George Morris on the SS list

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

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?

There are WAY more victims of rape and sexual assault than there are people falsely accused.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/vic…exual-violence

here is a link for some statistics and that’s just from what has been reported.

The percent of wrongfully accused is not ever going to out weigh the victims. It’s a straw man argument.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

Who are you accusing of being a lawyer?

Why is being a lawyer a bad thing?

[chestnutmarebeware]

@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.

Kaiser Soze!

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

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”.

From a flow chart as the source. I want actual citations. And I also have noted you haven’t given me your opinion on what exactly could be made better about Safe Sport

[ladyj79]

@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:

Yep…

[mountainbells]

From the Lopez article:

“But in its ruling to reinstate Jean Lopez Monday, the three-member arbitration panel said their was insufficient evidence to uphold the ban without testimony of the three survivors of his alleged abuse at the Dec. 27 hearing and because Safe Sport officials did not provide the panel with sworn deposition transcripts or affidavits supporting the women’s allegations, according to a confidential Safe Sport document, obtained by the Southern California News group, which outlined the ruling.”

However,

“Safe Sport officials said Allard and other attorneys for the survivors turned down an offer to sign affidavits the center proposed offering as evidence in arbitration hearing. Statements made by the three survivors, Kay Poe, Mandy Meloon and Heidi Gilbert, during Safe Sport’s initial investigation of Lopez were entered as evidence for the hearing, according the arbitration ruling document.” (quoted from the article)

So, did SS fail to provide testimony they already had from the investigation? Did the attorney’s for the survivors really decline to help provide evidence via signed affidavits? Not talking about live testimony at the arbitration here, but submitted written documents, which perhaps could have changed the final decision.

Seems like a big mess that allowed the Lopez bros to get off the hook.

Am I missing something right in front of my eyes?

[ladyj79]

@Denali6298

Oh my god:eek:

:lol: right?! somehow I can just be one person on multiple devices and not pretend to be two people agreeing with each other. I think I’ve been cothing wrong all along.

[Denali6298]

@mountainbells you found a loop hole. A loop hole that should be closed somehow much to the chagrin of the people clutching pearls over the poor innocent men folk.

[DarkBayUnicorn]

I think @mountainbells did find a loophole, as used by the Lopez brothers.

Now, HOW do we proposed to close that loophole using rational, unemotional thinking?

[YankeeDuchess]

@4LeafCloverFarm

For me, these two statements seem at odds with one another. But that is just me. Perhaps you could elaborate.

There is zero contradiction between those two statements. As a private person without the power to incarcerate anyone, sanction anyone, or mount a violent coup, in my own mind, I am certain that OJ killed two people, GM is guilty as hell, and ***** should not be president.

However, if I were in a position of power, such as the judge in OJ’s trial, the arbitrator in GM’s appeal, or I somehow had actual control of the US armed forces in January 2017, in that position of power, I would say “OJ has been acquitted by a jury of his peers”, “GM is still presumed innocent until his appeal fails”, and “it is vital to support a peaceful transition of power, even when the democratic process really messes up”.

[HLMom]

@mountainbells

From the Lopez article:

“But in its ruling to reinstate Jean Lopez Monday, the three-member arbitration panel said their was insufficient evidence to uphold the ban without testimony of the three survivors of his alleged abuse at the Dec. 27 hearing and because Safe Sport officials did not provide the panel with sworn deposition transcripts or affidavits supporting the women’s allegations, according to a confidential Safe Sport document, obtained by the Southern California News group, which outlined the ruling.”

However,

“Safe Sport officials said Allard and other attorneys for the survivors turned down an offer to sign affidavits the center proposed offering as evidence in arbitration hearing. Statements made by the three survivors, Kay Poe, Mandy Meloon and Heidi Gilbert, during Safe Sport’s initial investigation of Lopez were entered as evidence for the hearing, according the arbitration ruling document.” (quoted from the article)

So, did SS fail to provide testimony they already had from the investigation? Did the attorney’s for the survivors really decline to help provide evidence via signed affidavits? Not talking about live testimony at the arbitration here, but submitted written documents, which perhaps could have changed the final decision.

Seems like a big mess that allowed the Lopez bros to get off the hook.

Am I missing something right in front of my eyes?

Yes, exactly my point!

Here is something that non-lawyers should know, given that JAMS arbitrators are generally former judges. The following types of evidence are virtually never accepted in court, and will be viewed as unpersuasive and likely inadmissible by anyone schooled in the law (like the JAMS arbitrators):

1. Hearsay (e.g., having the SS investigator testify about what other witnesses told him–which apparently is what SS tried to offer at the Lopez arbitration).

2. Witness statements that are not under oath. Whether the statements are oral or in writing, any judge worth his or her salt is going to want the witness to swear under penalty of perjury.

Now that SS knows that what they relied on as “evidence” in Lopez was rejected by the judges at JAMS, perhaps they will rethink the need to be able to subpoena witnesses to come and testify if they want their sanctions to hold up. Just a friendly suggestion that will HELP SafeSport make its sanctions stick.

[HLMom]

@DarkBayUnicorn

I think @mountainbells did find a loophole, as used by the Lopez brothers.

Now, HOW do we proposed to close that loophole using rational, unemotional thinking?

