All Things EOAA, Investigation, Suspension, Overturned Etc. Thread: UPDATED 1 Thread

Donate To GopherHole
Bob_Loblaw said:
Why can't you just have intellectual conversation about the issues?

The OP didn't get laughed and mocked because people disagreed with him, he got mocked and laughed at because of the nature of his posting.

First, he said this is an awful place to talk about the situation, then he went on to log on, create an account here and put out 8 bulletpoints about the subject. You don't think that's weird? I was sick and tired of reading posts here that didn't talk about the FACTS of this case--which you even admitted are "bad for those charged." You talked about me in conjunction of having "crazy" ideas and so forth. I get that the process may be flawed--as though the processes where you practice law are not. I talked about my daughter graduating from the U of M law school and how proud I am of the work that she's done on behalf of social justice. Bob Loblaw talks about his U of M law degree all of the time. But, then again, he's Bob Loblaw and I'm either just the President or the A.D. at the U of M.

Next, he implied that if people disagreed with the EoAA and they don't adhere to BLM, they are essentially playing the race card for this particular case. That's quite the statement, don't you think? You said you didn't think race was an issue in this case when most posters have said the opposite. I CONTRASTED concern about African-American football player with BLM because there can be "more than one injustice in society" which are the exact words that you used in your initial response. What about Hutton bringing up Emmitt Till?

I asked him a couple of substantive questions because he seemed to want a dialogue, he essentially skipped them to start yapping about BLM. I answered all of your questions but only the last one was posted because of an error I made. I'm a first poster, remember? One of thing I will say again is that Bob is exactly right--I never should have posted here. No one but the same people who post the same things every day should be allowed to do so.

I realize that you're not capable of having a substantive discussion on the issues of the case, but don't confuse that with people rejecting any attempt at a real discussion. But go ahead, attack me, imply that it is just the Gopherhole hivemind, or maybe make an ACTUAL point.
Click to expand...
After just my two posts here, the great, great Bob Loblaw realizes that I'm "not capable of have a substantive discussion." Yet 60% of those who read my post approve/recommend it. The howling wolves came out in full force as they always do. My original post was substantive. No one has disputed the facts of the case that I outlined. Loblaw didn't discuss them (he's only interested in "the process") except to admit that they were very bad for the players. You yourself said the Washington Post article I sighted was an important one. But I must always keep in mind, I'm not Bob Loblaw. And what about the constitutional challenges to EoAA? Where are they in the federal courts? Most have gone virtually nowhere and you are the guy that keeps bringing up the constitution here.
Finally, since I've admitted to being the A.D. and the president of the U of M (as well as the person behind the Bowling Green massacre), what posters will now admit they are Tracy Claeys? I'm done "yapping" now. Next time I post, I'll get in the flow of things around here and bad mouth the U, its president, its A.D., its new football coach and its awful team.
 

Trisuper said:
After just my two posts here, the great, great Bob Loblaw realizes that I'm "not capable of have a substantive discussion." Yet 60% of those who read my post approve/recommend it. The howling wolves came out in full force as they always do. My original post was substantive. No one has disputed the facts of the case that I outlined. Loblaw didn't discuss them (he's only interested in "the process") except to admit that they were very bad for the players. You yourself said the Washington Post article I sighted was an important one. But I must always keep in mind, I'm not Bob Loblaw. And what about the constitutional challenges to EoAA? Where are they in the federal courts? Most have gone virtually nowhere and you are the guy that keeps bringing up the constitution here.
Finally, since I've admitted to being the A.D. and the president of the U of M (as well as the person behind the Bowling Green massacre), what posters will now admit they are Tracy Claeys? I'm done "yapping" now. Next time I post, I'll get in the flow of things around here and bad mouth the U, its president, its A.D., its new football coach and its awful team.
Click to expand...

B-bye...
 

Spoofin said:
I'd bet a fortune the OP didn't 'join' GH today. He created a new account today - most likely because his current has lost all credibility on this topic. Who? I'd say the first to agree & come to his defense. A fortune.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I suspect OP is UpNorth. He has done this kind of thing in the past.

At least UpNorth cannot say he isn't better than people for not getting banned anymore.
 




