https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/21/supreme-court-suspends-racine-county-judge-ethical-violations/3751326002/
Although his suspension had nothing to do with the WIAA case, it shows his willingness to ignore the rule of law & go rogue in his behavior and decisions.
Ummmm interesting.
Quote from: 1Iota on May 22, 2019, 11:24:06 AM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/21/supreme-court-suspends-racine-county-judge-ethical-violations/3751326002/
Although his suspension had nothing to do with the WIAA case, it shows his willingness to ignore the rule of law & go rogue in his behavior and decisions.
This was common knowledge he was going to being suspended during the WIAA over ruling. I feel most judges would have ruled similarly!
Quote from: factfinder on May 22, 2019, 02:01:36 PM
Quote from: 1Iota on May 22, 2019, 11:24:06 AM
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/21/supreme-court-suspends-racine-county-judge-ethical-violations/3751326002/
Although his suspension had nothing to do with the WIAA case, it shows his willingness to ignore the rule of law & go rogue in his behavior and decisions.
This was common knowledge he was going to being suspended during the WIAA over ruling. I feel most judges would have ruled similarly!
You feel? Because your many years in the field of Constitutional Law experience drives you to this feeling.... ;D
I was just surprised that an occupation/practice based on precedence wouldn't acknowledge the precedence the WIAA set. But, it's not about precedent, nor justice; it's about who can lawyer up. OWIs just go away quietly when you can hire the mouth. "Justice" of this nature is reserved for the privileged. Just IMHO; but I've seen it in action for 20 years. The judge'll be back and so will the boy. Opportunity for growth squandered. Hope the price from here on out isn't too high.
The parents, coach, school violated a WIAA rule regarding suspension of a player and their return to participation. It's a pretty cut-and-dried rule, this judge overruled that. Based on what exactly? I complain plenty about the WIAA but there certainly seemed to be something going sideways with that ruling.
Quote from: Handles II on May 23, 2019, 11:53:02 AM
The parents, coach, school violated a WIAA rule regarding suspension of a player and their return to participation. It's a pretty cut-and-dried rule, this judge overruled that. Based on what exactly? I complain plenty about the WIAA but there certainly seemed to be something going sideways with that ruling.
I agree, and that is why I posted this article. It is clear this Judge has no issue with going rogue and ignoring the rules of law to instead satisfy his own opinion of justice.
Quote from: Handles II on May 23, 2019, 11:53:02 AM
The parents, coach, school violated a WIAA rule regarding suspension of a player and their return to participation. It's a pretty cut-and-dried rule, this judge overruled that. Based on what exactly? I complain plenty about the WIAA but there certainly seemed to be something going sideways with that ruling.
Precedent (upon which most judicial work is based) was neglected here. Yes, the WIAA had a lawyer. Should never have needed one,, though. Now, the WIAA had better have a team for the crap that will follow.
Cut and dried in the wrong. Not if you can hire the mouth. Doesn't matter who the WIAA lawyer is if you can paint a victim picture well. Privilege is the dirty little secret of our justice system. This was an excellent example. Wish it was the only one.
Quote from: 1Iota on May 23, 2019, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Handles II on May 23, 2019, 11:53:02 AM
The parents, coach, school violated a WIAA rule regarding suspension of a player and their return to participation. It's a pretty cut-and-dried rule, this judge overruled that. Based on what exactly? I complain plenty about the WIAA but there certainly seemed to be something going sideways with that ruling.
I agree, and that is why I posted this article. It is clear this Judge has no issue with going rogue and ignoring the rules of law to instead satisfy his own opinion of justice.
C'mon now! That's Luke's buddy your talking about there. All fine, upstanding judges get suspended for not following the rules...
I think we are getting close to the point of Luke lawyering up to have a judge agree with his views on the forum.
If there is a possible loophole that could help rationalize the point, you will read it many times.
A written WIAA Q&A means nothing. That must be why there is Q&A?
A WIAA reminder to schools before conference clarifying consequences that would result in missing regionals. The WIAA did not really mean that either.
The other refs present and the WIAA that supported this one ref, they were wrong.
If a kid was given the rules, and those rules are always followed, that kid would not have been in danger of being suspended. A lawyer was hired. A video was selectively shown. Other school wrestlers were impacted. Did you or did you not curse at the ref and taunt an opposing school's fans?
Now, I wasn't there (at the trial), as is the case with just about everybody commenting, so misinformation is likely on a public forum. But my understanding is that the initial judge's ruling was a temporary injunction preventing the WIAA from imposing its penalty - period. The rationale that I thought the court presented was that the WIAA had no feasible appeal process in place for this kind of penalty - period. The issue was not the actual merits of the event but rather, it was all about a perceived lack of due process - period. While it seems apparent that the judge did delve into the actual merits of the underlying actions of the initial calls by the ref (I don't know why that would have any bearing on a case decided on a perceived lack of due process, but evidently the judge was asking some questions about the basis for the refs call - which is what puzzles me (because I believe the plaintiffs were claiming a lack of due process - not the basis for the foul).
