Attorney: Dayton's Pierre will fight suspension

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by Angry John Same principal applies to the young lady for going into Pierre's bedroom and climbing into his bed. Sure, she should not be forced to do things against her will, but it is not very smart to jump into bed with a guy who is not your boyfriend. Both individuals were irresponsible, but only one person is being punished. Kind of like getting the death penalty for a parking ticket.

He isn't being punished for doing not very smart. He us being punished because the other party alleged there was no consent given for certain things that occurred and he could not or would not answer the question of when and how she consented to those events other than say she did. If he filed the charge and say he did not consent she might be the one suspended. It has happened - females have been suspended under similar circumstances. Not many, but how many males cry foul when they get laid?
Posted via Mobile Device

[CE80]

Originally Posted by rollo The difference between Royalty and serfdom is the ability to see things from another's point of view. I have that ability...hence, the 'King' stuff! So lot too long ago, coeds around campus would get loaded and taken advantage of only to have to complete the walk of shame worrying about reputation, pregnancy, STD's, etc...meanwhile the men across campus only had to worry about whether or not she'd show up at his porch the next day. Then the feminists got mad and fought long and hard for Title IX...so now women are somewhat protected from males...and males now have something a little more serious to worry about the next day...or week...or month.

Title IX was never intended to address sexual harassment. The feminists did not push for this law for that purpose. I don't believe they had that in mind all along. Put laws in place for that purpose if needed. They can be thought out a little more than a Dear Colleague letter. It would need to address an incident that has reason to the level of law enforcement involvement. Once that happens, it should be out of the schools hands.

[oldfan]

Originally Posted by rollo The difference between Royalty and serfdom is the ability to see things from another's point of view. I have that ability...hence, the 'King' stuff!

Not to get too far off point but you may have this backward. A serf can always imagine himself being a king and never being wrong and always being right and getting whatever he wants but a king could never imagine himself being wrong or not getting what he wants.

[Alberto Strasse]

The Dixiecrats (Southern Conservative Democrats) were opposed to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 favored by President Lyndon Johnson as a tribute to the assassinated JFK.
In an effort to point out the absurdity of the bill the Dixiecrats added the word "sex" to the protected class definition thinking it would attract "No" votes. The bill passed and in the 51 years since the most litigated feature of the C.R.A. has been illegal discrimination on the basis
of sex. I'm sure many Americans do not realize the Democrat Party had a wing that opposed
a progressive Civil Rights agenda.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Angry John but only one person is being punished.

If you don't think this girl is being punished, you're nuts.


And I'm nothing short of stunned that so many of you have no problem with and support our basketball players need to be able to take advantage of the weakest of the weak with no fear of punishment. If these guys were as hot-to-trot as they believe, hot sober girls would be hanging all over them. But they aren't. And there's a reason for that.

[N2663R]

And what have we learned thus far . . . . ?

1. Opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one, myself included.

2. This thread has just over 700 posts, and the new logo thread has just over 800 posts.

3. A lot of posts are not reviewed for grammatical errors prior to uploading.

4. No one seems to be able to answer the question in post #687.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by oldfan A serf can always imagine himself being a king and never being wrong and always being right and getting whatever he wants but a king could never imagine himself being wrong or not getting what he wants.

When I want your opinion, I'll flog it out of you...now quit fantasizing about what it's like to be me and get back to the fields!

[Sea Bass]

I expect the hearing will attempt to delve into the matter as why the Title IX report and police report are opposites.

[Bat'71]

rollo, I don't think that all the uproar this case has caused is solely related to the fact that DP is on the BB team. Yes, the fact that DP is one of our leading players is what has brought all this to light and raised the curtain on what Title IX entails, but the way things are handled and the seeming presumption of guilt of the "perpetrator" (as mentioned in the "Dear Colleague Letter" referenced earlier) turns our system of jurisprudence on it's head. The whole way this Title IX is being applied just goes against the grain of basic fairness; it's reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials.

IMHO, no one wants anyone guilty of rape or sexual misconduct to walk away unscathed, but neither should someone be labeled a sexual predator on the rules of "evidence" allowed under the Code of Conduct system as practiced on college campuses. It just smacks of a rigged system that goes against all the standards of fairness. When you consider the life-long stigma such a ruling will have on a person's reputation, a little more consideration needs to be incorporated in the process before such a ruling is handed down. A ruling, BTW, that almost seems preordained by whatever is recommended by school "investigators", some of whom may have an ax to grind. I pity anyone caught up in such a system.

[31770]

Originally Posted by N2663R And what have we learned thus far . . . . ? 1. Opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one, myself included. 2. This thread has just over 700 posts, and the new logo thread has just over 800 posts. 3. A lot of posts are not reviewed for grammatical errors prior to uploading. 4. No one seems to be able to answer the question in post #687.

geez... rme....
1. My a**hole and my opinions don't stink nearly as bad as many others on this board...

2. wow... you want a cookie???

3.Good eye grammar Nazi... you do know this is the internet and a discussion forum... is this your first rodeo??? do you think all the posters are journalist or professional writers? ???

4.

Originally Posted by N2663R Guys, I agree that this is what will be argued on Thursday. But please explain where and how UD did not follow its own rules/procedures/policies. I need some examples??

Sorry everyone ignored you question and you felt it was so important to point out... do a little research instead of being lazy and asking someone else to figure it out for you...
From UD's TITLE IX INVESTIGATORY PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS:
"This process involves an immediate initial determination by the Title IX Coordinator as to whether the conduct in question falls under the Sexual Harassment Policy.

If the conduct is found to fall under the sexual harassment policy the Title IX Coordinator will initiate a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation by trained Title IX investigators to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that the Sexual Harassment Policy may have been violated."

" the university will implement a prompt and effective remedy designed to end the discrimination, prevent its recurrence and address its effects."

"witnesses who have participated in the Title IX investigation will be permitted to testify or otherwise provide evidence at any University Hearing Board proceeding." -Refused to produce at the hearing any of the key witnesses was one of the complaints in the statement.

