Rob Gage

[RatWrangler]

@Mac123

I’m scratching my head why people are demanding to know the sordid details.

For the same reason they slow down and bug their eyes out at highway accidents.

[IPEsq]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Yes, but keep in mind, Safesport also has jurisdiction over conduct that does not include minors. Hence my example above: what Safesport remedy would be appropriate where, say, a senior trainer plants an unwelcome kiss on a more junior trainer?

At a company, I believe this conduct by an employee would typically result in a reprimand and probably remedial training in sexual harassment. Of course, if the conduct was repeated, stronger discipline would ensue.

I don’t know. I was responding to the poster who really wanted to know what “kind” of sexual misconduct RG was accused of. My point is that we know it was “involving a minor” (or multiple minors), and even on the low end of conduct, it’s still reprehensible conduct against minors.

Yes the same provision of the code applies to sexual misconduct where there is some kind of gender discrimination or where there is just a power or influence imbalance. I don’t know what sanction SafeSport would hand down in those cases.

[roseymare]

I am not sure what more you want than “Sexual misconduct with a minor”

Isn’t that enough information?

[Bobby7]

KS’s rant on Facebook seems to of disappeared.

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@roseymare

I am not sure what more you want than “Sexual misconduct with a minor”

Isn’t that enough information?

Well, would you agree there are different levels of sexual misconduct with a minor? Kissing a 17 year old student versus forcible rape of a 6 year old. They are both wrong, but one is more serious than the other, wouldn’t you agree?

Here’s an example of the type of summary published by the State Bar.

Categories: Attorney Discipline, Suspensions/Probation
Robert Norik Kitay [#229966], 48, of Carmichael was suspended for at least 18 months effective on August 29, 2018. He was also placed on two years’ probation, and he faces a continued suspension until he can prove his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law. Kitay was found culpable of holding himself out as able to practice law while suspended, engaging in moral turpitude through misrepresentation, commingling, and failing to report sanctions and malpractice suits to the State Bar. In mitigation, Kitay did not act in bad faith, faced extreme emotional difficulties, and showed remorse and recognition of wrongdoing. Kitay has one prior disciplinary matter.

Categories: Attorney Discipline, Disbarments
James Edward Kroetch [#95434], 68, of Orinda was disbarred effective August 22, 2018, ordered to notify clients of the discipline and perform other obligations under rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Kroetch was convicted of a misdemeanor count of possession of child pornography, a crime involving moral turpitude. Kroetch was found to have possessed thousands of images and videos of sexual acts with children, which he shared online with others. Kroetch had no prior record of discipline.

[Capall]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Well, would you agree there are different levels of sexual misconduct with a minor? Kissing a 17 year old student versus forcible rape of a 6 year old. They are both wrong, but one is more serious than the other, wouldn’t you agree?

Here’s an example of the type of summary published by the State Bar.

Categories: Attorney Discipline, Suspensions/Probation
Robert Norik Kitay [#229966], 48, of Carmichael was suspended for at least 18 months effective on August 29, 2018. He was also placed on two years’ probation, and he faces a continued suspension until he can prove his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law. Kitay was found culpable of holding himself out as able to practice law while suspended, engaging in moral turpitude through misrepresentation, commingling, and failing to report sanctions and malpractice suits to the State Bar. In mitigation, Kitay did not act in bad faith, faced extreme emotional difficulties, and showed remorse and recognition of wrongdoing. Kitay has one prior disciplinary matter.

Categories: Attorney Discipline, Disbarments
James Edward Kroetch [#95434], 68, of Orinda was disbarred effective August 22, 2018, ordered to notify clients of the discipline and perform other obligations under rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Kroetch was convicted of a misdemeanor count of possession of child pornography, a crime involving moral turpitude. Kroetch was found to have possessed thousands of images and videos of sexual acts with children, which he shared online with others. Kroetch had no prior record of discipline.

We don’t need to know the details. The victims do not need to have these details made public. The ones entitled to the details are the ones who ultimately made the decision that his actions were bad enough to warrant a permanent ban. That’s enough for me. I don’t need to know what exactly he did. We know at least two of the victim’s ages. As has been repeated over and over and over and over again, this is NOT about a 17 year old in a “public” relationship with a 28 year old. Its multiple victims. Why are you so hell bent on needing to know how exactly he abused these children?

[Denali6298]

IMO it’s pretty perverse to ask for details so we can analyze the level.

[OwnTooMany]

@Horsegirl's Mom

OneTooMany, you do raise some valid points about credibility of, and public confidence in, the process. And the posters who insist that our criminal and civil justice systems would also keep all the facts confidential seem to have confused our court system with China’s. In actuality, while a minor victim or rape victim might be referred to as “Jane Doe” in court, all of the surrounding facts will be public, and trials are public. Moreover, sentencing data is public at both the state and federal level: if you want to know what kinds of sentences are handed out for particular types of conduct, you can find that out.

