Meloy striking out

[Phat Cat]

I don't think there is any doubt that there was an abuse of process. I imagine at this point that the State of Montana Ed Board is doing more to protect itself (and its minions) than to protect JJ.

This. :thumb:

 

[getgrizzy]

I don't think there is any doubt that there was an abuse of process. I imagine at this point that the State of Montana Ed Board is doing more to protect itself (and its minions) than to protect JJ.

This. :thumb:

yep. ol' jerry knows his business.

 

[PlayerRep]

I am surprised that the Missoulian didn't see fit to note that a Federal Judge offered his opinion on the nature of that University proceeding, in some pretty strong words. You'd think that would be relevant to a news story about it.

I haven't seen the University conduct committee's decision, but I am shocked if it actually said JJ had been expelled for "rape." Usually, a student expulsion is stated "because of violations of the student conduct code."

Accusing anyone of a statutory crime is, per se, defamation (it is a crime itself, "criminal libel") and student conduct committees are generally advised on due process grounds to avoid using terms that have criminal law connotations since it is not a criminal law proceeding. Indeed, as I understand it, in this one, a key missing element was the inability to cross-examine. That's a big one.

Stranger things have happened on the way to a lynching, but I have a feeling that the decision of the student conduct committee did not use the word "rape" as the reason for it's decision.

Now, if the Missoulian inserted that word all by itself, into a news article at this point in time, stating the JJ had been found "guilty of rape," oh ...... either the retraction will come flying fast and apologetically, or the lawsuits have been given wings ....

the plaintiff's attorney referred to the charge before the university court as sexual assault when brought to the judge. since many consider sexual assault and rape to be the same thing no one will get too excited about it.

when the judge made his comments about the university court proceeding he had only heard the plaintiffs side of the story.

Your last paragraph is incorrect. The federal judge had much of the UM's investigation and the proceeding to that point in front of him when he made his rulings. The record was mainly the dean's horrible investigation, the unfair rulings by the dean, and the protest filings by Paoli. That's why the judge said that the UM process shocked his sense of fairness. The university's law firm was also involved in that court process. The federal judge is a very good judge, and he would not say what he said without believing he had adequate information from both sides. Look at the first and third paras of the judges order in particular.

"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. But the standard for injunctive relief requires at least a showing of some possibility that the Plaintiff might succeed on the merits of the claims AS PLED."

"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."

of course you, in order to mislead anyone reading this thread, didn't mention the following info from the missoulian article ...

The judge only heard one side of the story, said Kevin McRae, speaking Wednesday on behalf of UM.

and...

The university didn't get into the merits of the complaint against the student. The university stuck to the procedural question.
"We weren't there to defend our handling of the student's case up to that point," McRae said.

and...

The committee voted 5-2, finding the student guilty of violating the student conduct code, and voted 7-0 in favor of expulsion.

Nope, the judge had all or most of the written record of the proceedings. Much of the written record had been written by the dean/university or were transcripts or summaries done by the university. Both Paoli and representatives of the university had letters and communications in the written record--with claims/complaints made and responses returned. A federal judge of the quality of this one would not have made the comments he made without believing he had sufficient information. Only McCrae, of the university, said the judge had heard only one side of the story. McRae was likely only spinning, in hopes of making the university and dean look less bad. The university was obviously stung by the unfairness comment of the judge. If the rumored claim is ever brought against the university, then everyone will see how bad and unfair the university process was.

 

[PlayerRep]

The better information to obtain on this matter would be all things related to Kirsten Pabst and her involvement in the case. The timing of her departure from the MCAO is questionable at best. Her statements to the US Attorney's office also must be taken with a grain of salt. The point is this: There is no doubt that what happened to JJ at UM was a significant injustice. Just how bad it was, we may never know. But, when you get to pick and choose which information you choose to fully divulge, questions like this will continue to linger. On one hand, Pabst can be fully involved in a substantially related criticism of the her former employer while being completely open about her experiences there, even with confidential criminal justice information. On the other hand, JJ's attorneys and the State of Montana can be uncooperative when it comes to requesting information related to the University proceedings and claim that they are not obligated to cooperate.

In both instances, I agree. JJ and his attorneys and the State of Montana have no obligation to comply with the requests of Krakauer. Similarly, the MCAO has no obligation to cooperate with the Federal Government. But in both instances, the lack of full disclosure on either side leaves questions that will continue to remain. The truth is really out there - and the more information available can only help to further clear Jordy's name, much in the way that a unanimous jury verdict did as well.

There was nothing questionable about the timing of Pabst leaving the county attorneys office. She left long before the case was referred to county attorneys office. She would never have agreed to represent JJ, had she obtained any information prior to leaving the county attorneys office. And had there been any doubt of that, the county attorney would have challenged her representation of JJ immediately.

Did Pabst talk to the DOJ or US Atty? I saw a reference to one former county attorney talking to DOJ, but don't know who it was. There are multiple former county attorney still around.

You obviously don't understand or appreciate federal and state privacy laws. They don't allow disclosure of the accuser/JJ information. It isn't the decision of the university to volunteer or keep the information. It's the law.

JJ has already been cleared and acquitted. He has nothing to gain by providing more information to Krakauer or the press. Also note that the accuser has privacy rights too.

