The real details in the "unsealed document" - shocking

[Grisly Fan]

It appears that Engstorm and company feel it is important to make JJ appear as guilty as possible. Without him being guilty, Engstrom loses his justification for firing Pflugrad and O'Day.

Not sure about that. I am not sure that one has anything to do with the other. Engstrom really did not need any further justification for what he did with Pflugrad and O'Day. Change in leadership is enough to not renew contracts. In fact, my guess is that something came to light with the numerous investigations going on, especially the NCAA one that he felt he needed to change the leadership to be proactive.

I think this is Couture compensating for the Saudi student and alleged gang rape thing. It sounds like he was out to make a statement and did just that.

I thought the "non-renewal of contract" myth had been thoroughly debunked by PR. Their dismissal happened outside the terms of the contract and they were "non-renewed" in one another's presence. The idea that this was a simple contractual exercise simply doesn't hold water. They were fired and perhaps RE had the authority to do it regardless of what it might be called but the judge's opinion of the court proceedings further exposes RE's actions to scrutiny that RE might otherwise avoid. Anyone in RE's position does not want to be a party to a series of public missteps, especially since it appears that it was that very kind of reasoning that was used to rationalize the dismissal of RP and JOD. What is sauce for the goose...

 

[PlayerRep]

It appears that Engstorm and company feel it is important to make JJ appear as guilty as possible. Without him being guilty, Engstrom loses his justification for firing Pflugrad and O'Day.

Not sure about that. I am not sure that one has anything to do with the other. Engstrom really did not need any further justification for what he did with Pflugrad and O'Day. Change in leadership is enough to not renew contracts. In fact, my guess is that something came to light with the numerous investigations going on, especially the NCAA one that he felt he needed to change the leadership to be proactive.

I think this is Couture compensating for the Saudi student and alleged gang rape thing. It sounds like he was out to make a statement and did just that.

For the umteenth time, UM fired the two guys. It was not a decision not renew contracts. If an employee merely gets a notice not to renew, the employee continues to work at his job for the rest of the term of his contract. It's true that the university does not have to have a reason not to renew a contract.

Nope, don't think your guess about something coming to light in the investigations is accurate. This has been indicated by dozens of people at and around the university. I think Couture is just incompetent and a bad guy.

 

[PlayerRep]

The Federal Judge's comment on the University's conduct of this disciplinary proceeding is really shocking.

The Judge is an experienced attorney who well knows the implications of ober dicta in legal opinions.

Let's just suggest that, for him to make note of the University's shameful conduct, in a simple dismissal in which he did not need to do that, offers that he felt strongly about what he had read and heard in the Courtroom, enough so that it "shocked the conscience" enough to deserve the strong comment.

What it does show is the consistency with which Main Hall conducts its business under the alleged "leadership" of Royce Engstrom: arbitrary, capricious, and without concern for the students or for the institution. It's all about THEM.

It is consistent with the way Engstrom treated Pflugrad and O'Day, and it is consistent with how it generally deals with students and faculty alike.

Here's an expanded version of what the judge said when he denied the tro in his May 10 order:

"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."

Again, I think the judge was indicating that a case brought later and pled in a different manner could be a winner.

 

[Umista]

My daughter drinks six beers and is picked up for DUI.

Same girl lets me know she was on top of her bed with her friend Boy, both had no shirts on and were kissing and later she has this feeling she was raped.

My loving daughter then hires this cracker of an attorney I have never heard of and files a lawsuit against Boy for rape. A few days later she informs me she still loves Boy.

All this time I am in Beijing China dealing with chinese buisness people (men) and I am wondering if I am required to return to the states and get ready for a wedding or a nut cutting affair.

The above information was e-mailed to me.

######## I tend to think I am begining to hear that sucking sound!

 

[PTGrizzly]

It appears that Engstorm and company feel it is important to make JJ appear as guilty as possible. Without him being guilty, Engstrom loses his justification for firing Pflugrad and O'Day.

Not sure about that. I am not sure that one has anything to do with the other. Engstrom really did not need any further justification for what he did with Pflugrad and O'Day. Change in leadership is enough to not renew contracts. In fact, my guess is that something came to light with the numerous investigations going on, especially the NCAA one that he felt he needed to change the leadership to be proactive.

I think this is Couture compensating for the Saudi student and alleged gang rape thing. It sounds like he was out to make a statement and did just that.