I’ve concluded it is not possible in this forum to have an objective, reasoned conversation about what level of due process and/or transparency is appropriate for SafeSport. Any attempt to bring up the topic will quickly cause you to be branded a pedophile and/or RG sympathizer–even if, like me, you don’t know anything about RG and have made no comment on his culpability.

I have been quite surprised about what people seem to misunderstand about the criminal justice system. A foundational principle of our justice system is that trials are open. In addition, trials conducted by a judge (bench trials) must include findings of fact (as well as the specific parts of the code that were violated). These requirements, of course, are there to help prevent corruption and to help ensure the credibility of the process in the eyes of the public

I am guessing that what people are thinking that leads them to the conclusion that a trial would be closed and the evidence sealed is that the case would be in juvenile court where pretty much everything is secret. I am guessing people must be thinking this because the accusers were minors at the time of the crimes. But cases only go to juvenile court when the accused is a minor, which is not the case here. So while minor witnesses may be protected – Jane Doe (as you have indicated above) and testimony via video link – the facts of the case will be public.

But I will also agree with those that say that SafeSport is not a criminal court. So the standard of due process does not have to be the same as in criminal court. However, SafeSport does have a duty to provide some reasonable level of due process (especially since it has been created by an act of congress).

What I find VERY surprising is the lack of any specific statements by Safe Sport about which parts of the code have been violated. With the caveat of protecting the identity of the accuser, I can’t think of good reasons not to be specific at the same level of specificity as the code. Furthermore, I think that this might protect victims. My guess is that if SafeSport had found that RG had sexual intercourse with a 13 year old when he was 2? years old in 19?? (then followed by the same information for the other events since there seems to be more than one), then much of the discussion would go away and the 4 women that felt they had to publicly come forward over the weekend would not have had to do so.

Furthermore, without specifics from SafeSport about the violations, everyone is left guessing which “facts” that come out in social media are true and which are not. This creates a situation where people just believe what they want.

I am pretty much ignoring the vitriol. I will say that I am amazed at how many psychics there are than can read my mind!

[OwnTooMany]

@HLMom

That’s an interesting point. I’m an attorney, and I think of SafeSport as being more like the bar association than like my private employer. Somewhat analogous to Safesport, the bar association has a high level of control over my ability to practice law as an attorney. If I am disbarred, I can still work in law (for example, I could work as a paralegal or write legal treatises) but I could not represent clients as an attorney. This is kind of like how people say if SafeSport bans a trainer, they can still do horse stuff like training horses at home, but they can’t bring clients to rated shows.

As you can imagine (and sadly), the bar association conducts many disciplinary hearings against attorneys for a wide variety of misconduct, including sexual misconduct. (It is a violation of the code of professional responsibility to have sex with a client). A summary of each disciplinary action is published to the entire bar. The disciplined attorney is identified, the facts of the misconduct are summarized (without identifying the client-victim), and the penalty is stated (i.e., suspension, disbarment, etc.)

So SafeSport could do something like that, which brings a lot of transparency without harming the victims in any way.

I think the analogy to the bar and enforcement of professional codes of conduct is a good one. It is useful to know that summaries of the disciplinary actions are published as you have indicated. Do you know what level of due process is used for these hearing? This might inform opinions about what would be appropriate for Safe Sport.

[poltroon]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Well, would you agree there are different levels of sexual misconduct with a minor? Kissing a 17 year old student versus forcible rape of a 6 year old. They are both wrong, but one is more serious than the other, wouldn’t you agree?

Here’s an example of the type of summary published by the State Bar.

Categories: Attorney Discipline, Suspensions/Probation
Robert Norik Kitay [#229966], 48, of Carmichael was suspended for at least 18 months effective on August 29, 2018. He was also placed on two years’ probation, and he faces a continued suspension until he can prove his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law. Kitay was found culpable of holding himself out as able to practice law while suspended, engaging in moral turpitude through misrepresentation, commingling, and failing to report sanctions and malpractice suits to the State Bar. In mitigation, Kitay did not act in bad faith, faced extreme emotional difficulties, and showed remorse and recognition of wrongdoing. Kitay has one prior disciplinary matter.

Categories: Attorney Discipline, Disbarments
James Edward Kroetch [#95434], 68, of Orinda was disbarred effective August 22, 2018, ordered to notify clients of the discipline and perform other obligations under rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Kroetch was convicted of a misdemeanor count of possession of child pornography, a crime involving moral turpitude. Kroetch was found to have possessed thousands of images and videos of sexual acts with children, which he shared online with others. Kroetch had no prior record of discipline.