"UD will ensure that those who are accused are offered support and are treated fairly in the University’s processes." however according to Ginsbergs statement UD Ignored that the accuser had failed to produce any of the evidence that she possessed and that would have shed light on the veracity of her claims; Ignored that the medical evidence provided objective evidence contradicting the accuser’s allegations and refused to have that medical evidence presented properly during the internal hearing; Ignored the vast majority of the reports and evidence gathered by law enforcement which led to the decision not to present the matter to a grand jury; Refused to allow Dyshawn the right to rebut the many changing and inconsistent stories told by the accuser, while allowing the accuser the opportunity about what had occurred;

[Avid Flyer]

King Rollo is on a slippery slope, while he may sit on his throne as King, there is a Queen next to him ensuring that his kingship understands her position or its on the couch.

Rollo may not be a jock sniffer, but he is surely sniffing more than just air.

[31770]

Originally Posted by N2663R Guys, I agree that this is what will be argued on Thursday. But please explain where and how UD did not follow its own rules/procedures/policies. I need some examples??

The University breached its obligations under the Handbook, Anti-Harassment Policy and Equity Complaint Process by, inter alia:

a. Conducting a fundamentally unfair investigation and Hearing, contrary tothe Handbook guarantees that ?[t]he Student Conduct System at theUniversity of Dayton provides fundamental fairness for all parties?(Handbook at 20), that the investigation will be “prompt, thorough andImpartial” (Handbook at 55), and that the process will be “fair and Reliable” (Handbook at 56 17

b. Failing to have investigators and UHB members properly trained and prepared to adjudicate a sexual assault allegation, contrary, to the Handbook?s guarantees that investigators and UHB members will be “trained” (Handbook at 55, 57 11 5) and the Equity Complaint Process” guarantee that investigators shall “have Specialized training and/or experience in the investigation and resolution of discrimination and harassment complaints, including complaints relating to sexual violence”
(p. 6 7 bi) and

c. Failing to accommodate Pierre’s learning disability by, inter alia, penalizing him for providing a written statement in lieu of an interview, prohibiting him from proceeding with a competent advisor, and improperly placing the burden of proof on Pierre to prove his innocence, contrary to the Handbook’s promise and representation that the University “will ensure that respondents are offered appropriate support and are treated fairly in the University’s processes” and the Anti-Harassment Policy’s promise and representation that “The University is committed to full compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” (Handbook at 57; Anti-Harassment Policy at 5).



The University failed to mention the availability of, or to make available, accommodations for his learning disability. Instead, when the University notified Pierre by letterdated July 1, 2015 that his case was scheduled for a Hearing, it noti?ed Pierre that meaningless and irrelevant language interpretation and translation services were available. The University has since revised its notifications to apprise students of the availability of disability accommodations, having realized, upon information and belief, that it had failed in its legal and moral obligation to provide assistance to Pierre, and others who came before him, because of his learning disability.

Consistent with the rights granted in the Handbook, Pierre provided a written statement in lieu of an interview. Without warning to Pierre, the Title IX investigators, seizing upon Pierre's decision to provide a written statement, unilaterally and without a good faith basis or justification concluded that Pierre had failed to participate fully in their investigation by not granting an interview, and denied Pierre crucial and meaningful opportunities to participate in the University's investigatory and disciplinary process. As - a result of the Title IX investigators' unilateral and prejudicial decision denying Pierre an opportunity to participate fully in the process, Pierre was denied an opportunity to respond to new and different information and new and different theories of liability that Accuser, as well as the Title IX investigators themselves, raised during the course of the investigation, and inconsistencies, untruths and other misstatements that Accuser provided during the course of the investigation, as detailed below.

The University failed to warn Pierre that opting to provide a written statement in lieu of an interview, as permitted by the Handbook, would result in such consequences.

The University failed to accommodate Pierre's learning disability by penalizing I him for his decision to provide a written statement in lieu of an interview.

The Handbook at p. 56 1] 20 specifically prohibits the inclusion of the accuser's or the accused's past sexual conduct to be part of the Hearing record (The past sexual history or sexual character of a party will not be admissible by the other party in the investigation or hearing unless such information is determined to be highly relevant by the Title IX investigatory team assigned to the case. All such information sought to be admitted will be presumed irrelevant, and any request to overcome this presumption by the parties must be submitted to the Title 04 Coordinator and Equity Compliance Officer for consideration) Despite the explicit prohibition, the Title IX investigators improperly included in the Title IX Report Accuser's contention that she was a virgin. As noted above, the Title IX investigators failed and otherwise refused to note in the Title IX Report certain objective evidence that might have either corroborated or conflicted with this contention, such as the clothing Accuser wore, and, likewise, failed and otherwise refused to note that Accuser was responsible for the absence of such objective evidence.
The Title IX investigators improperly included a description of Pierre's sexual character, specifically, a witness' contention that Pierre is "touchy."

The UHB did not consist of "a majority of student members" as guaranteed by the Handbook. (Handbook at 57 5.) One member of the UHB who was counted as a student was, in fact, a University staff member whom the University compensates and who, incidentally, also took graduate courses.
The Hearing lasted only about 20 minutes.
No witnesses were placed under oath at the Hearing.
No questions were asked of the witness whom Pierre selected, his roommate, despite the fact that the roommate flew from New Jersey to Dayton in order to provide evidence at the Hearing. In fact, the UHB failed and refused to call Pierre's roommate as a witness at all.
If asked, Pierre's roommate would have testified to the following information:
Sometime after 4 am, he saw Accuser walking out of Pierre’s bathroom and into his bedroom. She was wearing her pants and blouse when he saw her. She appeared to be totally comfortable, did not look uncomfortable in any way, and did not say anything that alerted the roommate to any issues or problems. Because Accuser denied seeing Pierre's roommate during this crucial time period, Pierre's roommate's information was vitally important.

The University improperly placed the burden on Pierre despite the Handbook's provision that UHB members "vote using a preponderance of the evidence standard to determine What more likely than not occurred (Handbook at 57 1] 7)," clearly placing the burden on Accuser to prove her accusation by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Handbook identifies the following criteria for an appeal:
'New evidence or information that did not exist at the time of the hearing or investigation that could have a bearing on the decision is discovered, or "There was a clear error in the process that could have had a bearing on the decision." (Handbook at 55.)
Pierre identified many issues in his appeal, which the University unfairly ignored or rejected, including the following:
The University impermissibly placed the burden on Pierre to prove his innocence and establish effective consent; The University deprived Pierre of effective assistance and meaningful representation in the Hearing and, instead, improperly required him to represent himself; The University wrongfully denied Pierre’s request for Accuser's statements and deprived him of the opportunity to respond; The University deprived Pierre of the right to confront Accuser, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to provide evidence to the UHB; The University treated Pierre in a manner materially different and more prejudicial than the manner in which the University treated Accuser; The University provided no opportunity to challenge or object to the Title IX Report, which constituted the Hearing case file; The University improperly penalized Pierre for exercising his right to provide a written statement in lieu of an interview; The University improperly deprived Pierre of his rights under the Handbook to "refer to law enforcement and have assistance" (Handbook at 53); The University improperly denied Pierre’s requests for discovery, to have the full medical record presented to the UHB and to have a qualified person explain the medical findings, for a fair process, and to strike the Title IX Report, detailed above; and The Decision was contrary to the evidence.

