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

Legally, it doesn't really matter what you feel is fair. The whole point is that you and others have repeatedly said that the U can't do this or expel these students because it is unconstitutional. The article clearly shows the courts do not agree with you and that the U can punish students that they feel violate school rules.

I found several other references that clearly state that schools can discipline students that violate conduct rules.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I am no lawyer but just because schools are doing it doesn't mean it IS constitutional either. That's why things go to court(s).

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.
 

o It is very doubtful that very many of those who post here will read it because of its balance and the wealth of factual information it contains. Hutton appealing to the Federal Courts is going to be far from a cakewalk.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...process-in-the-courts/?utm_term=.6bf1e56dec94
I have no idea what _really_ happened that night but can't we all agree that innocent until proven guilty is the way to go?

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.
 


Help me with this...on tape Djam has a threesome with a recruit and is NOT recommended for expulsion? How is that not grounds for expulsion? Just explain that to me because of all the players, there was no doubt in my mind he was the one who should have been kicked off the team for involving a recruit...who had to go to a lousy school btw, after having about a couple dozen offers, many power 5 ones....
Because if it was consensual, the alleged victim could also be punished.
 

Did I miss something in the news here? Weren't five players' suspensions upheld--the five most serious ones at that? Doesn't this make the "victim" a victim?

Nope. No legal charges. No crime, no victim. Done.
 


Ok King Bob.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is interesting to see someone like Some Day who has no interest interest in the truth, only politcal narratives. What kind of person that must be...must be a real neat individual.
 

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.

Some Day doesn't care. He got what he wanted because Coyle got rid of the "fat" coach he didn't like and hired his PJ.

The players were upset because they knew not all the players were involved. Some Day didn't care because he could smell Claeys blood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I guess you don't think the OP is good because it doesn't toe the official GopherHole line that none of the Gopher football players did anything wrong and none of them told any lies in order to remain on the team and keep their scholarships. The EOAA report and anyone who believes it is credible has been pretty much dismissed out of hand by the Gopher fanboys. Apparently, you need to be included in that group.

You've made the claim that all of Gopherhole thinks the players did nothing wrong more times than anyone has actually said that. Your problem is you think that anyone who claims the EOAA is biased or the system sucks means they think the players did nothing wrong.
 

I see the usual suspects are all meeting in one place to whine about only four of the 10 players being cleared of the accusations. I have news for all of you. For most of the rest of America 4 out of 10 being cleared looks like due process and a fair hearing for everyone including the girl.

Here is more news for you:

- Kaler is not getting fired.

- Coyle is not getting fired.

- The federal courts are going to be reluctant to rule that the players didn't get due process when four out of ten of the players were cleared of wrongdoing.

Hopefully the courts won't even consider 4 of 10 as a factor, but will consider each individually. You may have been willing to throw them altogether, but that is exactly what has had many of us upset and that you have been unwilling to hear. I have never called for all of them to be cleared, but that they each be considered as individuals instead of a "gang" as many did. There were varying levels of involvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



They weren't boycotting for just 4 of their teammates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right, they were protesting the messed up process, or lack of it. Obviously there were serious flaws and legitimate concerns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I see the usual suspects are all meeting in one place to whine about only four of the 10 players being cleared of the accusations. I have news for all of you. For most of the rest of America 4 out of 10 being cleared looks like due process and a fair hearing for everyone including the girl.

Here is more news for you:

- Kaler is not getting fired.

- Coyle is not getting fired.

- The federal courts are going to be reluctant to rule that the players didn't get due process when four out of ten of the players were cleared of wrongdoing.


That is not at all how our court system works. If we rounded up 20 people who sort of looked the same and then let 10 go, do you think that there wouldn't be issues with how the other were judged. Reading your posts these last few months is like reading the musings of a 10 year old...at best.
 

As someone who works 100 hours a week during the months of Sep, Oct and Nov, and because of that knows basically nothing about all of this, where can I find information as to what is claimed went on, what are these 10 men actually accused of? I'm clueless, to be honest. Or can someone here, who feels themselves an unbiased observer, relate to me the basic facts about this case?

Seriously............
 





