George Morris on the SS list

[NoSuchPerson]

@Horsegirl's Mom

As I’ve stated, we arbitrate cases in front of JAMS regularly, and JAMS has the power to subpoena witnesses. So my thinking was that SafeSport should adopt the regular JAMS rule regarding subpoenas.

So, what’s the penalty for ignoring a JAMS subpoena?

USEF has its members agree to all SafeSport rules as a condition of membership, right? The subpoena rule could be added to the existing set of procedural rules. As for how it would be enforced, disobeying the subpoena would be a violation of SafeSport rules that could subject you to a penalty.

There is a huge gulf between asking people to abide by a code of conduct and compelling people to testify at a SafeSport arbitration hearing. All USEF adult members and USEF participants have already been designated as mandatory reporters, which, in a sense, compels them to provide testimony to SafeSport. I would not support any proposals that go beyond that.

And then we, again, get to the question of exactly what power SafeSport/USEF have to enforce the subpoena. The worst they can do is ban you from being a USEF member. Big deal. I just can’t see that being a big enough stick to compel a person who has serious reasons not to testify.

I understand it feels heavy-handed to talk about requiring witnesses to testify. Equestrians already feel SafeSport is too much in their business, so maybe this is a bridge too far. But you understand the concern, right? Without a way to require witnesses to testify, you end up with a lot of people who’d “rather not get involved,” and that diminishes one’s confidence that all the facts are being brought to light.

No, honestly I don’t understand the concern. You have stated previously that your concern is for the accused and the existence of some Mystery Person(s) whose testimony can clear the accused but won’t appear at the arbitration hearing. I think it’s a straw man argument. The odds of that situation existing are vanishingly small. And it certainly doesn’t warrant the kind of heavy-handed “solution” you’re proposing.

[NoSuchPerson]

@ladyj79

You just have to use your “internal block” :lol: Once you do, you realize that nothing new or necessary is taking place in this conversation at present.

But like, if someone has the stone from their breast removed and replaced with a human heart, do tag me :lol:

Yeah, at this point, I feel like a couple of the current posters are just here to try and bludgeon the rest of us into submission. :lol:

[Ghazzu]

@Horsegirl's Mom

This is why I believe SS should consider adopting a procedure for subpoenas.

Point of information–who pays travel and expenses for someone who is subpoenaed?

[Keep_it_Simple]

@Denali6298

ETA: Do they actually use JAMS for the appeal or just a similar process? After reading the JAMS website subpoenas come into play during the original arbitration. Not on the appeal. So are they are using the arbitration rules or the appeal rules? If it’s the appeals rules they don’t compel anyone to participate they carry on.

JAMS is the dispute resolution provider for SafeSport. They handle the interim measures hearing and the formal arbitration hearing. The same arbitrator cannot be on the final hearing if they participated in the interim.
Each side receives a list of arbitrators and can eliminate up to 3. From that remaining list, one is chosen by the arbitration body.
SafeSport has their rules for arbitration which sound like they are along the lines of the JAMS appeal rules although may vary some.

[Capall]

re the Lopez case… Does anyone else think that because the victims were told they shouldn’t testify (or give written statements or whatever it was) to SS, that this is going to be so much bigger in the end? If the brothers get convicted in court, won’t that automatically mean a SS ban for them? Maybe this is just a chess move.

[Texarkana]

@Sticky Situation

I’ve heard people saying that SafeSport bans are analogous to getting fired from a job for sexual harassment, and I have to strongly disagree with that.

If someone is fired from a job for sexual harassment, they’re still free to seek employment with other companies in the same area of business, other areas of the country. The reason for their getting fired is not made publicly known and listed on a website along with the nature of the harassment claim.

With a SafeSport ban, those that aren’t Really Big Names are effectively excluded from the whole sport (yes, I know, Paul Valliere, blah blah blah, but I doubt if a local no-name trainer would be able to pull the same thing off), and their names and infractions are made readily available to the general public.