[N2663R]

Thank you!

[Flyer 86]

Originally Posted by rollo If you don't think this girl is being punished, you're nuts. And I'm nothing short of stunned that so many of you have no problem with and support our basketball players need to be able to take advantage of the weakest of the weak with no fear of punishment. If these guys were as hot-to-trot as they believe, hot sober girls would be hanging all over them. But they aren't. And there's a reason for that.

i'm not clear. How is she punished.

By leaving the U of D? Was she threatened by male bballers or students?

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Flyer 86 i'm not clear. How is she punished.

Now that it's public, for the rest of her life, she'll be answering to her parents...former BFs...classmates...etc. Kids this age, who live and die with social media, are merciless and undoubtedly burying this poor girl. If you follow local athletes like the Oakwood/Stanford swimmer who was charged with rape and run out of dodge, you know what I mean as his name is/was and forever will be associated with what he may/may not have done.

Meanwhile, Pierre has high priced lawyers and jock sniffers lined up here to Canada defending his innocence, honor and sexual rights!

Unitnended consequences...just another reason why so many women stay quiet about assault.

[CE80]

Originally Posted by rollo Now that it's public, for the rest of her life, she'll be answering to her parents...former BFs...classmates...etc. Kids this age, who live and die with social media, are merciless and undoubtedly burying this poor girl. If you follow local athletes like the Oakwood/Stanford swimmer who was charged with rape and run out of dodge, you know what I mean as his name is/was and forever will be associated with what he may/may not have done. Meanwhile, Pierre has high priced lawyers and jock sniffers lined up here to Canada defending his innocence, honor and sexual rights! Unitnended consequences...just another reason why so many women stay quiet about assault.

Huh?

I don't know who the Oakwood/Stanford swimmer is but from the little bit of information you provided, it sounds like Pierre is more likely to suffer the same fate as him than the woman that we are talking about. If both Pierre and the woman used better judgment, neither one would be in the situation they find themselves in. From purely a social stigma standpoint, given the choice, I would rather suffer the shame of being the victim than to be the one kicked out of school and essentially labeled a rapist. No high priced lawyer can erase that completely. He may win a lawsuit and however unlikely, be allowed back in school but a Google search of his name will reveal this incident. Even if he wins, he has already lost. I wouldn't want to be in the position of trying to explain to a future employer what happened. A Google search will not reveal the woman's name. I feel for her, especially if she truly was a victim. Not because "everyone" knows but because of the inner hurt.

[oRed]

Originally Posted by rollo Meanwhile, Pierre has high priced lawyers and jock sniffers lined up here to Canada defending his innocence, honor and sexual rights!

And rightfully so! I guess you would rather live in Saudia Arabia and serve a year in a tough prison and be subject to 100 lashes for getting caught with 2 bottles of wine...that's how life is with no rights. Not even a sovereign govt like the UK can save your fate. And while I'm on the subject the same types are perfectly comfortable stabbing Jews of all ages in the name of their god.

We live in a land of liberty...we all makes choices everyday...some make them better than other but all of us make mistakes. These 2 made poor choices but from all appearances did so together. Without question DP should've known better given the fact he was a team mate of MK and should've served whatever punishment Archie and his team mates agreed on not some kangaroo court.

UD is better than that, at least the UD I grew up knowing...

[SC_Flyer]

Can someone start a new post when there is actually information from Pierre's court date? I am tired of checking this post only to see more opinions that I really don't care to read any more. Everyone should have formulated an opinion by now and the only one that really matters is some judge's.

[Atlantic 10]

Originally Posted by SC_Flyer Can someone start a new post when there is actually information from Pierre's court date? I am tired of checking this post only to see more opinions that I really don't care to read any more. Everyone should have formulated an opinion by now and the only one that really matters is some judge's.

DP court date is Thursday this week, so we might here something

[shocka43]

Originally Posted by N2663R Guys, I agree that this is what will be argued on Thursday. But please explain where and how UD did not follow its own rules/procedures/policies. I need some examples??

Previous poster hit on it...the potential/alleged issues are noted in the lawsuit.

[Flyer 86]

disappointed in you Rollo. Sure they are both feeling it. However this girl will experience 2 to 3 years of hardship and hate.

Pierre is left with this for potentially much longer. Lawyers or not.

Exactly WHY she shouldn't have Played or jumped into this -- just as much as he shouldn't have jumped into bed with her.

i really feel nothing for her. Unless it turns out Pierre did something outrageous....which doesn't seem to be in the evidence. So we'll see how this plays out.

Gee, why did she have a boyfriend anyway? When i was young, you pretty much stayed with one person until it ran it's course. I find it's very difficult to have sympathy for her, basketball fan or not.

[Angry John]

I do not feel sorry for her either. Jumping back in bed three times is not the sign of a victim. It kills me when males go jumping to her aid with excuses and without proof that she was victimized. These dudes act like they are Prince Charming rushing to the aid of the fair maiden. By showing this chiverous and soft side they must feel that the ladies on this board will come flocking to them.They also could be doing this because they are henpecked and afraid of their wife's wrath if they took Pierre's side. In all seriousness, I can understand their viewpoint if they have daughters. I have empathy for those types. Not the Prince Charmings or the henpecked types.

[San Diego Flyer]

omg people, give it a rest.

[Avid Flyer]

no msg

[Avid Flyer]

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer omg people, give it a rest.

Good news is the first phase is coming to an end.

BTW, the popcorn you are eating has been tested, results at 11. (from Ky fried movie).

[rollo]

The serfs are revolting! Thank Me I have a mote and Rudy the Wonderdog!!

