George Morris on the SS list

[Denali6298]

@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.”

I am confused as to why you are arguing for changes based upon very small percentages. From people being falsely accused to claimants refusing to be apart of the appeals process. It’s clear Safe Sport deliberately chose the JAMS process that doesn’t involve subpoenas.

I’m further confused as to why you are arguing for elements of our judicial system to prevent these small percentages from even happening, when the statistics of false reports come from that system and ALL appeals handled by JAMs per their rules, don’t use subpoenas.

[oneequestrienne]

@Keep it Simple

You are not the Reporting Party if you are anonymous. They do not use anonymous reports in arbitration. SafeSport has told people they can file a report anonymously, but without a name or someone willing to testify, the evidence is not strong.

My experience with Safesport matches what you say exactly.

[Tackpud]

@4LeafCloverFarm

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.

Nope.

[4LeafCloverFarm]

@Tackpud

Nope.

I stand corrected. I haven’t been to an A-rated show in two decades. That’s why I said “assumption”. So top level horse shows have no security team at all? I would think in today’s climate, that would be a necessity.

Even our county fairs have significant beefed up security these days. I had to have my purse hand checked and scanned at a concert last week. These are the times we live in. Maybe shows need to play catch up?

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@Jenerationx

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.

This is a very valid consideration. The arbitration is typically by videoconference (but can be in person)–either way, the complainant could decide she is too traumatized to testify. And I understand it may just seem too harsh to suggest that SafeSport could compel her to testify. But we all need to realize there is a trade-off: if the complainant declines to testify, the chances the accused will be found to have committed the violation will decrease substantially for all the reasons I have stated.

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in explaining our arguments that we kind of forget the overall picture. Upthread, I was asked what concerns I have about the SafeSport process. I identified 3 or 4 concerns I thought should be considered. As I said, I am not 100% decided that SafeSport has ultimately reached the wrong call on these issues. There are tons of pros and cons and competing considerations, and a discussion like this is very valuable (and I’m sure the SafeSport people have had many similar discussions!)

It will be very telling to see how successful SafeSport is in having its sanctions upheld in arbitration. (I believe we’ve asked Fisk for these statistics). Time and experience will show how well things are working.

One final note–and this goes to show how varied our opinions are on this board: the concept of interim sanctions doesn’t bother me at all. As long as there is a reasonable basis for concluding someone is a present danger to others in the sport, I think it is the only defensible course of action.

[YankeeDuchess]

@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….”

Thank you! If I read this correctly, while SafeSport is outside the criminal or civil justice system, given that they use JAMS, if subpoena power were desired, the JAMS arbitrator could issue subpoenas and have them enforced by the court system.

[oneequestrienne]

@Keep it Simple

Signed affidavits and character statements are allowed in arbitration. If a person wants to submit 10, 20 ,30 ,40 however many sworn, signed statements to the arbitrator it is allowed. The arbitrator takes about a week or 2 to make their decision. All the evidence is reviewed. The Director’s Decision is ONLY admitted if one side requests it; and it is not always SafeSport that requests that it be admitted.
Obviously, the problem with witness statements (for either side) is there is no opportunity to cross examine, so if a therapist says you (the accused) present no harm to the public, there is no opportunity for SafeSport to question this person or discredit what they say. Therefore, to achieve the standard of “preponderance of the evidence” SafeSport’s evidence needs to be stronger than the accused. This has been achieved by live witness testimony, and that witness’ report standing up to cross-examination.

Again, my experience matches what you are saying. If it goes to arbitration, witnesses on either side can choose to be present or via live video. My understanding was that the responding party or their advisor/attorney could submit questions in writing to the arbiter for the witness during the appeal. In my case, it didn’t go that far so I don’t know how that would have worked, i.e. would it have been in real time.

[skydy]

@4LeafCloverFarm

I stand corrected. I haven’t been to an A-rated show in two decades. That’s why I said “assumption”. So top level horse shows have no security team at all? I would think in today’s climate, that would be a necessity.

Even our county fairs have significant beefed up security these days. I had to have my purse hand checked and scanned at a concert last week. These are the times we live in. Maybe shows need to play catch up?

If a person is unwelcome and knows it (as when they are banned by USEF) coming onto the grounds of a USEF show is trespassing. The local police handle trespassing complaints.

[Tackpud]

@4LeafCloverFarm

I stand corrected. I haven’t been to an A-rated show in two decades. That’s why I said “assumption”. So top level horse shows have no security team at all? I would think in today’s climate, that would be a necessity.

