***Wanted: Update on restraining orders...who is still not allowed to play at TCF?

Ski U Mah Gopher said:

Limit the scope of the order, so that there are areas in the stadium that the players can be in.

Click to expand...

He should initially be arguing that it be lifted all together, and his due process argument is his starting point. Makes sense to me.

Like was stated earlier, his due process argument means he has very little else to argue. I would focus on the scope of the order. And as an earlier poster mentioned her emotional well being is likely the concern. Clearly the coaching staff is ready willing and able to monitor the players at the stadium and assure her physical safety. And in all liklihood the player's focus is not the girl on game day. But since she has a legitimate reason for being at the stadium can the judge tailor an order that will keep her from being impacted and allow the players to play? If the court finds there is an ongoing concern about her well being, I would expect the court to do very little to accomodate the player's access to the field.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Plinnius said:

What do you suppose Hutton should be doing?

Click to expand...

I don't know the specific facts of the case so that makes this question very difficult to answer. If I were representing the players, I would focus on the petitioner's account of events. Her filing an order against Thomas only to remove it a day later because she misremembered is not helping her. Mr Buford Sr. seemed to indicate that the petitioner's story changed several times (again, I don't know any of the specifics, just using the unconfirmed information to give a hypothetical opinion). Since it was investigated and charges we not pursued, that leads me to believe that there is not much in the way of physical or forensic evidence. These cases almost always come down to he said/she said. So my focus would be on presenting my client's side of the story while highlighting inconsistencies in the petitioner's.

I would also be working in how my clients are adversely affected by the TCF restriction and parameters that could be put in place to ensure no interaction between the players and the petitioner occurs.

I would not have gone to the unconstitutional argument because it can come off as you are concerned that the facts are not on your side. And, as stated above, it's not a new argument and I have never seen it prevail (though the Harassment Statute is horribly written).

First you have to understand that there are two separate court actions going on. Today's action, is a challenge to how the law is written, tomorrow there is a hearing challenging the merits of the RO. The judge in tomorrows action has promised a decision by Friday at the latest but I suspect the amount of evidence Hutton has to introduce may make a quick decision problematic. By challenging the Ex-Parte portion of the law successfully he will succeed in allowing the players to play Saturday.

raindog said:

Like was stated earlier, his due process argument means he has very little else to argue. I would focus on the scope of the order. And as an earlier poster mentioned her emotional well being is likely the concern. Clearly the coaching staff is ready willing and able to monitor the players at the stadium and assure her physical safety. And in all liklihood the player's focus is not the girl on game day. But since she has a legitimate reason for being at the stadium can the judge tailor an order that will keep her from being impacted and allow the players to play? If the court finds there is an ongoing concern about her well being, I would expect the court to do very little to accomodate the player's access to the field.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Really...you an attorney?

St. Maria Goretti

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2002/july/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020708_santa-maria-goretti.html

PMWinSTP said:

Really...you an attorney?

Click to expand...

Yes, but not in MN. I was not aware there are 2 hearings. One to address the factual issues and a second to raise the constitutional issues. After reading some of the press, I was only aware of the constitutional issue being raised. If Hutton is challeging the factual basis for an order being entered, he can still address the scope of the order if the court keeps the order in place.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Hutton like any good lawyer is attacking every avenue, he didn't win on his motion, but the issue has been raised. Regardless of the disposition of the RO tomorrow, the constitutional question, can move forward.

raindog said:

Yes, but not in MN. I was not aware there are 2 hearings. One to address the factual issues and a second to raise the constitutional issues. After reading some of the press, I was only aware of the constitutional issue being raised. If Hutton is challeging the factual basis for an order being entered, he can still address the scope of the order if the court keeps the order in place.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

It is the scope of the restraining order that is really over the top.
It smacks of vindictiveness.
I'd have a very, very hard time agreeing that the party filing this restraining order is in any semblance of hazard or danger in the game day surroundings at TCF. It is a very controllable environment.
Set a few conditions and move on.

********Breaking********

ALL RESTRAINING ORDERS DISMISSED!!!!

I think this will be a HUGE boost to the team, especially defense. With Sherels back now on the sideline and all the players back on the sideline and on the field, the D should really be at their best for the first time this year. Regardless, good timing on the final outcome of these actions for the home stretch...here's to hoping they can take at least 2 out of the last 4 games and finish with an 8-4 record for a decent bowl game although bringing the axe home....

raindog said:

Yes, but not in MN. I was not aware there are 2 hearings. One to address the factual issues and a second to raise the constitutional issues. After reading some of the press, I was only aware of the constitutional issue being raised. If Hutton is challeging the factual basis for an order being entered, he can still address the scope of the order if the court keeps the order in place.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yeah, having the details is helpful. He absolutely did his job well in this one. I have zero problem with him throwing in the due process argument, he made his point. It know doubt helped establish some of the basis for potential civil action...which was used as leverage in settling the matter.