Long live the King!

[Angry John]

Some people have no sense of humor. Rollo may be henpecked, but he does have a sense of humor

[Avid Flyer]

Originally Posted by Angry John Some people have no sense of humor. Rollo may be henpecked, but he does have a sense of humor

I agree , he is a total joke

One thing I do remember from my psychology classes is that humor is often used to mask ones inner self.

[Glen Clark]

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer omg people, give it a rest.

⇑
This

_____________________
Whether your glass is half full or half empty, you still have more to drink

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer I agree , he is a total joke

If you're not going to be nice, I'm not going to bring you that puppy you've been wanting for Christmas since 1942.

[UD90]

Originally Posted by SC_Flyer Can someone start a new post when there is actually information from Pierre's court date? I am tired of checking this post only to see more opinions that I really don't care to read any more. Everyone should have formulated an opinion by now and the only one that really matters is some judge's.

Blackburn Review has posted the incident report, the injunction, and the title IX report if you care to read the details.

[31770]

Originally Posted by rollo Now that it's public, for the rest of her life, she'll be answering to her parents...former BFs...classmates...etc. Kids this age, who live and die with social media, are merciless and undoubtedly burying this poor girl. If you follow local athletes like the Oakwood/Stanford swimmer who was charged with rape and run out of dodge, you know what I mean as his name is/was and forever will be associated with what he may/may not have done. Meanwhile, Pierre has high priced lawyers and jock sniffers lined up here to Canada defending his innocence, honor and sexual rights! Unitnended consequences...just another reason why so many women stay quiet about assault.

soooo.... you're saying that her having to take down her social media is her punishment..??? OK then...

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Bat'71 rollo, I don't think that all the uproar this case has caused is solely related to the fact that DP is on the BB team. Yes, the fact that DP is one of our leading players is what has brought all this to light and raised the curtain on what Title IX entails, but the way things are handled and the seeming presumption of guilt of the "perpetrator" (as mentioned in the "Dear Colleague Letter" referenced earlier) turns our system of jurisprudence on it's head. The whole way this Title IX is being applied just goes against the grain of basic fairness; it's reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials. IMHO, no one wants anyone guilty of rape or sexual misconduct to walk away unscathed, but neither should someone be labeled a sexual predator on the rules of "evidence" allowed under the Code of Conduct system as practiced on college campuses. It just smacks of a rigged system that goes against all the standards of fairness. When you consider the life-long stigma such a ruling will have on a person's reputation, a little more consideration needs to be incorporated in the process before such a ruling is handed down. A ruling, BTW, that almost seems preordained by whatever is recommended by school "investigators", some of whom may have an ax to grind. I pity anyone caught up in such a system.

DP's fame is a double edged sword. No Google search will reveal the names of the dozens of other men railroaded out of UD over the last few years. So they went quietly. DP's name is very public so he has to defend himself. We care because now someone has taken a public stand. I am just as fired up for the entire Title IX battle as I am for DP. He just happens to have the platform to draw the right amount of attention to it.

If some of you think Rosa Parks just happened to get fed up one day, you should re-read your history books. (Internet debate disclaimer: No, DP is not the same as Rosa Parks.) Things change when someone decides to take a very public stand against something that is unfair.

Originally Posted by 31770 soooo.... you're saying that her having to take down her social media is her punishment..??? OK then...

No one said the punishments are exactly the same. But keep in mind, her future boyfriends will be able to figure out pretty quickly she was the girl. Would you date her and risk getting on that crazy train? Every guy who ever dumps her, every co-worker who suddenly starts acting weird to her, every time her new Bible study group is acting weird, her first thought will be "they know. They figured out my past. Now they're going to treat me differently." That would suck.

[NJFlyr71]

2 people drinking the nite away. Both get totally smashed. 1 gets the keys and into a car. The other person gets in the passenger seat of the same car.

Now the 1 with the keys knows better but starts the car anyway and drives away. Later hits a pole.

So the 1 with the keys is responsible (since they had the keys and drove), yet the other in the passenger seat is also responsible but only as it relates to knowing or should have known that getting in the car with a drunk driver is not the best choice to make.

So is the 1 with the keys the sole person at fault? Or is there some shared responsibility from the person in the passenger seat that any damages/injury which were inflicted on them could have been avoided had they not gotten in the car with the drunk driver?

Both took the chance getting in the car. Both had choices to make. Both are stuck with their choices. But is only one totally responsible?

Something to reflect upon.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by NJFlyr71 2 people drinking the nite away. Both get totally smashed. 1 gets the keys and into a car. The other person gets in the passenger seat of the same car. Now the 1 with the keys knows better but starts the car anyway and drives away. Later hits a pole. So the 1 with the keys is responsible (since they had the keys and drove), yet the other in the passenger seat is also responsible but only as it relates to knowing or should have known that getting in the car with a drunk driver is not the best choice to make. So is the 1 with the keys the sole person at fault? Or is there some shared responsibility from the person in the passenger seat that any damages/injury which were inflicted on them could have been avoided had they not gotten in the car with the drunk driver? Both took the chance getting in the car. Both had choices to make. Both are stuck with their choices. But is only one totally responsible? Something to reflect upon.

In a car? Yes.

Now change your scenario to say "tandem hang gliding".

[31770]

Originally Posted by Gazoo In a car? Yes. Now change your scenario to say "tandem hang gliding".

This is a much more realistic and reasonable analogy...

[31770]

Originally Posted by Gazoo No one said the punishments are exactly the same. But keep in mind, her future boyfriends will be able to figure out pretty quickly she was the girl. Would you date her and risk getting on that crazy train? Every guy who ever dumps her, every co-worker who suddenly starts acting weird to her, every time her new Bible study group is acting weird, her first thought will be "they know. They figured out my past. Now they're going to treat me differently." That would suck.

How are her "future boyfriends" going to find out? Googling her name doesn't pull up anything related to this incident, only things related to her sport. And unless you are a die hard BB fan, with a specific interest in UD, why would you know anything related to this to be able to put 2&2 together???
Why are here future boyfriends dumping her??? Do you know if she is still with the man identified as her boyfriend over the summer? How and why are her co-workers acting weird? And what's wrong with her bible study group that would make them act weird? Why is everyone treating her differently???

