George Morris on the SS list

[HLMom]

@poltroon

It’s that the claimants were unwilling to testify live again during the appeal via arbitration process under the timeline that was allotted, and under the conditions the arbitration panel set up.

.

I’m not misreading anything. That’s exactly what I understand happened. As you state: the claimants were unwilling to testify live again during the appeal via arbitration process

Giving the arbitrators the power to subpoena witnesses (which JAMS arbitrators routinely have in non-SafeSport arbitrations) would have prevented this problem. The claimant and any supporting witnesses would have been subpoenaed to testify.

In a criminal case, do you think the prosecutor just hopes the alleged victim will show up to tell what happened? Of course not; the prosecutor subpoenas the victim and all supporting witnesses. (Yes, I was a deputy DA). Same thing happens in regular JAMS arbitrations; same thing happens in small claims cases.

So I return to the question I raised many posts ago: shouldn’t there be a mechanism to subpoena witnesses in a SS arbitration?

[Denali6298]

@HLMom

I’m not misreading anything. That’s exactly what I understand happened. As you state: the claimants were unwilling to testify live again during the appeal via arbitration process

Giving the arbitrators the power to subpoena witnesses (which JAMS arbitrators routinely have in non-SafeSport arbitrations) would have prevented this problem. The claimant and any supporting witnesses would have been subpoenaed to testify.

In a criminal case, do you think the prosecutor just hopes the alleged victim will show up to tell what happened? Of course not; the prosecutor subpoenas the victim and all supporting witnesses. (Yes, I was a deputy DA). Same thing happens in regular JAMS arbitrations; same thing happens in small claims cases.

So I return to the question I raised many posts ago: shouldn’t there be a mechanism to subpoena witnesses in a SS arbitration?

No people should not be forced to testify. No one’s freedom and constitutional rights are on the line. Safe Sport isn’t awarding punitive damages. ITS NOT A COURT.

Subpoenas, discovery etc is a thing in the courts because of the ramifications to one’s liberties and constitutional rights. Safe Sport has no impact on that. Safe Sport can only say you can’t be a member of the NGB and compete at their events.

Please stop equating not being able to be a USEF member and attend their horse shows with actual punishment that is handed out by the legal system.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

My big point and I should have left it at that was, protections for victims in the legal system are new relatively speaking. That is why I raise an eyebrow at those posts. Protections for the accused are much older. Again, protections for the victims are new, and I do not like when people try to turn back the clock nor do I like when people try to make SS into something it’s not. Also, he’s already been found guilty or whatever word you want to use. I’m also willing to bet that when people get the notice of being accused, they can and do send in any information that exonerate them.

I did not see that she was “trying to turn back the clock” on the protection of victims or “trying to make SafeSport into something it’s not”.

1. The ISWG people insist that the SafeSport process does not provide sufficient procedural protection for the accused.
2. The ISWG people are semi-literate morons who know GM is guilty, but want to destroy the legitimacy of SafeSport in order to overturn his ban, either because they want to ride with him, or because they fear they are “next”.

Even if you grant these two statements are “true”, it does not logically follow that
3. Anyone who wants to engage in a discussion of whether certain well-defined aspects of SafeSport’s procedures could or should be altered in the direction of strengthening the protection of the accused, such as Horsegirl’s Mom, is therefore a semi-literate moron who adores GM and is trying to destroy the legitimacy of SafeSport.

I read your posts as sort of saying statement #3. It does not look like the moral high ground to me.

[NoSuchPerson]

@HLMom

Yankee Duchess, I am awed and exhilarated by your posts. I will be the first to admit that I can’t match your level of reasoning and writing ability, but I appreciate your willingness to engage on these issues.

There sure seems to be a lot of overlap, backslapping, and defending between what YankeeDuchess, HLMom, and Horsegirl’sMom are posting. Just sayin’. :lol:

[NoSuchPerson]

@Denali6298

No people should not be forced to testify. No one’s freedom and constitutional rights are on the line. Safe Sport isn’t awarding punitive damages. ITS NOT A COURT.

Exactly.

[roseymare]

@Horsegirl's Mom

You do acknowledge there can be false allegations, don’t you?

Or is everyone accused of sexual misconduct definitely guilty? If that’s what you think, then I assume you would favor dispensing with criminal rape trials altogether and just automatically convicting anyone who is accused?

Even SS has publicly acknowledged research showing that 2-10% of allegations are false. (I will try to find the citation for you). I guess they are wrong about that?

And you may know that the Innocence Project has exonerated dozens and dozens of men falsely convicted of rape. I suppose you think that is some kind of scam too? Those men must have really done it since they were accused?

How many of the exonerated through the innocence project had victims actually accuse them though? Many I have read about were overzealous prosecutors or faulty evidence not victims actually accusing them. .

And how many of the false allegations that SS acknowledge resulted in bans?

These are important questions and make a huge difference to your argument.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

I did not see that she was “trying to turn back the clock” on the protection of victims or “trying to make SafeSport into something it’s not”.

1. The ISWG people insist that the SafeSport process does not provide sufficient procedural protection for the accused.
2. The ISWG people are semi-literate morons who know GM is guilty, but want to destroy the legitimacy of SafeSport in order to overturn his ban, either because they want to ride with him, or because they fear they are “next”.

Even if you grant these two statements are “true”, it does not logically follow that
3. Anyone who wants to engage in a discussion of whether certain well-defined aspects of SafeSport’s procedures could or should be altered in the direction of strengthening the protection of the accused, such as Horsegirl’s Mom, is therefore a semi-literate moron who adores GM and is trying to destroy the legitimacy of SafeSport.