For the umteenth time, UM fired the two guys. It was not a decision not renew contracts. If an employee merely gets a notice not to renew, the employee continues to work at his job for the rest of the term of his contract. It's true that the university does not have to have a reason not to renew a contract.

Nope, don't think your guess about something coming to light in the investigations is accurate. This has been indicated by dozens of people at and around the university. I think Couture is just incompetent and a bad guy.

I think he's a bully and a jerk too...such a meanie.

 

[poorgriz]

My daughter drinks six beers and is picked up for DUI.

Same girl lets me know she was on top of her bed with her friend Boy, both had no shirts on and were kissing and later she has this feeling she was raped.

My loving daughter then hires this cracker of an attorney I have never heard of and files a lawsuit against Boy for rape. A few days later she informs me she still loves Boy.

All this time I am in Beijing China dealing with chinese buisness people (men) and I am wondering if I am required to return to the states and get ready for a wedding or a nut cutting affair.

The above information was e-mailed to me.

######## I tend to think I am begining to hear that sucking sound!

Jesus you're weird. :ugeek:

 

[kemajic]

I think Couture is just incompetent and a bad guy.

Do you really think he was acting without the endorsement, even pressure, from Engstrom? I have to suspect Coture was a tool of Engstrom in this process.

 

[Tokyogriz]

I think Couture is just incompetent and a bad guy.

Do you really think he was acting without the endorsement, even pressure, from Engstrom? I have to suspect Coture was a tool of Engstrom in this process.

This is spot on. Oday was fired because he supported the due process of accusations against um athletes. Engstrom supports Coutre in his inquisition and intimidation techniques.

The real battle here is not odays unjust firing or even if Jj is guilty. The real fight is what kind of university are we creating for our children. If um follows coutre and Engstrom down the current path they are creating we will have a 100% conviction rate on any accusations. There are plenty of truthful accusations of sexual assault by there are and will continue to be accusations that are not at all clear in guilt or even untrue accusations. What percent of innocent men should have their lives destroyed in order to attain engstroms 100% conviction rate?


Engstrom qouted some feminist groups assertion in a email stating that "just because charges were not filed does not mean no crime occured." This is his actual thinking and hence his agenda that Coutre was really following through on. The truth is if charges are not filed after being looked at by authorities it is just as likely the accused DID NOT commit a crime as to the likelyhood he did. We cannot allow people like Coutre and Engstrom to abuse their positions like this.

 

[Noches de Passion]

I think there is a misunderstanding of what constitutes due process on and off campus. As some may know, the University itself is not bound by the process afforded to criminal defendants in the criminal system. Thus the University is not obligated to prove JOD's responsibility or Jordy's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The University is free to dismiss JOD and expell Jordy simply by a preponderance of the evidence.

True, Jordy has not been charged or convicted of rape. If his case makes it to the County Attorney, the State will be obligated to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On campus, however, Jordy is not afforded the same standards. Sorry, Brandon, but that's just the way it is - on this campus, and many others.

It looks like in this situation the University was in a hurry to prove that it wasn't going to let another Saudi type incident happen again, and in doing so, rushed to convict and expel Jordy based on University proceedings. If those proceedings were faulty, Jordy will have remedies against the University. However, Jordy was unable to convice a federal judge to stop those proceedings, and thus the situation exists as it does now. I'm not saying it's right. I am saying that the University did what it wanted to do and now Jordy is paying the consequences of it.

U of M can't act as its own separate fiefdom apart from the city, county, state, and country. I have been saying that since last fall. This isn't the first time the University has decided it wanted to implement its own rule of law, but now that it affects one of our star players, we finally notice it. There has to be some major reforms on this campus and better cooperation with law enforcement officials, or else the price to be paid for these missteps will grow greater by the day.

 

[Gaeilge1]

Noches, I'm not sure I get your point. On the one hand you are saying that the University in this instance is not held to the same standard of due process that is afforded an accused criminal and you imply that they are free to expel or take some sort of punitive action based on the preponderance of evidence alone.

On the other hand you indicate that the University is not an entity unto itself. I believe you used the term "fiefdom". Which one is it?

From what I am able to discern after what has come to light this week this University has not only trampled all over a student's right to a fair hearing at what ever tribunal has been set up, they have completely taken it upon themselves to rewrite the common law doctrine of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" and made it GUILTY until proven innocent!