[Medford]

Originally Posted by 31770 This is a much more realistic and reasonable analogy...

hits a little close to the UD home, I would think, perhaps too close.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by 31770 How are her "future boyfriends" going to find out? Googling her name doesn't pull up anything related to this incident, only things related to her sport. And unless you are a die hard BB fan, with a specific interest in UD, why would you know anything related to this to be able to put 2&2 together??? Why are here future boyfriends dumping her??? Do you know if she is still with the man identified as her boyfriend over the summer? How and why are her co-workers acting weird? And what's wrong with her bible study group that would make them act weird? Why is everyone treating her differently???

I'm going to take a guess and say you're not married because I think you missed my point. They don't have to actually know anything. No one ever has to figure anything out for the girl to have it constantly in her face for the rest of her life. Every woman I have ever known will have that thought in the back of her mind, jump to conclusions at most opportunities, freak out about it, and eventually end up crying on the phone with her mother. When you ask what's wrong she'll scream some indecipherable phrase about it being all DP's fault.

[31770]

Originally Posted by Gazoo I'm going to take a guess and say you're not married because I think you missed my point. They don't have to actually know anything. No one ever has to figure anything out for the girl to have it constantly in her face for the rest of her life. Every woman I have ever known will have that thought in the back of her mind, jump to conclusions at most opportunities, freak out about it, and eventually end up crying on the phone with her mother. When you ask what's wrong she'll scream some indecipherable phrase about it being all DP's fault.

I'm guessing you haven't known very many women! Are they all completely irrarional and emotional? That may be the most title ix inappropriate statement on this thread!

I think our perspectives are different, you viewing it as she believes she was a victim and me weighing it more on the side that she regrets cheating on her boyfriend. If it's guilt then it is a "self inflected punishment"and she has no one to blame but her self.

And for the record i am happily married!

[Bat'71]

Gazoo, the mistake she made will be remain with her, but the impact will ebb over time. No one really outside of the Title IX proceedings at UD, her family and close circle of friends will know what she was involved in unless she decides to tell them. We've all made mistakes and wish things undone at some point in our lives, but time heals a lot of wounds. The issue here for DP, assuming he's innocent of the worst charges (and others of his ilk that can caught up in this Title IX witch hunt), is that this will remain part of his permanent record and in the public domain pretty much forever, while her indiscretion will not.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Bat'71 Gazoo, the mistake she made will be remain with her, but the impact will ebb over time. No one really outside of the Title IX proceedings at UD, her family and close circle of friends will know what she was involved in unless she decides to tell them. We've all made mistakes and wish things undone at some point in our lives, but time heals a lot of wounds. The issue here for DP, assuming he's innocent of the worst charges (and others of his ilk that can caught up in this Title IX witch hunt), is that this will remain part of his permanent record and in the public domain pretty much forever, while her indiscretion will not.

I don't disagree, and that's why I said the punishments aren't exactly the same.

But, keep in mind, every friend she ever tells. . . and then has a falling out with. . . the first thing she's going to think is, "I wonder who that b**** is going to tell about my run-in with DP?" Definitely ebbs with time and NOT equal to the punishment DP will receive, but, who said woman are rational?

I saw on Facebook the other day: "25% of women on are mood-altering drugs. Do you realize what this means? 75% of women are walking around unmedicated!!"

[Sea Bass]

If I am a judge the crux of the matter would be that she had the opportunity to preserve physical evidence that would have supported her claim. Instead she failed to produce it. Was it because it did not exist? If it did exist why was it not produced? Was it destroyed? Why?

[T-Bone 84]

Well, UD's response is in, and not surprisingly, they assert that Pierre has not suffered irreparable harm, and that they're not budging on his punishment. I know this was simply a mandated response and not a counter suit, but I think the odds of Pierre ever suiting up for UD again took a major hit today. Barring the court finding in favor of Pierre, of course.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Sea Bass]

I think the odds have always been against DP playing again for UD. The TRO is a one off attempt to get back. In this day jurisprudence is not much about what is right.

[UDDoug]

Reading the reports, what physical evidence? Maybe I missed something.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Sea Bass she had the opportunity to preserve physical evidence that would have supported her claim. Instead she failed to produce it. Was it because it did not exist? If it did exist why was it not produced? Was it destroyed? Why?

Originally Posted by UDDoug Reading the reports, what physical evidence? Maybe I missed something.

Pierre couldn't finish what he started so there was no DNA to preserve...but there was feminine bruising summarized in the doctor's report...does that count? Cuz that's all there is.

Read the reports!

[TX Flyer]

Originally Posted by rollo Pierre couldn't finish what he started so there was no DNA to preserve...but there was feminine bruising summarized in the doctor's report...does that count? Cuz that's all there is. Read the reports!

I'm no Dr but what Ive been told is that it is not uncommon for these issues to happen. What should have been in the report is if the Dr's opinion saw any trace of force able penetration. We all know that their was "relations" so the Dr's report doesn't add anything new.

[Angry John]

Maybe he is hung like a horse.

[Angry John]

Since tomorrow is the big day. What are Pierre's chances of winning an injunction? My guess would be 10%.

[UDDoug]

Very low from what I have read and what others tell me. And even lower he prevails at trial if it goes there.

[Atlantic 10]

Originally Posted by Angry John Maybe he is hung like a horse.

Open the drawer to the night stand

[CE80]

Originally Posted by Angry John Since tomorrow is the big day. What are Pierre's chances of winning an injunction? My guess would be 10%.

Move the decimal point to the left one place.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by angry john my guess would be 10%.

Originally Posted by ce80 move the decimal point to the left one place.

10.%

[maddog07]

Good article this am on NPR Morning edition

Discussed rash of filings by males against universities where the accused was essentially guilty until proven innocent. @ NPR.org.
Posted via Mobile Device

[CE80]

Originally Posted by rollo 10.%

They look the same but they are not.

You may be "king" but I am the resident wise a$$ engineer around here.

[CE80]

Originally Posted by maddog07 Good article this am on NPR Morning edition Discussed rash of filings by males against universities where the accused was essentially guilty until proven innocent. @ NPR.org. Posted via Mobile Device

Interesting dilemma. On one hand, universities need to have the ability to discipline and even kick out students for various reasons but it can't be like an employment at will situation where the school can do it for any reason whatsoever.

