QB Situation

[PlayerRep]

With all due respect PR. The courts are not likely to appoint college QB. They may order him readmitted (depending on the appeal), but that is doubtful. Not much history of courts interfering with school disciplinary practices. Not sure about damages either, sounds good but the only public statements made in the whole matter have been made by his attorney. While public release of some documents by Mr. Paoli may have been a great strategic move, he did his client no favors. I'm not sure of any courts that will award damages unless damages can be shown......

BTW, we did have a court appoint president once. Not sure that worked out all that well.

Actually, there are a number of court actions overturning school disciplinary actions. There's are least one with some important similarities to these facts, although the facts for JJ are even better in the situation in that case. There are been court actions filed or threatened in state court in Montana, that have caused schools to reinstate high school players. Paoli didn't release some documents. The federal court unsealed the file, and documents in the file were released, after names had been deleted.

Illegally tossing a kid out of college, causing him to lose his scholarship, causing him to not be able to play football, and damaging his reputation would seem to result in huge damages, I suppose even into the millions. Proving the illegal part, against a university or school, but it is occurring more and more. However, I've never seen or heard of a situation where a university or any governmental body was able to change the standard for review in mid-stream. This is the critical fact in this situation.

 

[indian-outlaw]

True, but I think Valkenberg has had more than enough time to bring charges if he was going to. I think JJ is just waiting to see the outcome of his final appeal to the BOR.

Exactly, and he will be the qb unless charges are brought which seems highly unlikely at this point. There is no way in hell the BOR will dare throw him out without charges being filed.

But will the BOR overturn the Honor Court decision and the Prez recommendation considering the DOE, DOJ and NCAA is breathing down their neck.

That is the big question, I have no idea, we have all heard the speculations and the facts and the distortions of the facts and quite frankly it is pretty muddy.

The Commissioner and the Board of Regents will endorse Pres. Engstrom's decision. Get over it. :ugeek:

I disagree, no way in hell will they rubber stamp that. The buck stops with the BOR and they are smarter than that.

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

FWIW, this App fan will be disappointed if JJ doesn't play. Our team has some unanswered questions as well, but I'd like to see the real Montana in Boone in September.

Great attitute! Nice to see some (unlike our neighbors) who desire to beat us while we have our best players on the field, and not when were down our best personell.

 

[BWahlberg]

Exactly, and he will be the qb unless charges are brought which seems highly unlikely at this point. There is no way in hell the BOR will dare throw him out without charges being filed.

But will the BOR overturn the Honor Court decision and the Prez recommendation considering the DOE, DOJ and NCAA is breathing down their neck.

That is the big question, I have no idea, we have all heard the speculations and the facts and the distortions of the facts and quite frankly it is pretty muddy.

The Commissioner and the Board of Regents will endorse Pres. Engstrom's decision. Get over it. :ugeek:

I disagree, no way in hell will they rubber stamp that. The buck stops with the BOR and they are smarter than that.

Not so sure on that one.

 

[KoolMoeDee]

But will the BOR overturn the Honor Court decision and the Prez recommendation considering the DOE, DOJ and NCAA is breathing down their neck.

That is the big question, I have no idea, we have all heard the speculations and the facts and the distortions of the facts and quite frankly it is pretty muddy.

The Commissioner and the Board of Regents will endorse Pres. Engstrom's decision. Get over it. :ugeek:

I disagree, no way in hell will they rubber stamp that. The buck stops with the BOR and they are smarter than that.

Not so sure on that one.

Just wondering who actually makes the decision. Is it Christian or the Board of Regents ?

 

[BWahlberg]

I believe it's Clay Christian that "makes the decision."

 

[Chitown_law]

Not much history of courts interfering with school disciplinary practices.

I never post here, but that line made me laugh. I spent a good amount of time last week going over cases where a court held that a school infringed upon a students First amendment rights by punishing them when they in fact should not have had power to do so. (i.e. not allowing them to participate in activities such as sports) The landmark case was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. decided in 1969. Cases to this day still follow the rules established by that court.

I wish I would have read this board first though, then I wouldn't have wasted my time reading all those cases.

 

[LakGriz]

I think the "activity" in Tinker vs DM was words on the t-shirt of a Vietnam war protestor...

 

[billings_poke]

Not much history of courts interfering with school disciplinary practices.

I never post here, but that line made me laugh. I spent a good amount of time last week going over cases where a court held that a school infringed upon a students First amendment rights by punishing them when they in fact should not have had power to do so. (i.e. not allowing them to participate in activities such as sports) The landmark case was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. decided in 1969. Cases to this day still follow the rules established by that court.

