I’m not the thread closer. And I will comment any way I see fit. Thanks for playing. 
19 Likes
Excuse me? I’ve been here discussing (almost) nothing but the OP and all matters “SafeSport.” What is your contribution to that topic? Or…… are you here to discuss me ?? If the latter, it seems it would be you trying to undermine the discussion of “those attempting to undermine SafeSport.” Choose your next words more wisely.
Playing? Omg, lady, FIND A LIFE.
13 Likes
Good choice.
I don’t believe “good choices” is an area of expertise for you.
31 Likes
37 Likes
Bad choice.
@Moderator_1 - please read @Knights_Mom last 2 comments. I have flagged them because she is clearly attempting to continue bringing up threads closed by moderators. If you are unable to rectify this situation, please advise Ms. Rasin ASAP. Otherwise, I will do so myself, first thing in the morning.
Of course you flagged them. Like you always do. Then you accuse others of being thread closers. Then come the threats. Because I disagreed with your POV while you insisted on debating experts who then found it necessary to put you on ignore due to your insulting and demeaning THEM.
I’ve said nothing wrong nor am I reopening old threads. That’s what you just did.
20 Likes
What? What is this even about? I’m so confused.
@Virginia_Horse_Mom- I was responding to VX re how an attorney could essentially change laws wrt SafeSport. Not make or decide the laws. Wrt this topic, SafeSport could be held accountable for either purposeful or non purposeful mistakes. In order to do that, it would probably need to begin with a civil suit, except, SafeSport is protected from lawsuits. I’d guess that this is the reason the JD’s list only the McDonalds in their suit, rather than including SafeSport. There are areas where SafeSport is NOT protected. I believe the JD’s must hire a firm which specializes in locating those areas.
If SafeSport and higher up members of USEF are in any way found to be “scratching each other’s backs,” that would need to be addressed in the most severe legal arenas possible. And, I believe this is exactly the strategy the JD’s should implement. They would not be alone, upon information & belief.
Is SS protected from lawsuits?
Will be interesting to watch and see if that suit prevails against that governing body. If it does prevail then one can likewise wonder how the Olympics, USEF, USDF or any other jumping or other group might fare in similar circumstances.
8 Likes
Re lawyers that are partners at top firms:
They don’t get there overnight. To belittle someone who is not at that level is petty and quite frankly lame. For some people it’s also not their goal, and that’s fine! Not every lawyer has the same aspirations. Some are fulfilled or satisfied in other ways. Some want a different work/life balance. Some have been there, but have now switched gears. Why anyone (who isn’t even in the field themself) would insult anyone who is working for a living, who has made it through law school, passed the bar exam, and is now actively working, is so beyond me. Some of us are still relatively young, so yeah, not being a partner isn’t a surprise (not that there aren’t young partners out there). Some of us prefer academia. Some of us work internationally, some don’t. So. What.
Most average/nornal/law abiding citizens have no need for a legal team, never mind a legal team from a top firm. Sure the average person might need a will, or the other odd contract or agreement, and will hire an attorney, but usually just a local one, and that’s fine! I have a friend who makes good money, has a good work/life balance, and is quite satisfied doing mostly estate stuff. Not my gig, but I don’t look down upon it. Why should I?
Trust me, I know it can be about who you know, who you’re associated with, and where you graduated from, but I just can’t have such a sh*tty and judgemental attitude about it, personally. Maybe I’ve retained a lawyer who is at the top of the top of their area of expertise. How does that make me “better” or smarter than anyone else? It doesn’t. Yes I (theoretically) had the wits about me to choose good counsel, and had the cash to pay for it, but it wouldn’t make me an expert on anything and I don’t try to own others expertise as my own, not recommended 
I will continue to follow the McDonald case though. I think it’s wrong how people abused and behaved in this sport (and others), and got away with it/it was accepted (somewhat) for so long. It’s sickening.
Edit: I keep correcting typos and random words. I typed this on my phone rather quickly, so forgive me. 
20 Likes
This is the crux of it for me. I stand on my own credentials and don’t look to borrow my bona fides by association or by paying for those of others.
I agree with everything you said (even though according to the FitzE police I’m not allowed to respond to certain topics 
). The crap attitude towards well-meaning professionals sharing info and experience, the mocking and demeaning others in order to feel/look important - just ick.
Along with following the McDonald case, what do you think of the one KnightsMom posted? I think the outcome of that will be rather interesting.
17 Likes
I think the outcome could be interesting, I just need a few more details/need to read more about it.
SS has a good mission, and has made valuable (to the sport) accomplishments. However, I don’t think SS is immune to corruption. Wherever there are big names, big money, high status, and high stakes, there’s often some level of misbehavior and/or corruption. It’s sad, and I hope it isn’t the case, but I also wouldn’t be surprised. If it’s not corrupted, I’m quite sure people are trying to or have tried to corrupt it. Which is sad.
I do think SS needs to have a level of certainty and follow specific procedures to issue bans and whatnot. Sometimes I think that looks like they are not working with the victim, but in reality they want to cover their bases because what they’re doing is heavyweight stuff (banning/suspending big names and attaching allegations to said names).
7 Likes
Yes, I agree it is a fine line to walk to give victims robust support while still remaining neutral. You are right that where there’s money/power there’s corruption.
My fear, as mentioned in KnightsMom’s article is, all this vitriol about SS and people suing them and all that is likely to chill victim’s coming forward as more people tear down SS on places like social media (this forum included).
15 Likes
I think that’s a legitimate fear. Victims definitely have some very rough waters to navigate.
8 Likes
So as not to poke the dragon, I’ll just say that there have been many misstatement of how the law works on this thread (it’s a little staggering how incorrect some posts are, about even the most basic “separation of powers” principles that I thought were taught in high school civics, for example) and I would take with a grain of salt any explanation of the law by a non-lawyer.
I think it will be particularly interesting to see what, if anything, SS does if the Jane Does prevail on their civil suit. Most civil cases have a long trajectory and I would expect this one will too. And most civil cases settle rather than try. If this one does try and the Jane Does prevail, I would think SS would then be in a position to either reinstate the temporary ban and continue proceedings or possibly just use the judgment itself as a basis for some sanction of some sort (perhaps not a lifetime ban but some lesser sanction). In analogous contexts like administrative suspension/debarment/exclusions, agencies do use civil judgments as the basis for administrative penalties. So there is so basis for this.
20 Likes
I realize this is a huge tangent but I am curious, where does this interesting term come from? Did big time lawyers used to wear white shoes?
3 Likes
My understanding is it came from the wearing of white bucks (only in season, naturally) by the men of the Ivy League who populated the large, prestigious firms. At least that’s was how it was explained by my contracts professor at my Ivy law school, himself a grad of a different Ivy law school.
It’s also a gentle correction for anyone reading this thread that if you want to try to look cool and in the know by throwing around the colourful insider jargon meaning “a prestigious law firm”, it’s white shoe, not blue chip.
23 Likes