[rollo]

1. Make UD an all-male university. Since we can't trust those catholic girls, let's just ban them.

2. Set up a 'sting' operation with transvestites...hire them to hit on basketball players late-night at bars and let them find out for themselves, the hard way, that 1-night stands may have other consequences.

3. Have all basketball players live with me...under a Royal curfew and 5:00 am revelry...I'm sure UD can afford the Royal Rent.

[31770]

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/15/446083...in-back-rights

Originally Posted by maddog07 Good article this am on NPR Morning edition Discussed rash of filings by males against universities where the accused was essentially guilty until proven innocent. @ NPR.org. Posted via Mobile Device

[UDDoug]

I don't think proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be the standard. It should probably be more than 50.0001% though. And the investigative process should be fair and balanced to get to as much truth as possible, and the presentation of the facts at the hearing should be neutral, there should be an opportunity to challenge any facts presented.

I think many of these cases are not that.

I also think many of the lawsuits are not exactly a fair and balanced presentation of the investigation (to be expected as it is as an advocate).
Posted via Mobile Device

[31770]

Originally Posted by UDDoug I don't think proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be the standard. It should probably be more than 50.0001% though. And the investigative process should be fair and balanced to get to as much truth as possible, and the presentation of the facts at the hearing should be neutral, there should be an opportunity to challenge any facts presented. I think many of these cases are not that. I also think many of the lawsuits are not exactly a fair and balanced presentation of the investigation (to be expected as it is as an advocate). Posted via Mobile Device

That is supposedly what the standard is... less of a standard than needed for an investigation from the prosecutors office.

[UDDoug]

Not disputing what standard is today. The standard to find the respondent responsible is mire likely than not, the same as for a civil court case. That is 50.000001% the respondent is responsible for the violation. My comment is it should probably be higher - say a 60% standard where evidence is likely primarily conflicting accounts without witness or physical evidence.
Posted via Mobile Device

[CE80]

Originally Posted by UDDoug Not disputing what standard is today. The standard to find the respondent responsible is mire likely than not, the same as for a civil court case. That is 50.000001% the respondent is responsible for the violation. My comment is it should probably be higher - say a 60% standard where evidence is likely primarily conflicting accounts without witness or physical evidence. Posted via Mobile Device

So how are you going to calculate 60%? Assign weighted values to each piece of evidence or statement? Then assign a % to each one?

I know you think student juries are acceptable but my feeling is that anyone affiliated with the school, faculty, management, student has some bias. The implications to the accused/convicted its too great to keep the present system in place.

[Flyer 86]

in her third try at the accurate testimony, she claimed there were torn panties and garments. That never came up in the first round of questioning her.

[superfan99]

The most glaring thing to me is that she exchanged friendly texts with him the next day. I'm surprised more people aren't bringing that up.

From the texts, DP clearly didn't think he did anything wrong the night before and the girl was very friendly for someone who was assaulted.

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by CE80 So how are you going to calculate 60%? Assign weighted values to each piece of evidence or statement? Then assign a % to each one? I know you think student juries are acceptable but my feeling is that anyone affiliated with the school, faculty, management, student has some bias. The implications to the accused/convicted its too great to keep the present system in place.

I don't know what you would call it, but there is some level of proof beyond 50.001% that can be defined.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction isn't 100% certainty. That would be proof beyond any doubt.

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by superfan99 The most glaring thing to me is that she exchanged friendly texts with him the next day. I'm surprised more people aren't bringing that up. From the texts, DP clearly didn't think he did anything wrong the night before and the girl was very friendly for someone who was assaulted.

I think it's pretty easy for attorneys and experts to argue that is not uncommon in these type cases. The case revolves around whether she gave effective consent. There are many reasons one may feel they did not give effective consent but did not feel an assault occurred (to many that means physical confrontation) particularly if they feel they contributed to the situation.

You also have people in the other apartment who said they came out to check on her periodically. Why? If they were concerned she was intoxicated and might do something that she would regret, they are going to find he violated the code of conduct because effective consent could not be granted and a sober and reasonable person would have recognized her condition.

That may be unrealistic, but that's what it is. And it's why the training is what it is.

[Columbia Blue]

could know something any moment ...

NOTICE of Hearing on Motion [2] MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order : Motion Hearing set for 10/15/2015 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2 - Dayton before Judge Thomas M. Rose. (ep)

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/...-for-he/nn32F/

here's news on UD's response from yesterday:
http://www.abc22now.com/news/top-sto...t-218977.shtml

here's who i believe is representing dayton -- no slouch:
http://taftlaw.com/attorneys/106-doreen-canton

[UDFlyer23]

According to Schwade's twitter, the hearing has concluded and they are awaiting a ruling from the Judge...but it doesn't look promising...

https://twitter.com/FlyerHoops?ref_s...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[Columbia Blue]

judge judy this ain't -- no quick resolution. show's how much more real-time twitter is than DDN

UPDATE@3:10 p.m.:

The hearing ended just after 3 p.m., and the judge will rule at a later date

[momszer]

Does anyone know the details of Pierre's learning disability? Just curious.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by UDDoug I think it's pretty easy for attorneys and experts to argue that is not uncommon in these type cases. The case revolves around whether she gave effective consent. There are many reasons one may feel they did not give effective consent but did not feel an assault occurred (to many that means physical confrontation) particularly if they feel they contributed to the situation. You also have people in the other apartment who said they came out to check on her periodically. Why? If they were concerned she was intoxicated and might do something that she would regret, they are going to find he violated the code of conduct because effective consent could not be granted and a sober and reasonable person would have recognized her condition. That may be unrealistic, but that's what it is. And it's why the training is what it is.

Agree, I think we should all be careful about claiming to be experts in post-traumatic behavior.

But, I read the statement to say she had 3 drinks in total (1 in the apartment, 2 in the bar). Is that right? If true, and over the course of several hours, plus dancing / exercise, there's no chance she was intoxicated beyond the ability to exercise judgment. Nothing I've seen shows a timeline. How long was she in the bar? Is it 2 hours? 4 hours? 5 hours? Big difference. Even a petite female would need quite a bit of alcohol in the apartment to stay drunk across 4 hours at the bar with only 2 drinks there, and with all the exercise in the middle.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo But, I read the statement to say she had 3 drinks in total (1 in the apartment, 2 in the bar). Is that right?

All parties admit the girl doesn't drink much or often.