I read your posts as sort of saying statement #3. It does not look like the moral high ground to me.

I can’t engage in a discussion about “fairness” if people can’t pin point what they see as not exactly fair.

[Denali6298]

@roseymare

How many of the exonerated through the innocence project had victims actually accuse them though? Many I have read about were overzealous prosecutors or faulty evidence not victims actually accusing them. .

And how many of the false allegations that SS acknowledge resulted in bans?

These are important questions and make a huge difference to your argument.

Hence discovery rules, subpoenas etc

[Denali6298]

@NoSuchPerson

Exactly.

Why am I explaining these basic concepts to a lawyer?

[HLMom]

@NoSuchPerson

There sure seems to be a lot of overlap, backslapping, and defending between what YankeeDuchess, HLMom, and Horsegirl’sMom are posting. Just sayin’. :lol:

Hey, I am HL Mom and Horsegirl’s Mom. I have both my desktop and laptop running, and I only now noticed the logins are different. I believe that is a relic from when I was hospitalized and only had my laptop (and no passwords!) and had to create a new log-in. Not trying to confuse anyone.

I don’t know who Yankee Duchess is–but I would love to know his or her background! I have no shame in stating this appears to be a more learned person than I am.

[Denali6298]

@HLMom

Hey, I am HL Mom and Horsegirl’s Mom. I have both my desktop and laptop running, and I only now noticed the logins are different. I believe that is a relic from when I was hospitalized and only had my laptop (and no passwords!) and had to create a new log-in. Not trying to confuse anyone.

I don’t know who Yankee Duchess is–but I would love to know his or her background! I have no shame in stating this appears to be a more learned person than I am.

Oh my god:eek:

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

No people should not be forced to testify. No one’s freedom and constitutional rights are on the line. Safe Sport isn’t awarding punitive damages. ITS NOT A COURT.

Subpoenas, discovery etc is a thing in the courts because of the ramifications to one’s liberties and constitutional rights. Safe Sport has no impact on that. Safe Sport can only say you can’t be a member of the NGB and compete at their events.

Please stop equating not being able to be a USEF member and attend their horse shows with actual punishment that is handed out by the legal system.

We all agree it’s not a court. The issue is whether it could be a better Not-a-Court.

Why do you, Denali, get to unilaterally decide that discussing the possibility of subpoenas, discovery, and direct examination of witnesses are off the table in terms of a discussion on an internet BB? I am in favor of strengthening the legitimacy and credibility of SafeSport in order to improve its effectiveness and I see such discussion as useful for that purpose.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

We all agree it’s not a court. The issue is whether is could be a better Not-a-Court.

Why do you, Denali, get to unilaterally decide that discussing the possibility of subpoenas, discovery, and direct examination of witnesses are off the table in terms of a discussion on an internet BB? I am in favor of strengthening the legitimacy and credibility of SafeSport in order to improve its effectiveness and I see such discussion as useful for that purpose.

Oh for the love of god. What do you think could be stronger? And what you quoted was me answering a question by another poster and why my OPINION is what it is.

[4LeafCloverFarm]

@HLMom

Hey, I am HL Mom and Horsegirl’s Mom.

Well that certainly explains why you sounded like twins! :lol: Good idea to log out and back in on one or the other account and just stick with one.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

Also for people who bring up what if it was your son… well teach your sons not to put themselves in situations where this might happen and teach them that no means no. Teach them that rape and sexual assault is bad.

That doesn’t sound too good does it? Well that’s what women have been told for years… “you put yourself in that situation, you were drinking, you were wearing a skirt.”

Huh? You rightfully didn’t like that rejoinder when addressed to rape victims, but you’re offering the same rejoinder to innocent men accused of rape?

[Midge]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Some of us are capable of worrying about all of these things. Of course we want all abusers punished. And of course we don’t want innocent people punished.

Except there was almost zero discussion about victims finally getting a form of justice and months and months and months of outrage by thousands on all the bad SafeSport is doing. Safe Sport Overhaul is a direct result of people thinking Rob Gage was innocent. I Stand With George is not about justice for victims. The (known and guessed) victims have been trashed on these pages. Unknown victims have been trashed for being promiscuous teens, waiting too long to report, failing to just move on, ruining men’s lives… These pages have welcomed criminally convicted sex offenders and sought their opinions.

Literally nothing about the creepy abusers. Nothing. Anywhere.

So no. I don’t buy it.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

Huh? You rightfully didn’t like that rejoinder when addressed to rape victims, but you’re offering the same rejoinder to innocent men accused of rape?

That was exactly my point. That rejoinder is dumb. I just flipped it to men to prove the point that it is dumb.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

I can’t engage in a discussion about “fairness” if people can’t pin point what they see as not exactly fair.

Then go back and read the post in which she enumerated 4 specific points on which she asked for clarification as to what SafeSport’s actual procedures were. Probably the post in which people attacked her for using the phrase “alleged victim”.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

That was exactly my point. That rejoinder is dumb. I just flipped it to men to prove the point that it is dumb.

She was raising the issue of how a well designed system, such as the existing SafeSport or an improved SafeSport should ideally address the issue of men, who statistically speaking are often someone’s son, who are innocent but accused of rape. 

 So you offered up a rejoinder known to be dumb? Not particularly helpful. 

  How answering her question with a response you endorse?

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

Why am I explaining these basic concepts to a lawyer?

Who are you accusing of being a lawyer?