Even our county fairs have significant beefed up security these days. I had to have my purse hand checked and scanned at a concert last week. These are the times we live in. Maybe shows need to play catch up?

Sad isn’t it? Millions of dollars of horseflesh and equipment and no requirement for security except at the Premier level. But that’s for “the purpose of deterring the removal of horses and/or equipment from the grounds” not really advanced security and is usually provided by having nightwatch. But you have to have sharps containers…

[4LeafCloverFarm]

Its clear to me, since venturing back on to CoTH over a year ago, and plugging back in to the horse community, that the horse world is, for the most part, still operating in a vacuum on so many fronts. I’m not sure I wasn’t better off not knowing that nothing much had changed, just going day to day, on my little 40 acres corner of rural nowhereland. But that isn’t sustainable either.

Perhaps it is finally time for them to merge with the rest of the real world, as painful and frighting as that may be. SS may just be the first step in that direction.

[Milocalwinnings]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Ok, he has a calendar on his website with lots of names like “Kendall” and “Kylar.” What does that prove? Do you know anything about these riders? Are any of them showing in regional equitation finals or winning championships in junior hunters? For all we know, these are all up-down riders whose show career consists of being in the annual barn horseshow.

Is anyone really going to argue that a lifetime ban by SafeSport has no significant impact on a h/j trainer’s livelihood?

If that is the case, then I would expect to see a lot of sanctioned trainers not even bothering to appeal, since the ban won’t affect them at all! Why spend thousands of dollars hiring lawyers and going through arbitration if the impact is so trivial?

@Horsegirl’s Mom

80% of his lesson clients are children. Kids and teens. The other 20% are adult re-riders, who he still does take to local shows.

[Texarkana]

Kind of circling around to conversation that occurred a few pages ago… But I’m not sure what I’m thinking was ever said and it sort of relates to the past few posts…

People keep saying a SafeSport ban is more devastating for “the little man” as opposed to an established BNT, like George Morris. I don’t think that is necessarily true.

George Morris walks onto a show ground, everyone and their brother is going to know he’s there and violating his ban. Anything he does, his reputation (including the ban) is going to proceed him. The good news is, because of his reputation, a large number of people will never care. But there’s really no way for him to fly under the radar.

But a lesser known trainer? Shoot, move and change your business name. Your personal rated show career might be over, but it would be hard to stop you from you from opening a new business. You could probably sidle your way back into coaching at rated shows without anyone even realizing it if you kept a low profile. It’s not like they do a background check at the gate. I’ve never found the masses to be particularly savvy about these types of things. And time erases a lot of memories, even with a permanent list available online.

[Groom_amp_Taxi]

@Texarkana

But a lesser known trainer? Shoot, move and change your business name. Your personal rated show career might be over, but it would be hard to stop you from you from opening a new business. You could probably sidle your way back into coaching at rated shows without anyone even realizing it if you kept a low profile.

I would hope that at some point some USE software would match the name to a list of banned folk and alarm bells would go off.

[MHM]

@Groom&Taxi

I would hope that at some point some USE software would match the name to a list of banned folk and alarm bells would go off.

That would only work if the banned person actually signed an entry form as an owner or trainer or rider. If the person did not sign anything, and did not go in the show office, it would probably be possible to skate by if no one in the new area knew the person.

[Groom_amp_Taxi]

@MHM

That would only work if the banned person actually signed an entry form as an owner or trainer or rider. If the person did not sign anything, and did not go in the show office, it would probably be possible to skate by if no one in the new area knew the person.

Indeed. I wonder if the software at this point has any ability to flag someone named G. H. Morris as possibly the same person as George H. Morris.

I am guessing that is someone was banned and crossed the country to “start fresh” maybe they would be savvy enough to change their name (not just business name) as well.

I think @Texarkana is probably right in that it would probably not be too hard for a banned small name trainer who was bound and determined to get back to rated shows to do so. But hopefully the IT team is trying to do what they can.

[skydy]

@Milocalwinnings

@Horsegirl’s Mom

80% of his lesson clients are children. Kids and teens. The other 20% are adult re-riders, who he still does take to local shows.

Tom Navarro was required by law to register as a sex offender. After a certain amount of time a sex offender can petition the court to have their name removed from the list available to the public. That does not mean that that the sex offender is not a sex offender. It only means that the general public cannot as easily see his sex offender status.

Safe Sport makes it easier for parents to keep their kids away from him. It takes some diligent searching once a sex offender is off of the public registry to find their record, so Safe Sport is a great resource in that respect.

