Meloy striking out

[PlayerRep]

So taint, are you suggesting Johnson's qb status was powerful enough to swing a unanimous not guilty verdict from a jury comprised of more women than men?

I don't think the jury verdict would have been different if the evidence was presented the same way with the same attorneys defending a different person. I do think that his status as a QB gained him a talented stable of defense attorneys that any other regular Joe wouldn't have been able to obtain without his background and status. I think his status as a star QB who was prosecuted by the MCAO helps some Missoulians feel like the DOJ investigation into FVV's office is justified.

Hmmmmmm. Just the Missoula County Attorney's office? Did you follow the trial? I'm pretty sure the Montana's attorney general at the time, Steve Bullock, sent a couple attorneys to Missoula to help the prosecution. That's more prosecution than any other regular Joe faces, is it not? Maybe DOJ should be looking into Steve's job performance, too?

The county attorneys office was assisted by an asst attorney general and a local Missoula attorney working pro bono. He was a former asst county attorney, I believe. An asst county attorney was also on the team. The 3 of them were at trial at the prosecution's table everyday. FVV also signed pleadings.

Extraordinary extra support for the prosecution. A high profile expert or two hired by the prosecution. Have never heard of a county attorneys office receiving that much support for a matter like this. Had the Griz qb not been involved, I wonder if he would have been charged, and I wonder if the accuser would have been provided all the support she received along the way.

 

[tnt]

Extraordinary extra support for the prosecution. A high profile expert or two hired by the prosecution. Have never heard of a county attorneys office receiving that much support for a matter like this. Had the Griz qb not been involved, I wonder if he would have been charged, and I wonder if the accuser would have been provided all the support she received along the way.

The "pro Bono guy" for sure would not have been involved and I am glad it blew up in the glory seeking SOB's face. As far as being charged and taken to court. If not the QB likely would have been plead out or ignored (thus the DOJ investigation). Prosecuting Johnson to the extent they did was just about as much an admission of guilt for VV as anything could be. The point remains there is little for Johnson to sue over.

 

[PlayerRep]

$$$$$


If I were JJ and on the hook for outrageous attorney fees I'd be biding my time until NCAA eligibility runs out and then sell the exclusive rights to the highest bidder. Krakauer is a big name, thus could probably bring some serious cheddar to the table.

Not suggesting this is the case...just throwing out possibilities.

Interesting idea.

What is the time frame for filing lawsuits? Could he use up his eligibility and perhaps graduate, then file?

Sue who for what? The University for not expelling him? Paoli who was the only one who made his honor board proceedings public? The athletic department for suspending him from play while under indictment as they would any athelte facing felony charges. The Missoulian for reporting the "news"? Perhaps his accuser? How about the county attorney? maybe himself for being the Griz quarter back, otherwise no one would have given a shit even if guilty. If he was anybody but who he was he'd be in Deerlodge today.

Selling his story is likley his best chance.

H

I assume that JJ could sue the university and university system. The claims would likely revolve around what the federal judge observed. JJ was wronged and damaged significantly by the unfair and incorrect university process. I wonder if JJ would have even been charged if the university proceeding hadn't occurred in such an unfair and unconstitutional matter. The claims might be federal and state unconstitutional law violations by the university/university system. Again, in the federal judge's words:

"In light of the manner in which University officials have apparently conducted their investigation, there is no doubt in the Court's mind that the public interest favors an injunction."

"The Court states no opinion on whether other avenues of recovery may exist or may materialize in the the future ...."

"Today's ruling is not a finding that the process employed by the University in this case is immune from legal challenge. Indeed, from a normative perspective, the process applied to Plaintiff Doe and the behavior of University officials in investigating and prosecuting this matter offends the Court's sense of fundamental fairness and appears to fall short of the minimal moral obligation of any tribunal to respect the rights and dignity of the accused."

That would be very strong testimony in a civil court case.

 

[tnt]

It would be PR, except for one thing - The University proceeded with the proceedings (yeah that was awkward wording) and threw the Honor Court proceedings out. Like I said before, is he going to sue for NOT being expelled or having the BOR correct the problems with coutures kangaroo court. that and was it Johnson in the Fed case or was Paoli helping out yet another student???

 

[Jerry Punch]

So taint, are you suggesting Johnson's qb status was powerful enough to swing a unanimous not guilty verdict from a jury comprised of more women than men?

I don't think the jury verdict would have been different if the evidence was presented the same way with the same attorneys defending a different person. I do think that his status as a QB gained him a talented stable of defense attorneys that any other regular Joe wouldn't have been able to obtain without his background and status. I think his status as a star QB who was prosecuted by the MCAO helps some Missoulians feel like the DOJ investigation into FVV's office is justified.