I didn't mean to quote. My phone is a little bit funky on this site. Point is that this is an attack the victim thread over imagined crimes or possible lies. I would prefer to steer clear from speculation and address possible crimes that may have been committed such as child porn.

I am also interested in the apparent disregard for obvious violations of team and athletic department rules. Recruits all sign a no alcohol agreement on their visit. The sponsors and players are all clearly told that recruits don't drink. Apparently nobody enforces this with the football team. The brilliant idea to do a tag team with a recruit is seriously high on the stupid list followed by every player whose phone pinged with a message that their buddy just tag-teamed a girl and they should come join and take their turn who actually heeded that advice and went to the room to take their turn. Wow.

You see the irony in this statement right?

No one gave any speculation as to the facts of the sex between the recruit and the alleged victim. They both admit it happened, it just isn't Statutory Rape. There is ZERO speculation going on there. It's literally one of the few issues in this entire case that requires ZERO speculation.

Now to the crime that SPECULATED may have happened. We would have to know the content of the tapes to know whether or not it would rise to the level of child porn. You said you wanted to talk about it, I talked about it and you changed the subject again. There would have to be footage of the recruit naked or having sex for it to rise to the level of child porn. I have no idea what was on the tapes, apparently you wanted to SPECULATE on that, so go ahead.

Now. . . you've changed the subject again. LOL.

So you want the EoAA's report to be about a violation of team rules regarding drinking? Lol. You really will not rest until these people get punished will you? The school/team is free to punish them for the drinking issues. That wouldn't be part of a sexual assault investigation by the EoAA. Do you think we should expel or suspend for a year every student caught breaking this rule?

As to your last point, yep, it's how I figured this would end. You have no interest in discussing the actual alleged infractions, group sex is just icky to you and someone must pay for making you think of icky things. Great way to go through life!
 

You see the irony in this statement right?

No one gave any speculation as to the facts of the sex between the recruit and the alleged victim. They both admit it happened, it just isn't Statutory Rape. There is ZERO speculation going on there. It's literally one of the few issues in this entire case that requires ZERO speculation.

Now to the crime that SPECULATED may have happened. We would have to know the content of the tapes to know whether or not it would rise to the level of child porn. You said you wanted to talk about it, I talked about it and you changed the subject again. There would have to be footage of the recruit naked or having sex for it to rise to the level of child porn. I have no idea what was on the tapes, apparently you wanted to SPECULATE on that, so go ahead.

Now. . . you've changed the subject again. LOL.

So you want the EoAA's report to be about a violation of team rules regarding drinking? Lol. You really will not rest until these people get punished will you? The school/team is free to punish them for the drinking issues. That wouldn't be part of a sexual assault investigation by the EoAA. Do you think we should expel or suspend for a year every student caught breaking this rule?

As to your last point, yep, it's how I figured this would end. You have no interest in discussing the actual alleged infractions, group sex is just icky to you and someone must pay for making you think of icky things. Great way to go through life!

Nope. But thanks for trying. I have no issues for truly consensual group sex. Happy for all involved who enjoy it. That was not the case here.
 

That explains a lot. The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Haven't been around many kids, huh. Or likely real people for that matter.

Keep plugging. The lightbulb may go on at any time.
 

Did I miss something in the news here? Weren't five players' suspensions upheld--the five most serious ones at that? Doesn't this make the "victim" a victim?

Wait weren't you the "new poster" who came here touting in a new thread that the standards of proof were different for criminal and university rules? You can't have it both ways. Victim is a legal term. If the U doesn't want to use Due Process or accepted ideas of fairness than they shouldn't be allowed to adopt terminology like victim which is associated with our criminal justice system and process.
 

Hopefully the courts won't even consider 4 of 10 as a factor, but will consider each individually. You may have been willing to throw them altogether, but that is exactly what has had many of us upset and that you have been unwilling to hear. I have never called for all of them to be cleared, but that they each be considered as individuals instead of a "gang" as many did. There were varying levels of involvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The main thing I came away with after the boycott was they just wanted due process for everyone involved. They all knew that a few teammates had participated in a "naughty" act but believed it was consensual. I would like to believe that it was the "soul" of the team that backed down realizing better leadership and decision-making could've prevented it. I believe it was consensual but the kids that had sex with the woman we're done at the U the minute it became public regardless of the "victim's" credibility. I certainly have no idea what really happened but the reports indicate the women was complicit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

It's hard yet not hard to believe the hearing panel allowed a drunk voicemail that was not even from the night in question. Amateur investigators, biased panels. The consequences are enormous for these guys. Shameful and wrong.