While there is no doubt that the University can establish its own internal process for dealing with these matters, it must still abide by the common law that governs virtually everything we do, regardless of the actual written statute.

 

[grizpaws]

I think there is a misunderstanding of what constitutes due process on and off campus. As some may know, the University itself is not bound by the process afforded to criminal defendants in the criminal system. Thus the University is not obligated to prove JOD's responsibility or Jordy's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The University is free to dismiss JOD and expell Jordy simply by a preponderance of the evidence.

True, Jordy has not been charged or convicted of rape. If his case makes it to the County Attorney, the State will be obligated to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On campus, however, Jordy is not afforded the same standards. Sorry, Brandon, but that's just the way it is - on this campus, and many others.

It looks like in this situation the University was in a hurry to prove that it wasn't going to let another Saudi type incident happen again, and in doing so, rushed to convict and expel Jordy based on University proceedings. If those proceedings were faulty, Jordy will have remedies against the University. However, Jordy was unable to convice a federal judge to stop those proceedings, and thus the situation exists as it does now. I'm not saying it's right. I am saying that the University did what it wanted to do and now Jordy is paying the consequences of it.

U of M can't act as its own separate fiefdom apart from the city, county, state, and country. I have been saying that since last fall. This isn't the first time the University has decided it wanted to implement its own rule of law, but now that it affects one of our star players, we finally notice it. There has to be some major reforms on this campus and better cooperation with law enforcement officials, or else the price to be paid for these missteps will grow greater by the day.

I agree that the U can set a standard for burden of proof that is different than a prosecutor; but, as has been argued by Player Rep, the U changed the standard it used for student violations of the code of conduct in mid-stream. And, as BW pointed out there appear to be some real problems with the fairness of the hearing process in Johnson's case. The U, as an agency of the state, is still required to provide a student charged with a violation of the code of conduct with due process and to treat that student in the same manner that other students in the same circumstances are treated (equal protection).

 

[mtgrizrule]

It appears that Engstorm and company feel it is important to make JJ appear as guilty as possible. Without him being guilty, Engstrom loses his justification for firing Pflugrad and O'Day.

this!

this +1

+2

 

[Noches de Passion]

Noches, I'm not sure I get your point. On the one hand you are saying that the University in this instance is not held to the same standard of due process that is afforded an accused criminal and you imply that they are free to expel or take some sort of punitive action based on the preponderance of evidence alone.

On the other hand you indicate that the University is not an entity unto itself. I believe you used the term "fiefdom". Which one is it?

From what I am able to discern after what has come to light this week this University has not only trampled all over a student's right to a fair hearing at what ever tribunal has been set up, they have completely taken it upon themselves to rewrite the common law doctrine of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" and made it GUILTY until proven innocent!

While there is no doubt that the University can establish its own internal process for dealing with these matters, it must still abide by the common law that governs virtually everything we do, regardless of the actual written statute.

Looking back, yes I can see how that would be confusing. Maybe this will help.

On one hand, we had situations that went something like this, and I'm generalizing: Victim-student goes to University to obtain help for alleged incident. University investigates and determines that no immediate action is necessary, other than to notify the accused. For privacy reasons, no reporting is done and other off-campus law enforcement is not involved. Some prefer it that way, others do not. The Saudi incident is one of the most embarrassing, where by sheer arrogance (or ignorance) the University determined that it could handle the situation on its own. The University could have contacted law enforcement to have the Saudi's passport pulled or even arrested him and argued for a high bond due to what is undoubtedly a flight risk. I think most people would agree that the University cannot say in this situation that they have the authority to act as their own fiefdom. The result, applying that process here, was tragic.

On the other hand, we have a situation where a prominent, out of state athlete was accused of rape. The University again decided it could handle the litigation internally. The process now seems to have been a complete disaster for everyone involved, including both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator. Because the University voted to expell Jordy based on that flawed procedure, there are more people who now recognize just how flawed it is to have a campus process trying to adjudicate business that is best left to real courts of law. The result again is incredibly tragic, because whether or not Jordy is actually guilty of rape isn't the focus of the campus investigation. The result of the investigation determined whether or not he could be a student at this University, and we now know how that turned out.

I don't claim to have all the solutions to this current problem, but the process as it exists now for students and student athletes at the University of Montana is flawed. The lives of young people can be ruined by this process, both students and student athletes alike. If we didn't realize it during the Saudi situation and we finally realize it now, at least it is better now than never.