The Title IX reports that she had a strawberita and a sip of beer at Pierre's apartment and about midnight went to Tims. While there she claims to have had 2 'Walls' but both her friends said she had 4 (WTF is a Wall? No doubt it's high octane!). Furthermore, the girls say she was 'intoxicated to some degree' and one said she was 'really drunk'.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by momszer Does anyone know the details of Pierre's learning disability? Just curious.

I'm no Rollo Freud (any more!) but I bet it has something to do with cognition tainted by horniness...like when a man makes decisions intended to satisfy the immediate goals of his hang-me-down-thangs and fails to recognize the legal or long-term consequences of his actions.

Can I get an Honorary Ph.D. for this analysis???!

[31770]

Originally Posted by rollo All parties admit the girl doesn't drink much or often. The Title IX reports that she had a strawberita and a sip of beer at Pierre's apartment and about midnight went to Tims. While there she claims to have had 2 'Walls' but both her friends said she had 4 (WTF is a Wall? No doubt it's high octane!). Furthermore, the girls say she was 'intoxicated to some degree' and one said she was 'really drunk'.

Also in the title IX report she said she wasn't intoxicated and according to the medical report she drinks an average of 3 alcoholic beverages a week....

[momszer]

So if I understand you correctly King Rollo, what you are saying is Pierre's case of "Flyer Blue" balls caused a break in a synapse (brain fart) leading him to think with the wrong head?

[rollo]

Originally Posted by 31770 Also in the title IX report she said she wasn't intoxicated

"Complainant, XXXXX and XXXXX agree that the Complainant was intoxicated to some degree."

"Complainant says she was aware of her surroundings and did not feel out of control."

Originally Posted by 31770 ...and according to the medical report she drinks an average of 3 alcoholic beverages a week....

I'm glad that in my time at UD I was never in a position to have to estimate how many beverages I had in a week! 'Excuse me Mr. Investigator, but could you pass me the calculator!'

[LIBob]

Originally Posted by UDDoug Not disputing what standard is today. The standard to find the respondent responsible is mire likely than not, the same as for a civil court case. That is 50.000001% the respondent is responsible for the violation. My comment is it should probably be higher - say a 60% standard where evidence is likely primarily conflicting accounts without witness or physical evidence. Posted via Mobile Device

The question is whether the 50.000001% standard was met. I don't even think it's has even come close to that.

[UDDoug]

I have participated in one of those drunk driving awareness things when they feed you alcohol, ask if you feel drunk, and then test you. It's been a lot of years (think about the start of MADD). But I can say that it took a long time till I said I felt intoxicated. That was blowing in excess of a .2. And the tape was eye opening. Most people are significantly intoxicated before they say they are.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo "Complainant, XXXXX and XXXXX agree that the Complainant was intoxicated to some degree." "Complainant says she was aware of her surroundings and did not feel out of control." I'm glad that in my time at UD I was never in a position to have to estimate how many beverages I had in a week! 'Excuse me Mr. Investigator, but could you pass me the calculator!'

My thoughts exactly. Nobody answers that question truthfully!!

Google doesn't tell me what a Blue Wall is. I'll bet it has a healthy amount of alcohol. But what time did she return to the apartment?

[Gilchrist's Autograph 2]

Originally Posted by Gazoo My thoughts exactly. Nobody answers that question truthfully!! Google doesn't tell me what a Blue Wall is. I'll bet it has a healthy amount of alcohol. But what time did she return to the apartment?

Vodka, sweet and sour and Sprite. As in John Wall.
http://kykernel.com/2010/01/27/fruity-sweet-the-signature-taste-of-wall-drink/



Posted via Mobile Device

[momszer]

Or it could be this drink

http://www.barnonedrinks.com/drinks/...kiss-3113.html

[cj]

Originally Posted by rollo 1. Make UD an all-male university. Since we can't trust those catholic girls, let's just ban them. 2. Set up a 'sting' operation with transvestites...hire them to hit on basketball players late-night at bars and let them find out for themselves, the hard way, that 1-night stands may have other consequences. 3. Have all basketball players live with me...under a Royal curfew and 5:00 am revelry...I'm sure UD can afford the Royal Rent.

Or just do what Louisville does.

[ruechalgrin]

Former attorney here (have not kept up my license as have not practiced law for 15+ years) and former federal district court clerk (was one of two clerks for a federal judge in Columbus).

My analysis is purely based upon what was filed. I did no independent research (which I would have done as a clerk); I have no access to transcripts of the oral argument; and I am admittedly rusty having not practiced law for 15+ years.

With those caveats, I believe UD wins and Pierre is not granted injunctive relief. UD cites the standard to overturn the schools's disciplinary proceedings and Pierre's burden is high as federal courts appear to give schools a lot of discretion. UD cites a ton of case law supporting its position whereas I do not recall Pierre citing much if any precedent.

Pieree's best hope IMHO is the judge in closed chambers today told UD that their discipline proceedings here had a lot to be desired and urged a quick settlement this week as they would not want to risk a ruling.

Other hope for Pierre is that judge is sympathetic to Piere. A clerk for another judge told me in one case that their judge thought a party was wronged and to find a remedy to right it. The judge I worked for wanted to apply the law - period.

But again, based upon the filings, I believe Pierre loses.

P.S. Wrote this on a mobile so I apologize for any typos.

[31770]

Originally Posted by rollo "Complainant, XXXXX and XXXXX agree that the Complainant was intoxicated to some degree." "Complainant says she was aware of her surroundings and did not feel out of control." I'm glad that in my time at UD I was never in a position to have to estimate how many beverages I had in a week! 'Excuse me Mr. Investigator, but could you pass me the calculator!'

I filled out a survey when i was on campus including this information... Also it was reported to the medical examiner, not the investigator.

This is me being a wet total wet towel

[San Diego Flyer]

Originally Posted by ruechalgrin Pieree's best hope IMHO is the judge in closed chambers today told UD that their discipline proceedings here had a lot to be desired and urged a quick settlement this week as they would not want to risk a ruling.

IMO this is the right one. The judged warned the NFL to work it out together and come back. They did not, and got slammed. Brady got off. UD needs to feel the hot breath of the judge on their neck and then something reasonable in the middle would come out.