Trisuper said:
After just my two posts here, the great, great Bob Loblaw realizes that I'm "not capable of have a substantive discussion." Yet 60% of those who read my post approve/recommend it. The howling wolves came out in full force as they always do. My original post was substantive. No one has disputed the facts of the case that I outlined. Loblaw didn't discuss them (he's only interested in "the process") except to admit that they were very bad for the players. You yourself said the Washington Post article I sighted was an important one. But I must always keep in mind, I'm not Bob Loblaw. And what about the constitutional challenges to EoAA? Where are they in the federal courts? Most have gone virtually nowhere and you are the guy that keeps bringing up the constitution here.
Finally, since I've admitted to being the A.D. and the president of the U of M (as well as the person behind the Bowling Green massacre), what posters will now admit they are Tracy Claeys? I'm done "yapping" now. Next time I post, I'll get in the flow of things around here and bad mouth the U, its president, its A.D., its new football coach and its awful team.
Click to expand...

D-bag alert! Apologies to Les for stealing his bit.
 

Ray Buford

EOAA recommended punishment: expulsion from University.
Recommendation upheld.

Kiante Hardin

EOAA recommended punishment: expulsion from University.
Recommendation upheld.
Dior Johnson

EOAA recommended punishment: expulsion from University.
Recommendation upheld.
Tamarion Johnson

EOAA recommended punishment: expulsion from University.
Recommendation upheld.
Mark Williams

EOAA recommended punishment: suspended for one year from University.
Recommendation upheld.
Carlton Djam

EOAA recommended punishment: expulsion from University.
Revised punishment: suspended for one year from University.
Antonio Shenault

EOAA recommended punishment: placed under probation for one year at University.
Revised punishment: Cleared from academic punishment.
Seth Green

EOAA recommended punishment: suspended for one year from University.
Revised punishment: Cleared from academic punishment.
Antoine Winfield, Jr.

EOAA recommended punishment: suspended for one year from University.
Revised punishment: Cleared from academic punishment.
Kobe McCrary

EOAA recommended punishment: suspended for one year from University.
Revised punishment: Cleared from academic punishment.
The University of Minnesota issued the following statement:

We have received a number of inquiries about the football suspension matter. Please know that out of respect for the confidentiality of individuals involved in an athletic suspension, we can identify the existence of a suspension for individual student-athletes, but the law does not allow us to talk about further specifics about the events behind the suspensions. Title IX and other related proceedings are also confidential throughout the due process that the University's policies provide: EOAA investigation; OSCAI assessment; conduct code hearings; and any appeal to the Provost by any involved party

The suspended and expelled players can still appeal those decisions at the Office of the Provost.
 

It was reported that Williams had his suspension upheld not his expulsion and that Djam had his expulsion reduced to a suspension. Is that not the case?
 




TruthSeeker said:
Now they simply need to appeal to the Provost, and then they'll be able to sue in Federal Court.

We're getting closer to the point where the University gets shredded, which should make everyone happy.
Click to expand...

If I'm one of the players cleared I sue for sure. Why were they included and had their names and reputations destroyed. Makes no sense. The U botched this bad.
 

West Fargo Gopher Fan said:
If I'm one of the players cleared I sue for sure. Why were they included and had their names and reputations destroyed. Makes no sense. The U botched this bad.
Click to expand...

Good point. They can start their defamation suits now. However, they will get treated as public people, so ot will be hard to win. Kaler and the U intentionally lying could save the day.
 

Johnnyboy18 said:
Huh? If he was a part of the U I don't think he would get the name of the organization wrong.
Click to expand...

Umm it's called disguising your identity, it is possible. But who really cares who wrote it.
 

Looks like the earlier Twitter report had a couple of them wrong. Here is the list from a 12/13 report from the St.Paul paper.

Dec. 13: Minnesota suspends Buford, Hardin, Djam, Dior Johnson, Tamarion Johnson, Antonio Shenault, Antoine Winfield Jr., Kobe McCrary, Seth Green and Mark Williams from team activities. The school gives no details, citing privacy restrictions. The university recommends expulsion for Buford, Hardin, both Johnsons and Djam; one-year suspensions from the university for Winfield, McCrary, Green and Williams; and probation for Shenault.
 




And from the TwinCities.com at 6:36pm tonight:

The panel upheld some of the more serious penalties. Ray Buford, KiAnte Hardin, Dior Johnson and Tamarion Johnson will be expelled from school.

However, Carlton Djam had his expulsion reduced to a one-year suspension, according to reports from the Associated Press and KSTP-TV, and a one-year suspension for Mark Williams was upheld.

“The remaining student-athletes are very disappointed by the panel’s rulings and are exploring their options in consultation with their families,” Hutton said.

http://www.twincities.com/2017/02/0...s-been-cleared-in-school-sexual-assault-case/
 

Trisuper said:
No one has disputed the facts of the case that I outlined.
Click to expand...

