy in the mid 80's who has now been sued many times for sexual harassment, and Sanderson's lines look like they come straight from this guy's play book. Ask any trainer in SH if this guys actions fit the profile. The creeps always establish the friendship first, so the victims are both disarmed and then hesitant to resist or report when the harassment starts. I'm only surprised he left a trail of evidence (which he initially denied existed). HIs actions are those of a guy who knows he got caught, not an innocent man.

Thanks, H, but it is because I have worked in and around this area for multiple decades, that I am skeptical and cautious in this area. I also don't agree with your comment about grooming in sexual harassment matters.
 
The fact that PR is defending this guy w/out coming right out and saying it and to downplay Just the same way makes me lose a lot of respect for him. I’m waiting for Fats to take his side on this because I’m sure he’s the only other person on this board that wouldn’t see that Sanderson is a predator and Amy was his victim.
 
HookedonGriz said:
PlayerRep said:
HookedonGriz said:
All one has to do is read the texts that he sent directly to Just.....which are public and outlined in the articles....and you know 100% he is guilty. If you can’t see that I can’t help you.

Okay, show us the texts and explain what the circumstances were. You know they were pretty good friends, don't you?

Okay, a guy, who is a friend of a woman, is texting with the woman at a hotel. The man and woman are not in the same company, ie she doesn't work for him. She is responding. He texts her to come down to the bar and have a drink so he can see more of her. You think that is something horrible?

And then she doesn't complain about this. She waits multiple months, gets a new job out of state, and then makes a formal complaint about him in MT.

Let's see the texts. Let's have a discussion. Not saying what the guy did was right, or not stupid, or cool, but don't think what she did was cool either.

Like I said...if you can’t see the purpose and intent behind these, I can’t help you. I know you’re a lawyer and just like to argue sometimes for the sake of an argument, but you can’t be so blinded by “wanting an argument” that you can’t truly see this dude was a full on Creeper:

Sanderson texted:

“Come down here. We can get drunk and make bad decisions! Lol!!!”

“Looks like we have a love connection!!”

“Don’t fight it…”

Just responded to the last text with, “Considering I’m not interested…”

“Got someone else you’re interested in? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? I’m nosey!” Sanderson replied.

“I f--king hate you,” Just replied.

“No you don’t. You LOVE me… And you know it! Hahahaha It’s ok, I won’t tell!” Sanderson replied.

A couple hours later, at 3:19 a.m., Sanderson sent another text to Just.

“We have a shoot around at 9. If you wanna get together at like 10:30, I’d love to see more of you Lol…I’m trying SO hard not to say something inappropriately flirty. Haha. I don’t care really. Where would you want to go?”




Couple that with Just saying he grabbed her ass and reporting it to friends immediately after it happened, who said she was visibly shaken and it’s not hard to see this for what it is.

These texts happened over a several hour period one night on the road at a hotel [in Feb. 2018]. While I am fine with this guy being moved on what for things with the reporter, and I have consistently said that, I just don't see that what has been made public makes him a POS or creeper or whatever. He made some mistakes. He paid a price.

Butts get grabbed all the time. While someone in his situation should never have done that, and there is no excusing it in that situation, I generally don't see grabbing a butt as the crime of the century.

Some questions for you. Why did she continue to respond to him that night in Feb.? Why did she wait for multiple months to complain about him to MSU [she filed complaint in Sept.]? Why did she wait to file her complaint until she had another job and new she was moving out of state? Why didn't she complain earlier, if this guy was so horrible to her?

"...committed multiple acts of sexual misconduct and harassment” in February 2018 and again at the Big Sky Conference football meetings in July in Spokane, Washington."

There is so such thing as sexual harassment between two people outside of an employment, school, etc relationship, to my knowledge. It's a bit broader than that pure employment/school/etc. Outside of that, the behavior has to fall into a different category, like assault (minor assault). Grabbing a butt is minor assault.

MSU has said they don't have to furnish the records of the proceedings, because this guy was not in a position of trust under MT law. I continue to wonder (not doubt) what MSU's jurisdiction was for conducting a Title IX. While I am not a Title IX expert, this just doesn't seem like a Title IX situation. Neither party was employed by MSU, to my knowledge. This isn't a big deal; I'm just curious.

If the report comes out, I will read it. I would love to see the whole text exchange between the two that night.

Sexual harassment:

A definition.

From the EEOC website. Note the term "workplace".

"Federal Laws prohibit workplace discrimination and are enforced by EEOC."

"Sexual Harassment

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top