The second court (as I understand it), chose to not void the temporary injunction issued by the first court - period. These types of decisions are based very much on the precision of the wording and people shouldn't look at a decision and extrapolate as to the meanings and implications. For example, in a criminal court of law, a person found not guilty is NOT being found innocent but rather, simply not GUILTY. There is a difference - and most people fail to grasp that point.
It is quite possible that both judges in question observed WIAA's lack of a viable due process for this situation and there for issue a temporary injunction until the WIAA sorts things out to the court's liking. Now, as initially noted - I wasn't in the courtroom and I have not read the proceedings at length, but from the extraneous bits of information presented on various forums on the topic, that's what it sounds like to me. The lawyer for the plaintiffs took a smart tact if he indeed attacked the WIAA's lack of due process in this case; I think attacking the ref's actually authority on the mats would have been a losing proposition.
Quote from: Luke Louison on May 23, 2019, 09:27:20 PM
When do we start disparaging the second judge, who upheld the ruling? How many judges can we get roped into this conspiracy? I hope more than just two.
By the way, can someone show me where it's written in the bylaws (not some Q&A) that you can't serve a suspension at a "lower level?" The initial judge said that flatly "If that's the rule, why isn't it codified in your bylaws?"
Without that, what legal right does the WIAA have to say he can't serve that suspension as he did?
The Q&A serves as precedent. It's been the WIAA word of rule for as long as I can remember. The fact that even one judge was involved is sickening. Waste of justice system resources. But, those with the means get the attention(squeaky wheel gets the oil). We've now enabled those who hope to skirt the system , and participate under their own rules. There was no miscarriage of justice on the part of the WIAA; just another technicality.
Lawyer found his loophole. Money well spent, for now.
The Q&A is the explicit guidance.
It just confuses me why anyone would feel this deserving of litigation, save for those so privileged to feel enabled to do so.
Luke, you are an Official? Correct? If not. Why Not?
Quote from: Luke Louison on May 24, 2019, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: bigG on May 24, 2019, 07:15:39 AM
The Q&A serves as precedent.
That's not how the law works. How fast people typically drive is not the speed limit.
That is how case law works (but not statutory law). Case law, also known as common law, refers to the precedents and authority set by previous court rulings, judicial decisions and administrative legal findings or rulings (as opposed to objectified statutes, e.g., speed limits. In cases where statutory laws does not exist, courts impose case law doctrine and look for previous related decisions to guide them in the current case.
This would suggest that if statutory law has yet to be defined and codified, then case law is likely to be invoked - which certainly might accept previous precedent and accepted norms as the standard of appropriate care in the current case before the court. If the WIAA (or other states' athletic associations) had been handling a certain situation in a given manner for a number of years, i.e., setting precedent, and the matter in question had not yet been codified by statues, it is entirely possibly, even likely, that a court would accept historically accepted standards as the "appropriate" standard of care in the current situation.
Quote from: npope on May 24, 2019, 01:08:45 PM
Quote from: Luke Louison on May 24, 2019, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: bigG on May 24, 2019, 07:15:39 AM
The Q&A serves as precedent.
That's not how the law works. How fast people typically drive is not the speed limit.
That is how case law works (but not statutory law). Case law, also known as common law, refers to the precedents and authority set by previous court rulings, judicial decisions and administrative legal findings or rulings (as opposed to objectified statutes, e.g., speed limits. In cases where statutory laws does not exist, courts impose case law doctrine and look for previous related decisions to guide them in the current case.
This would suggest that if statutory law has yet to be defined and codified, then case law is likely to be invoked - which certainly might accept previous precedent and accepted norms as the standard of appropriate care in the current case before the court. If the WIAA (or other states' athletic associations) had been handling a certain situation in a given manner for a number of years, i.e., setting precedent, and the matter in question had not yet been codified by statues, it is entirely possibly, even likely, that a court would accept historically accepted standards as the "appropriate" standard of care in the current situation.
Sounds a lot more informed than.... but all he did was flex.
I was informed after the WIAA case by many from the area down there that is a true wild card type of judge that is not respected by attorneys in the area. The judge was described as having an agenda rather than enforcing case law. A couple attorneys felt that if the case would have been given to any other judge it would have likely ruled in the WIAA favor.
This is why I laugh every time Luke's argument is that a judge is the almighty and better than an AD or WIAA administrator or board.
Every profession has people that are great and people that are bad. For this reason I never blindly support someone and will never put a sign in my yard unless I personally know someone.
This judge was given a case on a Friday morning and there is no way he could become informed by the time of his ruling and the rush left all unprepared and not even all in court. In the usual slow court process they just kick the can down the road and let the kid compete. But then a decision matters less and the appeals court does not want to waste its time so it simply keeps the prior decision.
This judge way overstepped his bounds even with his comments about an athlete's right to celebrate. Apparently he was trying to create more case law saying how can an athlete face consequences for celebrating.