I wish I would have read this board first though, then I wouldn't have wasted my time reading all those cases.

did you account for the differences between K-12 education, as in the case you cite, and a voluntary not guaranteed post high school institution? very different in terms lof legal responsibilities and requirements

 

[Chitown_law]

Not much history of courts interfering with school disciplinary practices.

I never post here, but that line made me laugh. I spent a good amount of time last week going over cases where a court held that a school infringed upon a students First amendment rights by punishing them when they in fact should not have had power to do so. (i.e. not allowing them to participate in activities such as sports) The landmark case was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. decided in 1969. Cases to this day still follow the rules established by that court.

I wish I would have read this board first though, then I wouldn't have wasted my time reading all those cases.

did you account for the differences between K-12 education, as in the case you cite, and a voluntary not guaranteed post high school institution? very different in terms lof legal responsibilities and requirements

I believe Tatro v. University of Minnesota (2012) is a part of the Tinker progeny. I just gave the landmark case becasue Tnt did not specify what type of school.

 

[mark dyba]

The coaches will make their adjustments during fall camp. If it had to happen, and it's sad that it did, it's better for it to happen now. Believe me the coaches have started making adjustment for the QB position.
Sac lost two qb's mid season and had to go the freshmen route after that. They were pretty simple to defend after that, it was run three times and punt.
It's painful when it happens, but a disaster when it happens mid season.
miles city

 

[PlayerRep]

Here's an applicable case. The court forced the school to re-admit the woman. Her main complaint is that her counsel was not allowed to speak at the hearing. She was facing both university and legal prosecution. It doesn't appear that she had other complaints regarding other lack of due process or unfair proceeding, let alone changing the standard in mid-stream, like in the present matter. Those things would have made her case stronger. I can't cut and paste the pdf, so go to about p. 60 of the below link, discussing Coulter v. East Stroudsburg University (M.D. PA. 2010).

http://www.rbs2.com/eatty.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[billings_poke]

Not much history of courts interfering with school disciplinary practices.

I never post here, but that line made me laugh. I spent a good amount of time last week going over cases where a court held that a school infringed upon a students First amendment rights by punishing them when they in fact should not have had power to do so. (i.e. not allowing them to participate in activities such as sports) The landmark case was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. decided in 1969. Cases to this day still follow the rules established by that court.

I wish I would have read this board first though, then I wouldn't have wasted my time reading all those cases.

did you account for the differences between K-12 education, as in the case you cite, and a voluntary not guaranteed post high school institution? very different in terms lof legal responsibilities and requirements

I believe Tatro v. University of Minnesota (2012) is a part of the Tinker progeny. I just gave the landmark case becasue Tnt did not specify what type of school.

type of schools and k-12 versus post secondary will matter

 

[PlayerRep]

I never post here, but that line made me laugh. I spent a good amount of time last week going over cases where a court held that a school infringed upon a students First amendment rights by punishing them when they in fact should not have had power to do so. (i.e. not allowing them to participate in activities such as sports) The landmark case was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. decided in 1969. Cases to this day still follow the rules established by that court.

I wish I would have read this board first though, then I wouldn't have wasted my time reading all those cases.

did you account for the differences between K-12 education, as in the case you cite, and a voluntary not guaranteed post high school institution? very different in terms lof legal responsibilities and requirements

I believe Tatro v. University of Minnesota (2012) is a part of the Tinker progeny. I just gave the landmark case becasue Tnt did not specify what type of school.

type of schools and k-12 versus post secondary will matter

True. The courts have held that constitutional due process rights, in some amount, apply to state schools. The courts also tend to uphold more constitutional and other rights in college disciplinary proceedings than in K-12 schools. Thus, if you think courts would uphold more rights in K-12 than in the university setting, in a situation like this, then you are wrong. This is in large part because of the high stakes and related damages related to be kicked out of college.

 

[jazzegriz]

Worrisome, yes. ..............

The big question I have is how much longer JJ's status will be up in the air? Is it possible that fall camp, or even the season, could start with his situation still not finalized, potentially resulting in him leaving the team in the midst of the season? Seems like a ridiculous situation, but the start of fall camp isn't all that far off and it doesn't seem like anyone is in any hurry to offer any concrete answers regarding JJ's status.

Didn't the top guy from the board of regents (the one who decides on the appeal) release a statement about JJ's current situation? Didn't he state after the RE decision on expulsion, that JJ was on the roster and enrolled for next semester and is currently considered a student in good standing?

This....

And where did you get your info from getgrizzy?