Could it be that I already offered a suggestion as to how SS should do this?! Once again…an obvious solution is the same one used in regular JAMS arbitrations, small claims cases, etc: a rule allowing use of subpoenas!

[Denali6298]

@HLMom

Could it be that I already offered a suggestion as to how SS should do this?! Once again…an obvious solution is the same one used in regular JAMS arbitrations, small claims cases, etc: a rule allowing use of subpoenas!

Or require all statements be signed. I still disagree with forcing live testimony more than once.

Honest question, how would refusing to sign a statement given to Safe Sport influence the civil trial?

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

There is zero contradiction between those two statements. As a private person without the power to incarcerate anyone, sanction anyone, or mount a violent coup, in my own mind, I am certain that OJ killed two people, GM is guilty as hell, and ***** should not be president.

However, if I were in a position of power, such as the judge in OJ’s trial, the arbitrator in GM’s appeal, or I somehow had actual control of the US armed forces in January 2017, in that position of power, I would say “OJ has been acquitted by a jury of his peers”, “GM is still presumed innocent until his appeal fails”, and “it is vital to support a peaceful transition of power, even when the democratic process really messes up”.

Presidents can’t decide guilt or innocence. The Judge does only if it’s a bench trial and people even in criminal court are still considered guilty during the appeals process.

[4LeafCloverFarm]

@YankeeDuchess

There is zero contradiction between those two statements. As a private person without the power to incarcerate anyone, sanction anyone, or mount a violent coup, in my own mind, I am certain that OJ killed two people, GM is guilty as hell, and ***** should not be president.

However, if I were in a position of power, such as the judge in OJ’s trial, the arbitrator in GM’s appeal, or I somehow had actual control of the US armed forces in January 2017, in that position of power, I would say “OJ has been acquitted by a jury of his peers”, “GM is still presumed innocent until his appeal fails”, and “it is vital to support a peaceful transition of power, even when the democratic process really messes up”.

Fair enough.

I guess I personally don’t see the appeal (under SS) any differently from an appeal of an HR decision or an appeal of a court trial. The appeal may change the final outcome, yes. But, I guess I don’t hold my judgement for that process. Perhaps that makes me a bad person or ill-informed or whatever someone might call it. For instance, I don’t have to wait for an appeal of someone like Larry Nassar to determine he is guilty of the crimes to which he was accused, tried and convicted. But some smart attorney might come along, find a loop hole or procedure that wasn’t followed or something, file an appeal and get him out of his sentence. Would I then call him innocent? Absolutely not.

[Pennywell_Bay]

Maybe if people actually read the links on SS page that tell exactly what the process are and the procedures. They have them advises the accused and the accuser.
They do not list time frames for everything- neither does the law. Investigations can take as long as they take, and they keep all parties informed.

Maybe if those in such a tizzy actually educated themselves they wouldn’t look like raving morons.

[Jenerationx]

Great posts by DarkBayUnicorn! That lays out everything that is wrong with the “Overhul” group.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

There are WAY more victims of rape and sexual assault than there are people falsely accused.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/vic…exual-violence

here is a link for some statistics and that’s just from what has been reported.

The percent of wrongfully accused is not ever going to out weigh the victims. It’s a straw man argument.

“The percent of wrongfully accused is not ever going to out weigh the [percent] of victims.” True statement. Absolutely true. I don’t need more statistics.

Also absolutely irrelevant. A credible and legitimate process needs some degree of procedural protection for the minuscule, even theoretical, accused but innocent person. Unless you somehow know, a priori, or by consulting god, that exactly 100% of the accused are indeed guilty, there need to be procedural protections. The legitimate question is, what level of procedural protections correctly balances to protection of the accused with the ability of SafeSport to successfully ban those found guilty.

Please, please explain to me why the fact that only 6% or 2% or 1% of sexual assault claims are false implies that there is no legitimate discussion on the desirability of altering some aspects of the SafeSport process.

[mountainbells]

It seems like the Lopez Bros and their lawyers didn’t have to do anything about “a loophole”…the claimant’s attorneys and SS took care of it for them. Maybe I got it wrong. Question: Are statements given by claimants during the investigation, sworn or otherwise rendered useful by a judge? IOW, would the already submitted, original statements by the claimants be even considered by a judge (or in this case, an arbitrator).? Is there even a way to find out the answer? Fisk123?

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

“The percent of wrongfully accused is not ever going to out weight the [percent] of victims.” True statement. Absolutely true. I don’t need more statistics.

Also absolutely irrelevant. A credible and legitimate process needs some degree of procedural protection for the minuscule, even theoretical, accused but innocent person. If you somehow know, a priori, or by consulting god, that exactly 100% of the accused are indeed guilty, there need to be procedural protections. The legitimate question is, what level of procedural protections correctly balances to protection of the accused with the ability of SafeSport to successfully ban
those found guilty.

Please, please explain to me why the fact that only 6% or 2% or 1% of sexual assault claims are false implies that there is no legitimate discussion on the desirability of altering some aspects of the SafeSport process.

Again what part do you want to alter? What part do you think could be tweaked to make it fool proof? I cannot comment or discuss altering Safe Sport if I don’t know how you think it should be altered.

ETA: The point of those statistics I linked was to demonstrate how misplaced the worry is over false accusations. I’m more concerned with the numbers in the link.