From this excellent article:

Despite the cost and time burdens of a lawsuit, wrongfully accused students have considerable incentive to go to court, although only those from relatively wealthy families can afford to sue. As U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III noted in reversing a finding of sexual assault by George Mason University, the university’s decision has life-altering consequences. If an accused student, Ellis observed, “seeks education or employment with institutions or organizations that require disclosure of such records, [his] only options are to forgo opportunities with those institutions or organizations or to authorize the dissemination of records that would likely foreclose [his] ability to pursue such opportunities because of the allegedly defamatory nature of the records.”

As a rule, universities have quickly settled if they lose a motion to dismiss. While a couple of accused students (at Georgia Tech and Montana) have received low six-figure settlements, most only ask for what a university can easily give: an expungement of his disciplinary record, to prevent the fate that Ellis outlined. Universities can concede this with almost no cost. For this reason, a lawsuit from a wrongly accused student entails far less risk than being sued for a large damages award by an accuser, especially given public relations concerns. Thus do universities’ relative litigation risks reinforce guilt-presuming procedures that were adopted for other reasons.
 

After visiting and just reading GopherHole for several years, I decided to register in order to make comments because of the posts of those active here regarding the ten suspended Gopher football players. Several things really bother me about what has been written about the subject:
1. First of all, I cannot think of a setting more poorly positioned for rational discussion of the very complex issues involved in these matters. The forum allows for anyone to say anything regardless of facts and laws, known or unknown. For example, if someone were to read the EEOC report carefully, one could easily see exactly each one of the ten individuals was and what was reported about their behavior. A. Winfield, for example, was a "hero" in this situation because he gave testimony that revealed several other players had lied about not being in the apartment and about not having harassed the female cheerleader by shouting remarks and blinking the lights while she was having sex.
2. Only four of the players were said to have engaged in sexual assault as defined by the student handbook. The instigator of the situation, Djam, was not found guilty of sexual assault but was kicked out of the university because he sent videos of himself and the recruit having sex with the cheerleader to his friends without her permission. Djam also enabled the recruit to be involved in the matter.
3. Four of the remaining five players were found to have engaged in sexual harassment of the cheerleader, mostly based on Winfield's testimony. The fifth was found guilty of lying to the EEOC investigators.
4. The state of Minnesota has laws governing sexual assault and the University of Minnesota has policies regarding sexual assault. The laws and policies are different, as are the procedures used to enforce them. Both approaches can fail miserably--see the Baylor University situation--but they only way to remedy errors is to work to change the systems. My daughter, a graduate of the U of M law school, has worked to get hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits tested all over the country. Many, many jurisdictions collect rape kits obtained in hospitals and never have the results tested. Is that justice?
5. We can argue constitutional issues regarding this case until we are blue in the face but only one body--the federal judiciary and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court--can determine whether laws, policies and/or procedures are unconstitutional or not. To the best of my knowledge, very few cases calling activities under EEOC governing bodies have been determined by federal judges to be remotely unconstitutional.
6. Several weeks ago, an attorney who actively opposes EEOC matters wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post regarding the U of M situation. He said the facts of the case were terrible for advocates of EEOC reform. But what would he know? He isn't a Gopher football fan nor does he post at Gopherhole.
7. The attorney that represents nine of the players CONFIRMED in a recent radio interview that he was the one who released the report to the press. The great Tyrone Carter released the name of the cheerleader and later apologized for having done so. The damage was already done. And I wonder where Carter got the female's name?
8. How many who post here support the Black Lives Matter movement? I'm guessing very few. If a person wants to fight against injustice based on race, you might focus more on the issues BLM addresses than those within the U of M.

Welcome to GopherHole. Wait? What?