You should reread, your points have been disputed.... some were challenged for more support, because the posters thought they were outright falsehoods. Others were disputed for their lack of relevance to the subject.
 

The boycott and lack of due process concerns appear warranted based on the decisions today.
 

Trisuper said:
After just my two posts here, the great, great Bob Loblaw realizes that I'm "not capable of have a substantive discussion." Yet 60% of those who read my post approve/recommend it. The howling wolves came out in full force as they always do. My original post was substantive. No one has disputed the facts of the case that I outlined. Loblaw didn't discuss them (he's only interested in "the process") except to admit that they were very bad for the players. You yourself said the Washington Post article I sighted was an important one. But I must always keep in mind, I'm not Bob Loblaw. And what about the constitutional challenges to EoAA? Where are they in the federal courts? Most have gone virtually nowhere and you are the guy that keeps bringing up the constitution here.
Finally, since I've admitted to being the A.D. and the president of the U of M (as well as the person behind the Bowling Green massacre), what posters will now admit they are Tracy Claeys? I'm done "yapping" now. Next time I post, I'll get in the flow of things around here and bad mouth the U, its president, its A.D., its new football coach and its awful team.
Click to expand...

Bob was responding to UPNORTHG4.
You are responding to points directed at someone else...

lol
Wake Up!!!

It's obvious trisuper is not a regular poster on any message board because the format seems to mix them up a bit.
 




John Galt said:
The boycott and lack of due process concerns appear warranted based on the decisions today.
Click to expand...

Ya, but they wanted all 10 reinstated immediately. This decision in no way justifies that hombre.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

John Galt said:
The boycott and lack of due process concerns appear warranted based on the decisions today.
Click to expand...

Too bad not many people will remember this part of the story. If you ask most people about the incident, they'll tell a story about how the team boycotted because their 10 rapist teammates were suspended, not that they were boycotting because 4 of their innocent teammates were suspended and wrongly called rapists.
 

West Fargo Gopher Fan said:
If I'm one of the players cleared I sue for sure. Why were they included and had their names and reputations destroyed. Makes no sense. The U botched this bad.
Click to expand...

It'll be a different lawsuit.

The 5 with their punishment upheld will go through the appeals process (provost, Federal Court, etc.).

The other lawsuit will be a civil suit for damages. . . all 10 of them could bring their own suit on this issue. It'll be a completely separate ordeal.
 

Was the "victim" subject to EOAA discipline or will she be?

First keep in mind that I am a former prosecutor and father of daughters.

That said, I have reviewed the available reports, etc. Without rehashing it all it seems to me that several student athletes were expelled today for taking part in a disgusting sex act or, in other words, for bad taste. By all appearances, the only evidence is that of a willing participant who after the acts in question, withdrew consent.

Now I don't condone any of the act(s). I find fault in the punished for not recognising that a male on campus might as well consider himself a monk and remain celebate or risk just this type of consequence. However, the "victim" herself ought to have been subject to discipline herself. There is enough actual and circumstantial evidence that this was nothing more than a consensual, disgusting act(s). If we are expelling for poor taste there ought to be one less co-ed on campus.

Will anyone in the media ask that question? Don't hold your breath.
 

Swede - meet UpNorthGo4.
UpNorthGo4 - Swede.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Some Day...Maybe said:
Ya, but they wanted all 10 reinstated immediately. This decision in no way justifies that hombre.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

When they talked individually with reporters after the boycott announcement they emphasized that their main concern was whether the players who weren't directly involved were gonna be treated fairly.

Those were probably the players that were told to testify because they were "witnesses" to the events, not directly involved in them. They ones who where then recommended to be suspended.

There certainly was a basis for those fears too.

Unless you've forgotten about Kaler rushing back Friday night to talk to them when they were about to take to the two Regents. You know, when he then promised they'd all get a "fair hearing".

Which after all the leaks to the public about how the investigation was being handled they certainly did seem to get.
 

I don't think she will because of bad PR.

I think the EoAA is still holding that something non-consensual happened.

However (I could be wrong), I thought she admitted on the stand that she wasn't drunk and she told the EoAA she was super intoxicated. . .that's a far cry from cooperating with the process.

So, I think technically, she could be punished. I don't think she will and I don't think she should be.
 

It will be interesting after the final appeal to see which way the legal winds blow.
 

Some Day...Maybe said:
Ya, but they wanted all 10 reinstated immediately. This decision in no way justifies that hombre.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They wanted due process first, instead of waking up and being told to pack their bags. Obviously they were right since some of them were cleared, but the damage has been done already to those cleared.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom