Yes, it does require a tiny bit of self control. Lol.
10 Likes
See, I like that the ignore feature exists now, but I’d appreciate full-on ignore. As in, no evidence that such a user exists 
Some of us of here are quite accomplished and do have professional ties to various firms. 
some of us also spend our free time on CoTH. We don’t work full out 24/7 365. Do some people really monitor what their legal team (that they retrained) does all hours of the day, to include a little down time…creeeepy.
As for SS I am actually interested that a civil case has been brought forward because I’ve wondered if any SS investigations would lead to victims bringing forward an actual case in the court of law. I don’t know if SS is as “good” as it claims to be, but it seems to get some things accomplished at least. A lot has been brought to light and/or confirmed via SS. I’ve been watching this thread for awhile now, and now the one over in the Dressage forum. I can only hope that these predators get what they deserve.
12 Likes
It’s true. The madness never ends, so on ignore for me for quite awhile now.
Ignore will prevent the odd PMs as well.
9 Likes
Yes, a full-on “get thee behind me” button would be a blessing, but needs must.
I don’t know if people monitor their legal teams, but anyone who peppers them with one-liners to get answers without triggering a billable timing unit is a not a quality client and those are the types who tend to bounce from firm to firm b/c they get fired as clients so often. We have all kinds of ways of firing clients w/o create a fuss, as I’m sure you know. Just pray to the god of conflicts and, hey, presto, you’re conflicted out for their next matter!!!
Do you think SS being as robust as it is and getting some things done that no one could have conceived of 10 years ago (e.g., GM life ban) helps victims feel more confident coming forward and, thus, leads to more cases being brought in court? I would hope so.
8 Likes
Re what I bolded, I agree. I also don’t get clients asking oddball or rudimentary questions about certain aspects of the law that are seemingly random/unrelated to their case. I’m always willing to advise and educate on matters that I am qualified to though. I’ll also happily refer to those (and listen to) that know more on a subject/are more experienced, so it’s not that I think I know it all
I certainly think SS is getting some things done that no one could have conceived of 10 years ago. I also hope it encourages more victims to come forward and cases being brought in court. It’s time that people are held responsible for their behaviors. SS definitely has some room for improvement, but it’s by no means a waste or not accomplishing anything.
9 Likes
That’s what I’m hoping: room for improvement (and expansion and more funding) but I hope it’s getting the ball rolling in the right direction and will facilitate more legal action as well as SS action. If I were a victim and SS took me seriously as a victim, I think that would inspire some confidence in me that I could pursue a legal case as well. Since SS will likely be a victim’s first point of contact coming forward, I hope the way they handle things and seriously investigate will encourage each person who comes forward and those watching from afar to keep going and seek justice for themselves and others. It’s such a brave step to take.
5 Likes
I find this civil case angle quite interesting as well. It definitely seems like the best path forward for the two claimants in this case. From what I read in the articles, their SS investigator did make some sloppy errors, and I don’t blame them for backing away from arbitration once they realized they were in that position.
SafeSport does routinely ban people once criminal charges are levied, or as a result of their criminal convictions. It will be interesting to see, if the two Jane Does prevail in their civil suit, will SS go ahead and ban McDonald again based upon that judgement? Or will the victims have to go through a SS arbitration still?
2 Likes
I can’t see why they’d have to go through arbitration still. I would think it an automatic ban. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong though. I think the arbitration at that point would be a waste and if the JD’s prevail then McDonald should be banned. Granted it’s a civil suit, but still, just how I feel about it. Not sure that’s how SS would feel.
2 Likes
1Ls aren’t nearly this insufferable. They actually want to learn
18 Likes
I would imagine that if the Jane Does prevail on their civil case, that same evidence could be provided at a SS arbitration even without their direct participation (less strict/formal rules of evidence at an arbitration so additional hearsay can often be admitted). So getting the civil judgment may really impact the SS process. It may even be sufficient to garner a SS ban even without an arbitration. I believe a criminal conviction is sufficient with no additional process.
Now I fear I’ve invited LaLa and/or her team of SCOTUS experts (totally unclear to me why you’d want appellate, jack of all trades subject matter experts to handle a non-appellate, specialty area of the law matter but to each his or her own) to debate me on hearsay
18 Likes
You need SCOTUS experts because Howard Jacobs is involved. Howard Jacobs is tied to many USEF VIPs…. THEREFORE, the only shot at prevailing when dealing with a sexual abuse case as part of a SafeSport proceeding is involving a litigator who has argued in front of SCOTUS.
This is really obvious and logical.
12 Likes
Oooh, that would be very intimidating indeed! I’m sorry, I can’t discuss anything with you directly, you’ll have to address my attorney, Smaug.
It will be interesting to see how SS reacts to a civil suit vs. a criminal case against McDonald. We know they ban for criminal cases being brought against someone. While I would like to think that a civil judgement would hold weight, I don’t know that it does. Wouldn’t they end up back at square one reopening their investigation and being subject to arbitration again?
4 Likes
I think they might be able to just amend the complaint to include information from the civil case, reinstate the decision to lifetime ban McDonald, and then he would have the option to pursue arbitration. But would the two complainants need to testify during arbitration if a civil process had already taken place, and the McDonald legal team already had the opportunity to confront and cross examine the accusers?
Maybe one of the actual lawyers on these forums can weigh in. I always appreciate their free insight 
3 Likes
I would think transcripts from the civil testimony could be considered by the arbitrator in lieu of live testimony because of the more relaxed rules of evidence. Of course live testimony is always nice to have but it might not be necessary (and would spare the victims having to testify a second time) if an arbitration occurred after the civil case had concluded.
6 Likes
Interesting. I did not know that.
2 Likes
My understanding is that SS can and does ban people based on criminal convictions, given that a criminal conviction finds the person guilty of violating the criminal code, and therefore the SS code. But in a civil case, isn’t the respondent found “liable” of causing damage to the plaintiff, rather than guilty of a crime?
I’d be surprised if being found liable in a civil suit works the same way as being convicted in a criminal case in terms of leading to a SS ban without going through arbitration. I believe that in the previous “judicial resolution bans”, all were based on criminal convictions and in those cases there was not even an investigation by SS.
IANAL of any stripe.
5 Likes
And this is why SS is so important. I have zero confidence USEF would be able to self monitor and hold accountability from within. SS has many flaws, but it’s position as a government regulator and authority have allowed for those with connections, money, influence to be unable to wield those weapons successfully.
As usual, excellent commentary on this thread. Thank you.
7 Likes
18 Likes
Interesting point.
It does seem that SS will suspend people based just on criminal charges before there is even an official investigation by law enforcement, much less a conviction. But that’s not the same thing as a permanent ban.
2 Likes
I can understand it if SS does NOT temporarily suspend either McDonald while the lawsuit plays out. Lawsuits like this can go on and on… for years. But at the end of the process, if Bob McDonald either settles with the two victims, or if he is found liable in a court of law…
He should be banned for life by SafeSport all over again, in my opinion.
Time will tell.
7 Likes