I agree, the Bar and similar are useful models.

One reason this is a little different is that attorney client lists aren’t usually public information the way the dozen or so juniors in a barn or any sports program would be. In many programs simply identifying a minor by age and gender would probably be enough to out that minor to people who had ever seen them at a competition. I note neither of these summaries involves a direct victim.

Note the need to “prove fitness to practice.”

In general, I’d like to see more information. I like it in the USEF Notices of Penalty, too. But, it doesn’t invalidate the process for me to not have it, if people more expert than me think it is appropriate for protecting victims and creating effective, accurate investigations.

[Midge]

@Bobby7

KS’s rant on Facebook seems to of disappeared.

Still there.

[MHM]

@Bobby7

KS’s rant on Facebook seems to of disappeared.

Could you please spell out the name? By page 67 of this thread, it’s not easy to keep all the players straight.

[Midge]

@MHM

Could you please spell out the name? By page 67 of this thread, it’s not easy to keep all the players straight.

kristin medall simpson-ferguson hardin

[Midge]

I completely sympathize with people who have lost a friend. Duncan McIntosh is clearly in a sad place and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. In the thread where the call comment came, there is also a couple people having a very reasoned discussion about the victims and their truth, etc. One says there is a whole world of horses outside the USEF and Dican replies, ‘that would be the desired clientele for a former national champion?’

This comment, and the whole exchange, so exemplifies the problem. Entitlement. Rob is entitled to make his mistakes, change his ways, go on about his business, and the victims should move on too. Like Oprah. Any punishment Rob should face is simply vengeance,not justice. He is entitled to pay no price. The victims, however, aren’t entitled to anything. Because that is embracing your victimhood.

[roseymare]

@OwnTooMany

I have been quite surprised about what people seem to misunderstand about the criminal justice system. A foundational principle of our justice system is that trials are open. In addition, trials conducted by a judge (bench trials) must include findings of fact (as well as the specific parts of the code that were violated). These requirements, of course, are there to help prevent corruption and to help ensure the credibility of the process in the eyes of the public

I am guessing that what people are thinking that leads them to the conclusion that a trial would be closed and the evidence sealed is that the case would be in juvenile court where pretty much everything is secret. I am guessing people must be thinking this because the accusers were minors at the time of the crimes. But cases only go to juvenile court when the accused is a minor, which is not the case here. So while minor witnesses may be protected – Jane Doe (as you have indicated above) and testimony via video link – the facts of the case will be public.

But I will also agree with those that say that SafeSport is not a criminal court. So the standard of due process does not have to be the same as in criminal court. However, SafeSport does have a duty to provide some reasonable level of due process (especially since it has been created by an act of congress).

What I find VERY surprising is the lack of any specific statements by Safe Sport about which parts of the code have been violated. With the caveat of protecting the identity of the accuser, I can’t think of good reasons not to be specific at the same level of specificity as the code. Furthermore, I think that this might protect victims. My guess is that if SafeSport had found that RG had sexual intercourse with a 13 year old when he was 2? years old in 19?? (then followed by the same information for the other events since there seems to be more than one), then much of the discussion would go away and the 4 women that felt they had to publicly come forward over the weekend would not have had to do so.

Furthermore, without specifics from SafeSport about the violations, everyone is left guessing which “facts” that come out in social media are true and which are not. This creates a situation where people just believe what they want.

I am pretty much ignoring the vitriol. I will say that I am amazed at how many psychics there are than can read my mind!

I don’t know why you think people won’t still make up “facts” on FB. Whatever SS says will still never be enough.

If you peruse other sports there are different explanations given and differing time frames for bans.

[oneequestrienne]

@OwnTooMany

I have been quite surprised about what people seem to misunderstand about the criminal justice system. A foundational principle of our justice system is that trials are open. In addition, trials conducted by a judge (bench trials) must include findings of fact (as well as the specific parts of the code that were violated). These requirements, of course, are there to help prevent corruption and to help ensure the credibility of the process in the eyes of the public

I am guessing that what people are thinking that leads them to the conclusion that a trial would be closed and the evidence sealed is that the case would be in juvenile court where pretty much everything is secret. I am guessing people must be thinking this because the accusers were minors at the time of the crimes. But cases only go to juvenile court when the accused is a minor, which is not the case here. So while minor witnesses may be protected – Jane Doe (as you have indicated above) and testimony via video link – the facts of the case will be public.

But I will also agree with those that say that SafeSport is not a criminal court. So the standard of due process does not have to be the same as in criminal court. However, SafeSport does have a duty to provide some reasonable level of due process (especially since it has been created by an act of congress).