The campus court hearing took place May 23. The committee voted 5-2, finding the student guilty of violating the student conduct code, and voted 7-0 in favor of expulsion.

On June 6, UM President Royce Engstrom wrote a letter in support of the campus court’s decision for expulsion.

The student appealed the process to Commissioner of Higher Education Clay Christian, who has not yet ruled.

Paoli has until Friday to submit an opening brief – opposing the expulsion – to the commissioner’s office. UM has until July 13 to respond.

The appellant will then have until July 24 to reply once more before Christian makes a determination.
Unless the student waives his or her right to privacy, it’s unlikely the final decision will be made public.

 

[tnt]

Not trying to spilt hairs here, PR and the rest of you lawyers, but I hope you read your case law better than you read egriz. I said there was little history of the courts interfering in school disciplinary matters and that a judge was unlikley to appoint a QB for the GRIZ. All the case law in the world won't change that fact. A federal judge has already declined to get involved. If the BOR upholds the expulsion, its over. You legal types may get it before a judge and you may even win a case. But chances of it having it effect this football season?....... Get real.

 

[PlayerRep]

Not trying to spilt hairs here, PR and the rest of you lawyers, but I hope you read your case law better than you read egriz. I said there was little history of the courts interfering in school disciplinary matters and that a judge was unlikley to appoint a QB for the GRIZ. All the case law in the world won't change that fact. A federal judge has already declined to get involved. If the BOR upholds the expulsion, its over. You legal types may get it before a judge and you may even win a case. But chances of it having it effect this football season?....... Get real.

Actually, the federal court judge seemed to essentially conclude the university process was faulty and likely a violation of the accused rights (under contract and due process). The judge declined to issue a tro or preliminary injunction to stop the university panel hearing, which was all that had been asked for. He said, while the university process was horrible, he couldn't grant the requested relief on the claims "as plead". He pointed out that Montana had not waived it's sovereign immunity to be sued in federal court, but it had waived rights to be sued in state court. In my view, he gave a road map for the next lawsuit, if the accused and his counsel decide to go that route. Here's some of what the court said:

"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 Plainftiff 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 rigths and dignity of the accused."

 

[tnt]

All nice words and further proof you live in a vacuum. But still no injunction, just an open window for a legal challenge. Problem is by the time all the paper work is done counter briefs etc, so will the the season. There is reason for lawyers to be the butt of so many jokes.

So what has been accomplished so far? Some beautiful words for a bunch of lawyers to pound their chests with. JJ is still where he was before the only difference now is that what was once a pretty private situation is now very public. He has been far more victimized by his supporters than the system at this point.


Further legal challenges will have far more involved than a football player. Including the whole "system from from Title IX, the DOJ interpretation DOE interprutation will have to be considered before The U of M's use or misuse can be determined. To even get to JJ a whole bunch of case will have to be won. I'm not sure even you PR even if you had the expertise, would have the time or money to move forward.
Even Christiansen if he were to issue a restraining order against the expulsion would be hesitent to Pupuapossible rapist back in school should they choose to suspend him while the whole process is repeated.

 

[mtgrizrule]

As for JJ, or anyone, with a pending legal situation, they should be allowed to continue their schooling, and let the legal system determine guilt or innocence. Legal steps have already been done to keep him, and the accuser a part.

As a football coach, any case these days, are now more under scrutiny. As much as I believe in letting the system play out, I believe the U of M has to keep him from playing in games, and treat this coming season, as his redshirt year. Even if the coaches are 100% behind his innocence, this is the best way to be fair to everyone.

Sorry, from day 1, when I heard the power the school code group (whatever it is called), has, I have been completely against it. The current system in place, is exactly opposite of what our nation was founded on, innocent until proven guilty. As for JJ, if he is expelled from school, before the legal process has taken it's course, I completely support, and understand his family pursuing more legal lawsuits. Then again, I know I would not want to take things to that extent, but feel it would have to be an option to explore.

Why is this dragging on so long? If I were JJ, and I am innocent, I would want the legal crap be done with ASAP!!!!

 

[Grizzoola]

I'm no attorney, but isn't a scholarship or even enrolling at a school a contract between the student and the school? That a school can attach certain conditions? That both the school and the student have obligations to each other? I suppose it could well be that even if the school determines that the student has not fulfilled certain conditions in the contract, that that is a unilateral determination of only one party to the contract.

IOW, a school, as only one party to the contract, cannot on its own declare the contract null and void, any more than any other contract in the general society. It seems that the student as the other party is right in submitting the question to a regular court, which could well rule in favor of the student, as in any other contractual dispute.