Hmmmmmm. Just the Missoula County Attorney's office? Did you follow the trial? I'm pretty sure the Montana's attorney general at the time, Steve Bullock, sent a couple attorneys to Missoula to help the prosecution. That's more prosecution than any other regular Joe faces, is it not? Maybe DOJ should be looking into Steve's job performance, too?

JJ didn't hire Paoli and Pabst AFTER the AG sent prosecutors in to help the MCAO. I'm saying, like I did before, that with the same attorneys (on both sides), same judge, same jury pool, same facts, etc, with only a different football playing defendant, the verdict would have been the same.

The difference here is that being the star QB who appeared in some eyes to be the target of a witch hunt benefited greatly from his role on the team and his name recognition in hiring quality, competent defense attorneys.

 

[Jerry Punch]

I am just sooo happy we get to rehash this entire shitstorm again.

No one is challenging the jury verdict. I'm simply pointing out that the availability of information is a double-edged sword. In one instance (a criminal trial), Jordy was acquitted. In another (the University proceeding) he was expelled. The criminal trial correctly exposed the victim in that case and vindicated Jordy because all information made it out there for 12 regular people to assess. The University proceeding has no such exposure, and thus legitimate questions remain with answers that may or may not prove beneficial to UM or Jordy, or both.

 

[PlayerRep]

So taint, are you suggesting Johnson's qb status was powerful enough to swing a unanimous not guilty verdict from a jury comprised of more women than men?

I don't think the jury verdict would have been different if the evidence was presented the same way with the same attorneys defending a different person. I do think that his status as a QB gained him a talented stable of defense attorneys that any other regular Joe wouldn't have been able to obtain without his background and status. I think his status as a star QB who was prosecuted by the MCAO helps some Missoulians feel like the DOJ investigation into FVV's office is justified.

Hmmmmmm. Just the Missoula County Attorney's office? Did you follow the trial? I'm pretty sure the Montana's attorney general at the time, Steve Bullock, sent a couple attorneys to Missoula to help the prosecution. That's more prosecution than any other regular Joe faces, is it not? Maybe DOJ should be looking into Steve's job performance, too?

JJ didn't hire Paoli and Pabst AFTER the AG sent prosecutors in to help the MCAO. I'm saying, like I did before, that with the same attorneys (on both sides), same judge, same jury pool, same facts, etc, with only a different football playing defendant, the verdict would have been the same.

The difference here is that being the star QB who appeared in some eyes to be the target of a witch hunt benefited greatly from his role on the team and his name recognition in hiring quality, competent defense attorneys.

Just for the record, I'm largely agreeing your posts today. And your posts are largely good--so far.

 

[PlayerRep]

It would be PR, except for one thing - The University proceeded with the proceedings (yeah that was awkward wording) and threw the Honor Court proceedings out. Like I said before, is he going to sue for NOT being expelled or having the BOR correct the problems with coutures kangaroo court. that and was it Johnson in the Fed case or was Paoli helping out yet another student???

Under my scenario, the suit would be for damages caused by the horrible investigation and portion of the proceeding through expulsion. From spring ball into August, he was not allowed to practice or participate with the team (and/or chose not to participate due to the issues created by UM and otherwise), and he received bad press, both conventional and internet (some of which was speculation). In my view, he suffered significant damages. It would be up to the university to show how he hadn't been damaged. Not pulling the final trigger and the eventual charge would help, but I believe he was significantly damaged by the unfair process and from February until August. Do you think he and his family were not suffering huge stress when he kept getting bad letters from the dean and Engstrom, and getting more bad results? Had the process not been so unfair and biased, there wouldn't be lawsuits to open the files now. My view is that he is still being damaged by the unfair process of the university.

 

[Raider]

Summary

The Kraukauer story gives some of you a chance to jump back on your soap box.

The End.

 

[griz4life]

It would be PR, except for one thing - The University proceeded with the proceedings (yeah that was awkward wording) and threw the Honor Court proceedings out. Like I said before, is he going to sue for NOT being expelled or having the BOR correct the problems with coutures kangaroo court. that and was it Johnson in the Fed case or was Paoli helping out yet another student???

No. The University did not throw the proceedings out. The University concurred. Engstrom informed Johnson he was being expelled. -- see the link I posted previously.

The commissioner of higher ed, reversed the expulsion by the university, or so it would seem.

 

[tnt]

It would be PR, except for one thing - The University proceeded with the proceedings (yeah that was awkward wording) and threw the Honor Court proceedings out. Like I said before, is he going to sue for NOT being expelled or having the BOR correct the problems with coutures kangaroo court. that and was it Johnson in the Fed case or was Paoli helping out yet another student???

No. The University did not throw the proceedings out. The University concurred. Engstrom informed Johnson he was being expelled. -- see the link I posted previously.

The commissioner of higher ed, reversed the expulsion by the university, or so it would seem.