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by momszer Or it could be this drink http://www.barnonedrinks.com/drinks/...kiss-3113.html

On various sites describing UD bars and drinking it is described as a sweet mix of bottom shelf stuff. Recent students have told me its many shots of cheap booze and sugary. My guess is what you posted is close. Tims may have a different version. The blue probably adds blue Maui or some other blue schnapps type stuff instead of amaretto or Galliano.

Four of those probably trashes someone who drinks little or infrequently. Question is how many were drank. She said two, those with her said four. People who drank too much seldom remember how much they had.
Posted via Mobile Device

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer IMO this is the right one. The judged warned the NFL to work it out together and come back. They did not, and got slammed. Brady got off. UD needs to feel the hot breath of the judge on their neck and then something reasonable in the middle would come out.

Indications are they never felt that, but I don't predict what judges will or won't do. If the TRO or whatever it would technically be is not granted, this likely goes to trial in a year or so.
Posted via Mobile Device

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by Gazoo My thoughts exactly. Nobody answers that question truthfully!! Google doesn't tell me what a Blue Wall is. I'll bet it has a healthy amount of alcohol. But what time did she return to the apartment?

An hour or two after closing time. Peak intoxication, at least in BAC, is 60 to 90 minutes after drinking.

Clearly others in the first apartment were concerned about getting her to bed, and have contemporaneous texts to that and express concern when they can't find her in that apartment.
Posted via Mobile Device

[31770]

Originally Posted by ruechalgrin Former attorney here (have not kept up my license as have not practiced law for 15+ years) and former federal district court clerk (was one of two clerks for a federal judge in Columbus). My analysis is purely based upon what was filed. I did no independent research (which I would have done as a clerk); I have no access to transcripts of the oral argument; and I am admittedly rusty having not practiced law for 15+ years. With those caveats, I believe UD wins and Pierre is not granted injunctive relief. UD cites the standard to overturn the schools's disciplinary proceedings and Pierre's burden is high as federal courts appear to give schools a lot of discretion. UD cites a ton of case law supporting its position whereas I do not recall Pierre citing much if any precedent. Pieree's best hope IMHO is the judge in closed chambers today told UD that their discipline proceedings here had a lot to be desired and urged a quick settlement this week as they would not want to risk a ruling. Other hope for Pierre is that judge is sympathetic to Piere. A clerk for another judge told me in one case that their judge thought a party was wronged and to find a remedy to right it. The judge I worked for wanted to apply the law - period. But again, based upon the filings, I believe Pierre loses. P.S. Wrote this on a mobile so I apologize for any typos.

Great post, and much appreciated!

[TX Flyer]

Originally Posted by UDDoug An hour or two after closing time. Peak intoxication, at least in BAC, is 60 to 90 minutes after drinking. Clearly others in the first apartment were concerned about getting her to bed, and have contemporaneous texts to that and express concern when they can't find her in that apartment. Posted via Mobile Device

If they were that concerned why didnt they go look for her? Instead they just "feel bad". Some friends...

[shocka43]

Originally Posted by UDDoug On various sites describing UD bars and drinking it is described as a sweet mix of bottom shelf stuff. Recent students have told me its many shots of cheap booze and sugary. My guess is what you posted is close. Tims may have a different version. The blue probably adds blue Maui or some other blue schnapps type stuff instead of amaretto or Galliano. Four of those probably trashes someone who drinks little or infrequently. Question is how many were drank. She said two, those with her said four. People who drank too much seldom remember how much they had. Posted via Mobile Device

Sounds like a personal size gut rot fishbowl....sampled one of them a few weeks ago on a stop at the Fieldhouse...still smells like UD.

[31770]

Originally Posted by UDDoug An hour or two after closing time. Peak intoxication, at least in BAC, is 60 to 90 minutes after drinking. Clearly others in the first apartment were concerned about getting her to bed, and have contemporaneous texts to that and express concern when they can't find her in that apartment. Posted via Mobile Device

If you read all the files it seems to me there was a concern because she thought she had a final in the morning

[BRob2Perryman3]

With or without Dyshawn, can the season please start?

I keep coming back for new info and what i get is tales of ripped panties,beverage recipes and a lot of pseudo lawyers saying the same thing.

Hoops please.

[31770]

Originally Posted by BRob2Perryman3 With or without Dyshawn, can the season please start? I keep coming back for new info and what i get is tales of ripped panties,beverage recipes and a lot of pseudo lawyers saying the same thing. Hoops please.

As a psuedo lawyer I'd like more hoops and less psuedo bartender recipes!

[frisco flyer]

Originally Posted by BRob2Perryman3 With or without Dyshawn, can the season please start? I keep coming back for new info and what i get is tales of ripped panties,beverage recipes and a lot of pseudo lawyers saying the same thing. Hoops please.

The season won't start for a while, but we can always start another NBE thread!

[ruechalgrin]

A little more detail for all of you.

Private universities have huge discretion in suspending and expelling students and very high standard for a federal judge to grant injunctive relief. 4 prong test with each prong having to meet clear and convincing evidence of: (1) Pierre strong likelihood of success on the merits (in other words likely to win the case); (2) Pierre will suffer irreparable injury; (3) granting relief will not cause substantial harm to others; and (4) the public interest would be served by a TRO. Really difficult to establish clear and convincing evidence on all 4 factors. Moreover on the merits (point 1), basically Pierre needs to show an abuse of discretion which is more than an error of law or judgment, Pierre must show UD acted arbitrarily by clear and convincing evidence.

I am simplifying this massively as more complex than my summary and the merits are more dense than the point above, but just don't see how he gets over these hurdles.

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by 31770 If you read all the files it seems to me there was a concern because she thought she had a final in the morning

I read them all. I really don't think that was the concern based on their other statements - fairly clear it had to do with intoxication.
Posted via Mobile Device

[TheSixthMan]

If Pierre does not receive and an injunction do you believe he is playing for the Flyers after December 22? Or does he take his talents elsewhere?
Posted via Mobile Device

[31770]

Originally Posted by TheSixthMan If Pierre does not receive and an injunction do you believe he is playing for the Flyers after December 22? Or does he take his talents elsewhere? Posted via Mobile Device

I have a hard time envisioning him coming back and playing...

If i had to put a percentage on it...

Originally Posted by Angry John My guess would be 10%.

Originally Posted by CE80 Move the decimal point to the left one place.

Originally Posted by rollo 10.%