I am totally ok with this, because I don’t believe that SafeSport hands out bans without a high degree of certainty that the accusations are legit. I don’t think that they are banning anyone because some anonymous claimant said a male trainer dated a 17 year old 30 years ago when he was 20. I don’t “stand with George” and I find the outcry against his ban pretty appalling because I believe that they wouldn’t have banned him without some pretty conclusive evidence.

But SafeSport bans are NOT “just getting fired” or “being excluded from a club.” They are losing your livelihood and being placed on what is essentially a sex-offender registry.

In my profession, getting fired for something akin to suspicions of sexual misconduct would be career suicide. It would be challenging for me to find a job in my field ever again, especially since these days online applications want references even before the application will be processed. Not impossible, but challenging. I would probably have to change careers.

There are thousands of barns in the US with no affiliation with USEF. Straight lesson barns that don’t show, AQHA barns, barns that make a living off local, unrated circuits. Yes, it could be devastating for an established H/J trainer who relies on rated shows to lose their main business. But in no way do they lose their entire ability to earn a living with horses. There are a number of trainers on the SafeSport list still advertising activity: Randy Cates, Mitch Steege, Tom Navarro, to name a few. Most of the others have criminal convictions or placement on the sex offender registry, which I’m sure has more impact on their ability (or lack thereof) to make a living in horses.

I also highly doubt a SafeSport ban alone would impact one’s ability to get a job outside of Olympic/youth sports. So many people aren’t even aware of it.

[Keep_it_Simple]

@Ghazzu

Point of information–who pays travel and expenses for someone who is subpoenaed?

Hearings are NOT done in person. They are done through video conferencing.

[Denali6298]

@Keep it Simple

JAMS is the dispute resolution provider for SafeSport. They handle the interim measures hearing and the formal arbitration hearing. The same arbitrator cannot be on the final hearing if they participated in the interim.
Each side receives a list of arbitrators and can eliminate up to 3. From that remaining list, one is chosen by the arbitration body.
SafeSport has their rules for arbitration which sound like they are along the lines of the JAMS appeal rules although may vary some.

Thanks for the information! So it seems Safe Sport purposefully left out the subpoena option.

[YankeeDuchess]

Honest question: Given that we all understand that SafeSport is not part of the criminal justice system, how is a show manager permitted to enforce a lifetime ban if the banned person shows up on a show grounds and refuses to leave?

  It would seem that if they lay hands on him to physically escort/drag him off the premises, they could be charged with asssult. Threatening a second lifetime ban seems pointless, not to mention silly.

[4LeafCloverFarm]

@YankeeDuchess

Honest question: Given that we all understand that SafeSport is not part of the criminal justice system, how is a show manager permitted to enforce a lifetime ban if the banned person shows up on a show grounds and refuses to leave?

It would seem that if they lay hands on him to physically escort/drag him off the premises, they could be charged with asssult. Threatening a second lifetime ban seems pointless, not to mention silly.

It would be my assumption that USEF sanctioned shows are required to have a certain number of security present on show grounds. They would be responsible for removing a banned trainer/exhibitor.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Keep it Simple

JAMS is the dispute resolution provider for SafeSport. They handle the interim measures hearing and the formal arbitration hearing. The same arbitrator cannot be on the final hearing if they participated in the interim.
Each side receives a list of arbitrators and can eliminate up to 3. From that remaining list, one is chosen by the arbitration body.
SafeSport has their rules for arbitration which sound like they are along the lines of the JAMS appeal rules although may vary some.

Can the JAMS system issue and enforce subpoenas if SafeSport were given the authority to use subpoenas in the arbitration phase?

[Denali6298]

I would imagine they would ask them to leave and if they didn’t alert the powers that be for the show grounds and call the police as horse shows are usually on private property.

I cannot imagine a show manager has the time or the or the inclination to physically drag someone off the show grounds.

[MHM]

@YankeeDuchess

Honest question: Given that we all understand that SafeSport is not part of the criminal justice system, how is a show manager permitted to enforce a lifetime ban if the banned person shows up on a show grounds and refuses to leave?

It would seem that if they lay hands on him to physically escort/drag him off the premises, they could be charged with asssult. Threatening a second lifetime ban seems pointless, not to mention silly.