I know it seems to splitting hairs, but your link refers to "John Doe" not Johnson. Whether the expulsion was appealed through all the channels or not it was still the University. Johnson appears to have never been expelled. I don't mean to be splitting hairs I just don't know what could possible be gained by Johnson opening the records of proceedings that may or may not have applied to him or even occured. What happened on eGriz is not necessarily what happened in the rest of the world. And unless the letter floating around supposedly from Engstrom telling Johnson he was expelled was released by the University it had to have come from either Johnson or Paoli. Or is a fake. InWhat happened to John Doe is anyones guess. But apparently in Johnsons case everything went through the system and he was never expelled.

 

[ranco]

I would have to agree with PR on this one. I think JJ was harmed by the University's kangaroo proceedings, even if he wasn't expelled. I'm not sure the harm would be enough to warrant a suit though.

My guess is that any and all harmful information regarding JJ came out during the trial. As such, I would guess only the University would be harmed by the disclosure of additional documents as it would show how they attempted to railroad him out of school.

 

[tnt]

I would have to agree with PR on this one. I think JJ was harmed by the University's kangaroo proceedings, even if he wasn't expelled. I'm not sure the harm would be enough to warrant a suit though.

My guess is that any and all harmful information regarding JJ came out during the trial. As such, I would guess only the University would be harmed by the disclosure of additional documents as it would show how they attempted to railroad him out of school.

I can't disagree with that, but the crap couture pulled on students for years without near the good outcome of Johnson is broader problem. He ruined a lot of lives with less process than Johnson got.

 

[Sportin' Life]

It would be PR, except for one thing - The University proceeded with the proceedings (yeah that was awkward wording) and threw the Honor Court proceedings out. Like I said before, is he going to sue for NOT being expelled or having the BOR correct the problems with coutures kangaroo court. that and was it Johnson in the Fed case or was Paoli helping out yet another student???

Under my scenario, the suit would be for damages caused by the horrible investigation and portion of the proceeding through expulsion. From late spring into August, he was not allowed to practice or participate with the team, and he received bad press, both conventional and internet (some of which was speculation). In my view, he suffered significant damages. It would be up to the university to show how he hadn't been damaged. Not pulling the final trigger and the eventual charge would help, but I believe he was significantly damaged by the unfair process and from February until August. Do you think he and his family were not suffering huge stress when he kept getting bad letters from the dean and Engstrom, and getting more bad results? Had the process not been so unfair and biased, there wouldn't be lawsuits to open the files now. My view is that he is still being damaged by the unfair process of the university.

Oh goddamn it. I know better than to look and see what sort of stupidity is in this thread. But since I can't unsee this and it contains a mistake that any one-L could correct ... here I go with my first and last into this foray.

"It would be up to the university to show how he hadn't been damaged."

That is not how civil trials work and you know it. It is absolutely upon the person suing to show that he has sustained damages. If he can't show some tangible reason how someone has wronged him then any judge would throw the suit right out with a summarily. It would be a stretch to say that missing spring practice was any sort of injury. Hell I think most judges would dismiss it even if he missed some games. And emotional distress? Yeah that happens when you get accused of rape publicly ... I don't think you can blame the school.

 

[UMGriz75]

There was a bit of a mystery. The "University Proceeding" was appealable to the Board of Regents, and as I recall, there was some time period prescribed for a decision. But, there was never an announcement made.

We can certainly guess what the obvious decision was, and the reasoning is clear: the Board of Regents saw what Engstrom did not see, could not see, refused to see, clear liability of the University System to a major lawsuit and endless major negative publicity about "what went on up in Montana," a'la "Duke Lacrosse." Unfortunately Engstrom's mishandling of the case made it a carbon copy of Duke University President Richard Brodhead's mishandling of the Duke case, on similar political correctness grounds, involving a forced prosecution by a county attorney of a case that never should have been charged, and the firing of a head coach who should never have been fired. Alumni support to Duke, incidentally, dropped 22% after that scandal.

I have no doubt that the BOR read Judge Christensen's comments closely and carefully, and concluded that the University had so badly mishandled the whole affair that there was no choice in the matter but to reverse the University decision. They had to save Engstrom from himself.

Fortunately, they were vindicated by the Jury verdict.

I admire immensely the fact that JJ stuck with a University that did not stick with him. That tells me all I need to know about JJ and the kind of person he truly is.

And to me, that sums up Royce Engstrom. More than willing to sell out a young man's career and life, he benefits from the loyalty of others, a loyalty he refuses to offer in return. That tells me all I need to know about Royce Engstrom.

 

[PlayerRep]

It would be PR, except for one thing - The University proceeded with the proceedings (yeah that was awkward wording) and threw the Honor Court proceedings out. Like I said before, is he going to sue for NOT being expelled or having the BOR correct the problems with coutures kangaroo court. that and was it Johnson in the Fed case or was Paoli helping out yet another student???