Chasing decisions away from an informed WIAA that is directed by athletic directors around the state and into an uninformed judges courtroom will never be a great thing. At least the judge got to see an edited video from mom as primary evidence. LOL!
Chill everyone. The best kid won. No one was hurt in the process. End of story.
Quote from: hammen on May 24, 2019, 04:11:32 PM
Chill everyone. The best kid won. No one was hurt in the process. End of story.
He won in every way BECAUSE he was the best wrestler. If he was a .500 wrestler he wouldn't have even wrestled at regionals.
Quote from: Luke Louison on May 24, 2019, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: bigG on May 24, 2019, 07:15:39 AM
The Q&A serves as precedent.
That's not how the law works. How fast people typically drive is not the speed limit.
Yes, everything should be publicly posted as such, as well. C'mon man, this was frivolous at best. I'll admit I do five over. If I get dinged, should I call Johnny Cochrane or take it for what it is and just pay the fine. If I violated, I'd deserve as much and learn from it, like most do. That's why this bugs me. It was an opportunity for a boy to grow. Either way, I can't tell a parent how to parent. Nor a judge how to judge. Just very disturbing the way our legal system kowtows to something so miniscule. The law is not the WIAA, WIAA has rule, which an (uniformed, IMHO) judge made his decision. But, if such a squiggly detail can be exploited as much, we'll see more. I bet there's a number of attorneys that would love this stuff. Doesn't do HS sports any good. Sign rules, go by rules. Simple.
I should also add an apology to the Waterford wrestling community. The actions of one enabled child does not speak for the whole. I'm guessing, like 99.9% of wrestling people, you good folks are top notch. It was ignorant of me to group the whole with one enabled apple. I sincerely apologize to the Waterford wrestling team and all those great people who support them. I suspect you're probably more upset than I am about this frivolous litigation. My bad. Best of luck to you next season.
Hammen:
Chill everyone. The best kid won. No one was hurt in the process. End of story.
I agree with Hammen. Why are we still kicking a dead and decomposed horse. Time to move on. The kid did what the system allows anyone to do. No one has to like the result. Speculating and saying what you would do if it was your kid, yada yada yada yada doesn't really matter.
No one was hurt? The kid who followed the rules at conference but ended up fifth at regionals was hurt . The kid who took third at sectionals was hurt. And second thru sixth move up one spot on the podium were hurt. Every action has a reaction.let the wrestlers and the rules determine your opponent, not the courts!
Quote from: wrestle03 on May 31, 2019, 04:33:46 PM
Hammen:
Chill everyone. The best kid won. No one was hurt in the process. End of story.
I agree with Hammen. Why are we still kicking a dead and decomposed horse. Time to move on. The kid did what the system allows anyone to do. No one has to like the result. Speculating and saying what you would do if it was your kid, yada yada yada yada doesn't really matter.
This tells me you really missed the point of the greater issue this decision has created. An outside entity has circumvented the authority of the WIAA. This opens up an avenue of appeal for every athlete in every sport. A precedent has been set.
Quote from: 1Iota on June 01, 2019, 04:22:19 PM
Quote from: wrestle03 on May 31, 2019, 04:33:46 PM
Hammen:
Chill everyone. The best kid won. No one was hurt in the process. End of story.
I agree with Hammen. Why are we still kicking a dead and decomposed horse. Time to move on. The kid did what the system allows anyone to do. No one has to like the result. Speculating and saying what you would do if it was your kid, yada yada yada yada doesn't really matter.
This tells me you really missed the point of the greater issue this decision has created. An outside entity has circumvented the authority of the WIAA. This opens up an avenue of appeal for every athlete in every sport. A precedent has been set.
THIS
Quote from: 1Iota on June 01, 2019, 04:22:19 PM
Quote from: wrestle03 on May 31, 2019, 04:33:46 PM
Hammen:
Chill everyone. The best kid won. No one was hurt in the process. End of story.
I agree with Hammen. Why are we still kicking a dead and decomposed horse. Time to move on. The kid did what the system allows anyone to do. No one has to like the result. Speculating and saying what you would do if it was your kid, yada yada yada yada doesn't really matter.
This tells me you really missed the point of the greater issue this decision has created. An outside entity has circumvented the authority of the WIAA. This opens up an avenue of appeal for every athlete in every sport. A precedent has been set.
This was no such thing. It was a typical lawyer move of finding a ticky tack to attack the precedent set by the WIAA. They'll clean up the language and that'll be that. Loophole litigation at its finest. Those who played by the rules got the screws. Most of those folks probably don't have the priv. to gain such representation. Oh well, this is how lawyers make their $. I suppose schools will get more of this, from the disciplinary side, from the privileged parents who feel their precious ones have been slighted. Dangerous precedent.
Whoever thinks the precedent hs little to no bearing on justice is flat out mistaken. THAT is why this is big. The fact that a judge felt it just to circumvent the WIAA is the scary part t many of us.