It’s funny not funny how many people will scream that they weren’t notified about this or that, when there is a clear process that details how they were notified. I don’t know about Safe Sport but I’ve been involved in other government agencies that have guidelines and rules they follow. It is annoying, aggravating, and irritating (
) to listen to them whine about not knowing when I know full well they’ve had multiple notifications.
9 Likes
Maybe, but a few days before the felony was dismissed, the court website shows a plea bargain to “unlawful restraint” and a deferred adjudication.
Judicial Online Search
“Deferred adjudication is a special form of judge-ordered community supervision (commonly
known as “probation”) that permits a defendant to accept responsibility for a crime without an
actual conviction being placed on the record.” per the Texas Office of Court Administration
14 Likes
Interesting. So that might be why there’s still a ban in place?
6 Likes
I thought it was also interesting that they went pro se……
Pro se litigants are severely disadvantaged in the court process.
2 Likes
So this means they represented themselves? I’ve seen in big cases (murder) there is an attorney next to the defendant advising them.
I’m guessing by the wife’s comments (ErinDH) that they didn’t participate in arbitration with SS. Just… nothing? Why would one not do everything possible to get the suspension or ban lifted if there’s no basis for it?
2 Likes
From what I understand, that since Safe Sport makes their own rules on how things are done, it is not so simple as simply saying you want to be heard and they need to do something.
It takes great expense and lots of lawyer time and even then Safe Sport does things how they want to do things.
I am not making a point of the suspension being discussed as right or wrong, I am simply saying that I believe it is not so simple as it should be to get a suspension lifted/changed/discussed.
4 Likes
(I apologize for the weird formatting, I can’t seem to fix it)
From the Prohibited Conduct section of the Safe Sport Code:
"a. Criminal Charge
A Criminal Charge includes (1) being arrested and presently subject to bond obligations or conditional release, (2)
any pending criminal charge(s), or (3) active warrant(s) for arrest.
b. Criminal Disposition
A Criminal Disposition is any disposition or resolution of a criminal proceeding, other than an adjudication of not guilty, including, but not limited to: an adjudication of guilt or admission to a criminal violation, a plea to the charge
or a lesser included offense, a plea of no contest, any plea analogous to an Alford or Kennedy plea, the disposition
of the proceeding through a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, deferred prosecution, disposition of
supervision, conditional dismissal, juvenile delinquency adjudication, or similar arrangement.
- Hearing Related to Criminal Charge or Disposition
A Participant who wishes to challenge the Center’s Notice of Decision related to a Criminal Charge or Disposition may
request a hearing concerning the Sanction only pursuant to Section XIV.14.
If the Center renders a Notice of Decision regarding a Participant’s Criminal Charge or Disposition, and that Charge or
Disposition is subsequently modified by a criminal court, the Participant may request that the matter be reopened by the
Center, pursuant to Section XI.R. In instances where a pending criminal charge(s) resolves, in that the charge(s) is
eventually dismissed, results in an acquittal, or results in a Criminal Disposition as defined above, a Respondent’s request
to reopen will always be granted and a new Notice of Decision issued."
Here is the link to the Safe Sport Code. https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2024_SafeSportCode-_073124_v3-A-.pdf It was easy for me to find so I don’t understand the complaints from @ErinDH.
If my understanding of the rule is correct, one doesn’t automatically get off the hook for pleading down or from a deferred adjudication. They have to participate in the process.
8 Likes
Thanks @trubandloki and @skydy. I’ve been involved on the periphery of two SS cases where I answered questions regarding my experiences with the suspended person(s). But by that time it was already in arbitration, there were definitely high profile attorneys involved and I really had no idea what it took to get to that point.
2 Likes
Yes. They represented themselves. In pro se in TX you are not allowed to have a lawyer with you, even for advice.
My husband and I have done some civil stuff pro se other stuff with a lawyer. One was a custody dispute; after the judge praised my husband’s work and asked him about law school, said he would have won if he had had a lawyer. On the record he verbalized the deciding factor was legal representation; not what was best for the child who was requesting to live with his father.
We’ve also had the judges allow bad behavior and massive rule deviations that ran afoul of due process (excusing not notifying of witnesses, not providing exhibits, allowing responses to motions well after their deadlines and days before the related hearings, etc.) from the lawyers on the other side. All because we were pro se and they thought we wouldn’t know better or have recourse.
4 Likes
What dirty rats!
3 Likes
Yes. But in the end, they screwed themselves….the dirty games gave us the opportunity to find and present the smoking gun and they scrambled to settle far more favorably than at any point the two years prior.
The point is, if he was pro se, there is no real convincing evidence in these documents that a settlement wasn’t unethically forced. A lot of times they are, especially in criminal situations where there is the ability to control your physical person.
It is a true fact that pro se defendants (or even plaintiffs) are generally no match for the other side if they’re represented.
1 Like
Well… is the decision made during arbitration binding? I could understand refusing to do arbitration if someone didn’t have adequate funds for competent legal representation, and was concerned about a decision being binding.
Also, I think Trubs states the challenges with the SS process quite well here…
Anyway… I have no idea what went on with @ErinDH ‘s husband. Im a vocal supporter of the idea that predators should be banned. But at this point, it seems like the SS process is… problematic. And in some cases, the process itself has been turned into a punishment of sorts. Sigh. And that undermines the whole mission.
Oh well. It’s a mess. And that’s a shame.
1 Like
“A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.”
4 Likes
Most people who go pro se just can’t afford a lawyer.
1 Like
As someone who has been pretty abused by other gov’t related agencies, I am not convinced at all that the process is above board.
2 Likes
Where is this, do you have a link? thx!
It’s in the PDF I provided of the THJA
In this, they were sued because they would not allow a trainer banned from showing at USEF shows under Safesport to show in their organization. Their belief is that he is banned by Safesport under USEF and they are extending that protection to minors under their organization. His belief is that because THJA isn’t under the USEF umbrella they aren’t allowed to ban him.
They discussed rewording their mission statement to relieve them of future liability (not an option) and the financial drain of multiple lawsuits.
3 Likes
Thanks for the clarification. In the original post by another poster, I thought “they” meant UDJC. It makes more sense that it was THJA.
I think this is a tough question for any horse organization that hosts events and competitions.
One of the results of Safesport is that now we know a lot of things that we did not used to know. Other than occasionally through rumor and gossip.
And now it would seem that the glacial process of Safesport means that what we know from it may not be a complete picture. I get it, Safesport is under-resourced and the slowness is likely due to backlog. But obviously it is causing a spreading ripple of problems.