Under my scenario, the suit would be for damages caused by the horrible investigation and portion of the proceeding through expulsion. From late spring into August, he was not allowed to practice or participate with the team, and he received bad press, both conventional and internet (some of which was speculation). In my view, he suffered significant damages. It would be up to the university to show how he hadn't been damaged. Not pulling the final trigger and the eventual charge would help, but I believe he was significantly damaged by the unfair process and from February until August. Do you think he and his family were not suffering huge stress when he kept getting bad letters from the dean and Engstrom, and getting more bad results? Had the process not been so unfair and biased, there wouldn't be lawsuits to open the files now. My view is that he is still being damaged by the unfair process of the university.

Oh goddamn it. I know better than to look and see what sort of stupidity is in this thread. But since I can't unsee this and it contains a mistake that any one-L could correct ... here I go with my first and last into this foray.

"It would be up to the university to show how he hadn't been damaged."

That is not how civil trials work and you know it. It is absolutely upon the person suing to show that he has sustained damages. If he can't show some tangible reason how someone has wronged him then any judge would throw the suit right out with a summarily. It would be a stretch to say that missing spring practice was any sort of injury. Hell I think most judges would dismiss it even if he missed some games. And emotional distress? Yeah that happens when you get accused of rape publicly ... I don't think you can blame the school.

Leave it to you to jump into a thread without having read it, not understand what was being discussed and said, and make an ass of yourself.

As I said, if a claim were made, the plaintiff and his lawyer would argue/show the damages after discussing the liability/claim. Then, the university would have to "show" that there were no damages, or show that there wasn't a valid claim or liability. The civil procedure of a trial was not being discussed. What was being discussed was the claim and damages. Most claims are settled long before a trial. There are no civil procedure or rules to be followed in discussing settlement. Settlement can also occur before a lawsuit is filed.

Please don't tell us that you don't know these things. If any claim is filed and its going to trial, you can tell us all about civil procedure applicable to the trial. Please don't jump the gun on this, though. It gets in the way of the discussion some of us are trying to have.

Don't think any decent judge would prematurely dismiss a case with this strong view of a good federal court judge written in an order and presented to the court.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

If he was anybody but who he was he'd be in Deerlodge today.

That pretty well sums up Krakauer's angle on the "story," I would guess.

I too suspect the proposed book will be how a popular football player unfairly gets away with a crime. So if I were Jordan Johnson I'd be very cautious about signing any deal with the author. It's likely the project will be a hatchet job with JJ's neck on the other end of the axe.

 

[PlayerRep]

If he was anybody but who he was he'd be in Deerlodge today.

That pretty well sums up Krakauer's angle on the "story," I would guess.

I too suspect the proposed book will be how a popular football player unfairly gets away with a crime. So if I were Jordan Johnson I'd be very cautious about signing any deal with the author. It's likely the project will be a hatchet job with JJ's neck on the other end of the axe.

I don't know how anyone could even argue that JJ got away with a crime at all--let alone because he was a popular football player. The better argument is that he was charged and pursued because he was a high profile football player. And the DOJ and others were putting heat on the county attorneys office.

 

[Griz1]

If he was anybody but who he was he'd be in Deerlodge today.

That pretty well sums up Krakauer's angle on the "story," I would guess.

I too suspect the proposed book will be how a popular football player unfairly gets away with a crime. So if I were Jordan Johnson I'd be very cautious about signing any deal with the author. It's likely the project will be a hatchet job with JJ's neck on the other end of the axe.

I don't know how anyone could even argue that JJ got away with a crime at all--let alone because he was a popular football player. The better argument is that he was charged and pursued because he was a high profile football player. And the DOJ and others were putting heat on the county attorneys office.

I don't usually agree with PR very often but I agree 100% with him on this issue. In my opinion If it was anyone other than an athlete it wouldn't have even gone to trial.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

That pretty well sums up Krakauer's angle on the "story," I would guess.

I too suspect the proposed book will be how a popular football player unfairly gets away with a crime. So if I were Jordan Johnson I'd be very cautious about signing any deal with the author. It's likely the project will be a hatchet job with JJ's neck on the other end of the axe.

I don't know how anyone could even argue that JJ got away with a crime at all--let alone because he was a popular football player. The better argument is that he was charged and pursued because he was a high profile football player. And the DOJ and others were putting heat on the county attorneys office.

I don't usually agree with PR very often but I agree 100% with him on this issue. In my opinion If it was anyone other than an athlete it wouldn't have even gone to trial.

I agree with you both. Yet a book about how America's obsession with athletes allows them to run amok is much more likely to end up as a Hollywood film. I suspect this author is more interested in book sales, and a possible film deal, rather than writing a vindication about a wronged QB in obscure Montana.