 

[PlayerRep]

The better information to obtain on this matter would be all things related to Kirsten Pabst and her involvement in the case. The timing of her departure from the MCAO is questionable at best. Her statements to the US Attorney's office also must be taken with a grain of salt. The point is this: There is no doubt that what happened to JJ at UM was a significant injustice. Just how bad it was, we may never know. But, when you get to pick and choose which information you choose to fully divulge, questions like this will continue to linger. On one hand, Pabst can be fully involved in a substantially related criticism of the her former employer while being completely open about her experiences there, even with confidential criminal justice information. On the other hand, JJ's attorneys and the State of Montana can be uncooperative when it comes to requesting information related to the University proceedings and claim that they are not obligated to cooperate.

In both instances, I agree. JJ and his attorneys and the State of Montana have no obligation to comply with the requests of Krakauer. Similarly, the MCAO has no obligation to cooperate with the Federal Government. But in both instances, the lack of full disclosure on either side leaves questions that will continue to remain. The truth is really out there - and the more information available can only help to further clear Jordy's name, much in the way that a unanimous jury verdict did as well.

this is the most sensible post yet. j.j. should tell, not ask, to have the documents released. that could leave little doubt about his innocence. unless he just doesn't care what anyone thinks. seems he has everything to gain, nothing to lose.

JJ has already been cleared and acquitted. Nothing to gain from further release of information especially the biased university investigation/information at this time. The accuser has privacy rights too.

 

[getgrizzy]

The better information to obtain on this matter would be all things related to Kirsten Pabst and her involvement in the case. The timing of her departure from the MCAO is questionable at best. Her statements to the US Attorney's office also must be taken with a grain of salt. The point is this: There is no doubt that what happened to JJ at UM was a significant injustice. Just how bad it was, we may never know. But, when you get to pick and choose which information you choose to fully divulge, questions like this will continue to linger. On one hand, Pabst can be fully involved in a substantially related criticism of the her former employer while being completely open about her experiences there, even with confidential criminal justice information. On the other hand, JJ's attorneys and the State of Montana can be uncooperative when it comes to requesting information related to the University proceedings and claim that they are not obligated to cooperate.

In both instances, I agree. JJ and his attorneys and the State of Montana have no obligation to comply with the requests of Krakauer. Similarly, the MCAO has no obligation to cooperate with the Federal Government. But in both instances, the lack of full disclosure on either side leaves questions that will continue to remain. The truth is really out there - and the more information available can only help to further clear Jordy's name, much in the way that a unanimous jury verdict did as well.

There was nothing questionable about the timing of Pabst leaving the county attorneys office. She left long before the case was referred to county attorneys office. She would never have agreed to represent JJ, had she obtained any information prior to leaving the county attorneys office. And had there been any doubt of that, the county attorney would have challenged her representation of JJ immediately.

Did Pabst talk to the DOJ or US Atty? I saw a reference to one former county attorney talking to DOJ, but don't know who it was. There are multiple former county attorney still around.

You obviously don't understand or appreciate federal and state privacy laws. They don't allow disclosure of the accuser/JJ information. It isn't the decision of the university to volunteer or keep the information. It's the law.

JJ has already been cleared and acquitted. He has nothing to gain by providing more information to Krakauer or the press. Also note that the accuser has privacy rights too.

he has nothing to lose. if this info eliminates all doubt, then as punch says he should release it. he has nothing to hide, but your post makes it sound like he does. not that you really know anything about the case.

 

[wbtfg]

JJ has already been cleared and acquitted. He has nothing to gain by providing more information to Krakauer

$$$$$


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.

 

[PlayerRep]

JJ has already been cleared and acquitted. He has nothing to gain by providing more information to Krakauer

$$$$$


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.

 

[cclarkblues]

JJ has already been cleared and acquitted. He has nothing to gain by providing more information to Krakauer

$$$$$


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?

 

[tnt]

JJ has already been cleared and acquitted. He has nothing to gain by providing more information to Krakauer

$$$$$


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

 

[griz4life]

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?

 

[griz4life]

You might want to refresh your memory about how the conduct court proceedings became public, taint. You are 180 degrees from the reality of how those records became public.

 

[EverettGriz]

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

Wow. Just...WOW.

 

[tnt]

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'm suggesting none of us would have heard about it, nor would he have had the quality of defense he had. Any other child of school teachers would likely have had a public defender and a plea bargain. They sure wouldn't be suing anybody even if they got off. Whether you want to believe it or not. Lots of innocent people plead or are found guilty.......

 

[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.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

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.

 

[griz4life]

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'm suggesting none of us would have heard about it, nor would he have had the quality of defense he had. Any other child of school teachers would likely have had a public defender and a plea bargain. They sure wouldn't be suing anybody even if they got off. Whether you want to believe it or not. Lots of innocent people plead or are found guilty.......

So, you're now suggesting the Johnsons are school teachers with extraordinary financial resources? Do tell.

You can find Judge Christensen's order at the link below. Notice that the order is in response to Johnson's request for a protective order sealing the case file. Yep, the judge denied the request and released the file. That means you're dead wrong about Mr. Paoli making the case file public.
http://ravallirepublic.com/pdf_37038082-05cd-5552-8484-dd16034b3057.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You seem to have the critical thinking skills the Missoulian looks for in an employee.

 

[griz4life]

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?

 

[tnt]

Are you sure that's Johnson or a redacted male student???

Of course Johnsons didn't have unusual resources..... Thats the point.

 

[EverettGriz]

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