There was a person some years back who was suspended, but insisted on coming to horse shows anyway. As I recall, USEF sent out his picture either to all licensed officials, or maybe it was all members, with a request to notify show management if he was ever spotted on the grounds during any USEF show.

I don’t remember what the recommendation was after that to remove him from the grounds. Perhaps the police would be called to remove him from private property, as another poster suggested.

[anotherera]

@SonnysMom

They can still make their living as a riding instructor/horse trainer however it would need to be at the local level where the organization is not subject to Safe Sport. Depending on the organization they may be able to work as a camp counseler or as a therapeutic riding instructor. Or they can buy, train then sell horses.
They can even stay in the industry but move into the retail end such as working at a tack store or owning one. Or on-line sales of tack items.

They just can’t work with USET members and at USET facilities/shows/clinics.

But can they stay in the “industry?” If GM for example, decides to open up a tack store in Wellington, will USEF members be sanctioned if they purchase products from him? They’ll supposedly be sanctioned if they take a clinic from him, so where does this all stop?

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@NoSuchPerson

No, honestly I don’t understand the concern. You have stated previously that your concern is for the accused and the existence of some Mystery Person(s) whose testimony can clear the accused but won’t appear at the arbitration hearing. I think it’s a straw man argument. The odds of that situation existing are vanishingly small. And it certainly doesn’t warrant the kind of heavy-handed “solution” you’re proposing.

I love the phrase “vanishingly small”! But actually one theme of this discussion regarding subpoenas is that SafeSport lost the Lopez case due to its inability to compel testimony against the accused. So (a) the inability to compel witness testimony can hurt both sides; and (b) since it has already happened, it’s hard to argue the chances of it happening are “vanishingly small.”

[roseymare]

@Capall

re the Lopez case… Does anyone else think that because the victims were told they shouldn’t testify (or give written statements or whatever it was) to SS, that this is going to be so much bigger in the end? If the brothers get convicted in court, won’t that automatically mean a SS ban for them? Maybe this is just a chess move.

Apparently just you and I think this was a plan to help their case. But I do not think SS can ban based on a civil lawsuit. I would say they are hoping for a settlement.

[Jenerationx]

Let’s run with the subpoena thing for a minute. Can JAMS throw people in prison for not showing up? What exactly can they do if someone refuses to show up?

Let’s say I was a victim of sexual abuse by a trainer, and I’m now an adult and want to come forward, but I’m not a USEF member, and the trainer is. How would SS compel a non-member to testify even if the agreement to be subpoenaed was in their code? What about if a minor wants to make the report? Can the minor be compelled?

Forcing participation would open up a whole new can of worms that could prevent people from coming forward for fear of having to show up to be further traumatized going over and over and over the events. That’s why a lot of survivors avoid the court system.

[poltroon]

@Horsegirl's Mom

I love the phrase “vanishingly small”! But actually one theme of this discussion regarding subpoenas is that SafeSport lost the Lopez case due to its inability to compel testimony against the accused. So (a) the inability to compel witness testimony can hurt both sides; and (b) since it has already happened, it’s hard to argue the chances of it happening are “vanishingly small.”

Her specific scenario was someone who could exonerate the accused being unwilling to testify, who could somehow be compelled via subpoena.

Victims refusing to testify in court happens all the time, not just in sexual assault cases. For example, there was a guy doing small time breaking and entering around here that the police caught several times, but landowners wouldn’t press charges so they couldn’t take him in.

[Capall]

@roseymare

Apparently just you and I think this was a plan to help their case. But I do not think SS can ban based on a civil lawsuit. I would say they are hoping for a settlement.

Their lawyers who advised them must have had a very good reason for this. I didn’t realize it was only a civil case though, I sort of skimmed the case.

[BITSA]

An arbitrator’s power to compel non-parties to produce documents or testify is derived from Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which grants arbitrators the authority to “summon in writing any person to attend before them or any of them as a witness and in a proper case to bring with him or them any book, record, document or paper which may be deemed material as evidence in the case.Section 7 also provides that the “summons shall issue in the name of the arbitrators…shall be signed by the arbitrators….” and shall be enforced by “petition to the United States district court for the district in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting….”