 

[darts]

So JJ was drunk at a University function and got a ride home from a woman he had shared previous flirtation/kissing etc. He appears to have pushed the woman further than she wanted to go. At least that is her perspective. My belief is that she was asking him to stop but that he wasn't hearing her. Literally he did not hear her say 'Stop'. And literally, she did say 'Stop.' Is that grounds for dismissal from The University of Montana? Maybe not. It is certainly behavior inconsistent for the leader of a team.

But in this age of distorted moral boundaries it is not hard to imagine JJ believed he was always in the right. Will he be able to lead his teammates after all that has happened? Will they want him to? Will the coaches want someone who is not of the 'highest moral fiber' leading the team? I think the answeer to all three questions is 'Yes.' Will anyone care about all these sexual accusations if JJ is a good QB in the middle of October? I think not.

My guess is that JJ plays all year with little repercussion. He and the team will even use it is a rallying cry: 'Everyone tries to bring us down, but we will survive and become Champions!' All in all, that is what the fans want. They want JJ to play unless he is guilty of a first degree felony. Go Team! Win. Same as it always was... Same as it always was...

 

[mtgrizrule]

So JJ was drunk at a University function and got a ride home from a woman he had shared previous flirtation/kissing etc. He appears to have pushed the woman further than she wanted to go. At least that is her perspective. My belief is that she was asking him to stop but that he wasn't hearing her. Literally he did not hear her say 'Stop'. And literally, she did say 'Stop.' Is that grounds for dismissal from The University of Montana? Maybe not. It is certainly behavior inconsistent for the leader of a team.

But in this age of distorted moral boundaries it is not hard to imagine JJ believed he was always in the right. Will he be able to lead his teammates after all that has happened? Will they want him to? Will the coaches want someone who is not of the 'highest moral fiber' leading the team? I think the answeer to all three questions is 'Yes.' Will anyone care about all these sexual accusations if JJ is a good QB in the middle of October? I think not.

My guess is that JJ plays all year with little repercussion. He and the team will even use it is a rallying cry: 'Everyone tries to bring us down, but we will survive and become Champions!' All in all, that is what the fans want. They want JJ to play unless he is guilty of a first degree felony. Go Team! Win. Same as it always was... Same as it always was...

WOW, talk about a post open to every interpretation possible. I read the 1st part, and was about to lose it. The middle brought me back to neutral. The ending has left me clueless in what to think of the post. That is a rare talent. :thumb:

With that said, nobody knows to what extent JJ is guilty, or innocent? In hindsight, I think he is guilty of messing with the wrong kind of woman, and/or being a college student having some fun.

 

[kemajic]

It appears that Engstorm and company feel it is important to make JJ appear as guilty as possible. Without him being guilty, Engstrom loses his justification for firing Pflugrad and O'Day.

Not sure about that. I am not sure that one has anything to do with the other. Engstrom really did not need any further justification for what he did with Pflugrad and O'Day. Change in leadership is enough to not renew contracts.

He may not need further justification with his superiors or with contract law. But the primary football revenue comes from fans, season ticketholders and boosters. Do you think that group feels RE was justified in firing Pflugrand and O'Day? Not in my circles. Not at all. He has a lot of damage to repair with that group and blame-shifting is one common tactic. In an election year we're seeing it all over the place.

 

[kemajic]

With that said, nobody knows to what extent JJ is guilty, or innocent? In hindsight, I think he is guilty of messing with the wrong kind of woman, and/or being a college student having some fun.

Messing with a woman at all in Missoula these days....

 

[mtgrizrule]

With that said, nobody knows to what extent JJ is guilty, or innocent? In hindsight, I think he is guilty of messing with the wrong kind of woman, and/or being a college student having some fun.

Messing with a woman at all in Missoula these days....

Are you implying, messing with a woman at all in Missoula these days, could florio up your life? :lol: :thumb:

 

[kemajic]

With that said, nobody knows to what extent JJ is guilty, or innocent? In hindsight, I think he is guilty of messing with the wrong kind of woman, and/or being a college student having some fun.

Messing with a woman at all in Missoula these days....

Are you implying, messing with a woman at all in Missoula these days, could florio up your life? :lol: :thumb:

It could really Gwen it up...

 

[GrizMusician]

What the Florio is going on in here???

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2