What I find VERY surprising is the lack of any specific statements by Safe Sport about which parts of the code have been violated. With the caveat of protecting the identity of the accuser, I can’t think of good reasons not to be specific at the same level of specificity as the code. Furthermore, I think that this might protect victims. My guess is that if SafeSport had found that RG had sexual intercourse with a 13 year old when he was 2? years old in 19?? (then followed by the same information for the other events since there seems to be more than one), then much of the discussion would go away and the 4 women that felt they had to publicly come forward over the weekend would not have had to do so.

Furthermore, without specifics from SafeSport about the violations, everyone is left guessing which “facts” that come out in social media are true and which are not. This creates a situation where people just believe what they want.

I am pretty much ignoring the vitriol. I will say that I am amazed at how many psychics there are than can read my mind!

Ok. I appreciate your tone in this well laid out post.

Regarding Safesport: The banned list from Safesport as found on the USEF website does say “sexual misconduct - involving minor”. Their public statement as quoted in USA Today “SafeSport spokesman Dan Hill told USA TODAY Sports on Friday that investigators found Gage was guilty of sexual misconduct with “a number of minors.” He added that Gage had the opportunity to refute the allegations and provide evidence during the investigation, and that he could have appealed SafeSport’s ban before an independent arbitrator.” The USEF sanctions list mentioned above does say subject to appeal. I am sorry that I can not provide a specific source but I do think his attorney and his friends said that he had appealed and the meeting with the arbitrator was upcoming. As far as I know, that is the sum total of public information from Safesport on this case.

My question is this: Given that Safesport has publicly stated that RG was found guilty of sexual misconduct with a number of minors, what more do we need to know?

That rules out the narrative that it was just “one slightly underage” consensual relationship with an 18 year old RG. Even if was a succession of 17 year olds (as RG got older), there is still something wrong (and illegal, by the way) with that. It shows a pattern of behavior. I am sorry for the loss suffered by those who lost their friend and mentor. I wish them peace.

[Saskatoonian]

@NancyHenson

This was a Facebook post I made a few days ago. Originally, it did not have the final paragraph:

The next time someone comes forward with a report of abuse from decades ago, and you wonder, why did it take long? Why now? This is why. Days and days and days of sorrow and pity and anger on behalf of the man, and little to nothing about the young girls. Plural girls. Dismissing his actions, blaming the girls, the system, the ‘times’. And anyone who has even broached the subject of the girls has been chastised. People talking about tearing down the system and forming a new organization are being cheered on by convicted sex offenders. Criminally convicted sex offenders are in your corner!

Any child being abused right now and reading everything her heroes, mentors, parents, and parents of friends are posting? No way is she coming forward after all this. No fucking way.

So, you are the very thing that keeps victims from coming forward. It is you. You are the reason. And for some of you? I think this is exactly the point.

ADDING- Now that all of you have a name and an age (13!) for one of the victims, I hope you are all so very proud of the stance you have taken. You should all be looking in the mirror and and thinking, ‘What the hell have I done?’

Because this can’t be repeated too many times. Thank you, NH.

[Keep_it_Simple]

@poltroon

If you read the story, are you not appalled by the arbitrator’s reliance on an “expert” who never interviewed the victim? The arbitrator basically went with, “well maybe she was so drunk she doesn’t remember consenting” … which by definition, friends, is not consent.

The arbitrators are retired lawyers and judges. They do not necessarily have experience in family law, sexual abuse or criminal law. Some were corporate lawyers,
I am appalled that someone would think a drunk person could consent, but as we have seen with other sexual abuse claims, not everyone agrees with that.

For example: A man plead guilty to molesting an 11-year old child. He also faced child kidnapping and first-degree statutory rape charges. But instead of jail time, he gets just 5 years of probation.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/missouri-man-probation-molestation_n_5d07bf13e4b03eb73ef844d4?fbclid=IwAR0N4ACxJysyKCOWn9pJ2FtaUvOFu1zsVW_gAHiK5vmtapEPolP5SQ4OHHw

NY’s Child Victim’s Act goes into effect on August. 14, 2019 It allows childhood sexual assault victims to seek prosecution against their abuser until the age of 55 in civil cases , and includes a one-year window during which victims of any age or time limit can come forward to prosecute. I wonder how many hunter/jumper professionals from NY are concerned about this?

[OneGrayPony]

@Midge

kristin medall simpson-ferguson hardin

That’s a lot of names…I can see why it was abbreviated

[roseymare]

So I ask once again. Why aren’t we up in arms about the arbitration company? It is independent from Safesport.

Why if arbitration overturns a majority of SS rulings is that a strike against SS? Couldn’t it just as easily mean the arbitration company is not capable of arbitrating cases of this nature?