Citizens have fought long and hard to be able to protect themselves and their children from sex offenders.

At this point in time, the community is notified only when a “sexually violent predator” is released from prison and into their town/neighborhood. It is frightening to see the records of some of the people on the sex offender registry and to then realize that they are no longer incarcerated.

[B]Apparently people either aren’t proactive enough in researching the people to whom they entrust their children, or they just don’t care.

It is absolutely stunning to see your post saying that 80% of his students are children. [/B]

Please give a heads up to people who might, unknowingly, have their kid in the program, that is run by Tom Navarro, a sex offender, whom is banned by Safe Sport.

[specifiedcupcake]

@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?

The Innocence Project quite often is dealing with people who may not have been accused by the person who was assaulted. I cherry picked a handful of cases from the site and found:

1. a guy whose robbery buddy testified the guy had murdered someone in order to recieve a lesser charge for his part in the robbery
2. a guy who was pulled in by the cops in MS for looking like a generic black man even though he was nearly 6" taller than what the carjacking victim had described
3. a guy who was told to plead guilty by his lawyer, who had said the accused would face a much longer sentence if the case went to court

None of these things sound remotely like what’s going on here. And none of them sound like “the regretful participant crying rape after the fact” either.

And it brings up an interesting question because THOSE people were put behind bars by the Fair Judicial Process everyone keeps yelling SS should use… but apparently it’s just as subject to human error, if not worse because it’s actual prison time at stake and not just unemployment.

[ohmissbrittany]

@Horsegirl's Mom

The most interesting thing about the Lopez decision is that the arbitrator was clearly dissatisfied with the quality of the evidence SS presented. Apparently, SS had no live witnesses who would testify under oath; they only presented hearsay accounts from the SS investigator. I’m not surprised that a judge would not credit such “evidence.” By all accounts, Lopez was definitely an abuser, so we should all be concerned if SS can’t (or doesn’t) put together the type of evidence that a judge (i.e., the JAMS arbitrators) expects to see.

So I’m not sure how much reading you have done on the Lopez case, but the women were supposed to be given the right to testify REMOTELY, which they were not. The bans were overturned on a “technicality” because they refused to be in the room with the Lopez men. These women are now adding SS to the defendants in their “big boy court” case stating the bans were wrongfully overturned.

Additionally, out of 211 lifetime bans (at last count) only 3 have been overturned, including the Lopez bros. That’s a pretty low error rate.

[spotnnotfarm]

@skydy

Tom Navarro was required by law to register as a sex offender. After a certain amount of time a sex offender can petition the court to have their name removed from the list available to the public. That does not mean that that the sex offender is not a sex offender. It only means that the general public cannot as easily see his sex offender status.

Safe Sport makes it easier for parents to keep their kids away from him. It takes some diligent searching once a sex offender is off of the public registry to find their record, so Safe Sport is a great resource in that respect.

Citizens have fought long and hard to be able to protect themselves and their children from sex offenders.

At this point in time, the community is notified only when a “sexually violent predator” is released from prison and into their town/neighborhood. It is frightening to see the records of some of the people on the sex offender registry and to then realize that they are no longer incarcerated.

[B]Apparently people either aren’t proactive enough in researching the people to whom they entrust their children, or they just don’t care.

It is absolutely stunning to see your post saying that 80% of his students are children. [/B]

Please give a heads up to people who might, unknowingly, have their kid in the program, that is run by Tom Navarro, a sex offender, whom is banned by Safe Sport.

Just curious, is this nationwide? It was my understanding that once you are on the list, it remains public. If you can petition to remove your name from public view, what is the point? I live in a rural area and have several around me (shudder). I signed up to be notified when one moves in. It gives a surprising amount of information, inc,using their address.

[Texarkana]

@Groom&Taxi

I would hope that at some point some USE software would match the name to a list of banned folk and alarm bells would go off.

If banned trainer Jonathan Robert Doe of California (fake name, obviously) pops up selling horses and giving lessons in Ohio as Jack Doe, or Bob Doe, or John Robert, or any other alias, how fast do you think people would catch on?

I would hope there are stiff repercussions if you get caught. But if an individual is determined, they could likely fly under the radar for a very long time.

Like you suggested, if you had real gall, I’m not even sure you’d be caught if you entered a rated show as a non-USEF member under an alias, or even pulled a new membership under an alias. When you enter a horse show, no one asks you to confirm your identity, and I don’t recall a USEF membership asking for anything more than name and contact info. But to your point, hopefully that is an area that can be tightened up with databases, software, and better identity verification in the future.