I take that back. I now recognize that your post was simply verbalizing your secret love for UpnorthGo4.

Good luck to you both.
 

I think it's great that 4 of the expulsions got upheld, and it's very entertaining to read all the guys on here that whine about it incessantly in thread after thread. The name calling and emotional tantrums are even better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are a sad individual. You celebrate this, and bemoan those who have been exonerated.

All you wanted was Fleck. You got him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I should have worded what I said better. I meant that the recruit issue was a red herring in terms of how Title IX offices treat allegations of sexual assault. It does matter for our situation and I agree that it is a real issue. However, when in a discussion about how the EoAA office has investigated this matter. That's why the recruit situation makes our particular case a bad one to attack the EoAA because it is a bad situation and it makes it harder for people to focus on the sexual assault allegations

As a side issue, I agree that the recruit matters. As to how the Title IX offices investigate sexual assaults, it's a red herring.

Fair enough. I can agree with what you said. The original post didn't explain in any detail. I know it's hard to jam all of one's thoughts in a post. The recruit being there has been my biggest Hangul in the whole thing. I think Djam should be gone for bringing him into it. That said, I suspect Djam and Williams will be gone after Fleck has his say.
 


Rereading the article myself, I would note that students from rich families are the ones most likely to appeal to the Federal Courts. Even if they win, those families settle for having students' records expunged. The article mentions only two instances where students received settlements. It also appears that EoAA processes are more fair than those of military tribunals, in the eyes of almost everyone. If Hutton's firm is taking their U of M cases on a contingency basis, it will be interesting to see how it proceeds. An Appellate Court made up entirely of George W. Bush appointees came down unanimously against a student's claims of unfair treatment about six months ago. Finally, the facts of the case seem to matter a great deal in these appeals. Hutton has a long row to hoe ahead of him--assuming he even appeals to a Federal Court.
 


That was a real nice article Mr. Fraud. Do you really think anyone is really buying into your silly cover story

All you need to know is that the 2011 Obama dictate to the Department of Education to implement this activist policy is going to bite the dust as soon as President Trump can get around to dealing with it.

So long to this reign of injustice, and you then can start whining about Donald Trump under your normal Gopherhole identity. Oh, and you "first post" that you were so proud of, was a steaming pile of unreadable brown material. Someone beyond Tracy Claeys is going to lose their job before this is all over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEvKbgNT0zs
 

I think that viewing this 60 Minutes story about the Duke Lacrosse case will strike chord with many. At first I did not think it was not that close of case, then I watched the story linked below, and a lot hit home.

I am shocked that some of these extremists are still posting anti-Gopher football comments after seeing the new evidence on the corruption of the EOAA and others. (Kahler, ect)

Rush to Judgmet 60 Minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEvKbgNT0zs
 

I'd suggest anyone that wants to pursue the truth about this mess at the UM watch the line to the Ed Bradley story from years ago about the Duke Lacrosse "rape" case.

This was done before the whole case went to hell and DA Mike Difong was disbarred. Ed Bradley makes the exact points in the story that several of us have made throughout this horrible process. These young men have been bent over and violated, and if I were them, I would call someone in North Carolina and hire the Lawyers involved in that case that won almost 50M in settlements.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEvKbgNT0zs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEvKbgNT0zs
 

Nonsense. Those players from now on only want their names associated with how they play on the field. Why would they want to keep this issue in the public eyes and on the news? We all know they were wronged, but there comes a point where it is not worth being vindictive and to move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You're such a myopic idiot. We, as in open minded (actually not u) Minnesotans may realize the 4 were railroaded- but when these kids look at jobs all over our country after they graduate, they will be confronted by HR depts consistently who do their due diligence and find these kids were accused of rape or sexual assault. You think that might have an effect on their lives?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Help me with this...on tape Djam has a threesome with a recruit and is NOT recommended for expulsion? How is that not grounds for expulsion? Just explain that to me because of all the players, there was no doubt in my mind he was the one who should have been kicked off the team for involving a recruit...who had to go to a lousy school btw, after having about a couple dozen offers, many power 5 ones....

We finally find something to agree on. If someone deserved expulsion from what's been released it would appear to be Djam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 




Top Bottom