Re: Ravenswood

by **Stephanie** Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:21 am

lol, ty Sam! I only have 2 more gifts to purchase and I'm almost totally wrapped. I'm beginning to think cards aren't going to happen this year though and the tree still isn't up. Will December 26th ever arrive? LOL

by Aaron Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:21 am

Stephanie wrote:
Aaron wrote:And in the time you read that, you could have come up with a logical reason as to why you say courts cannot intercede in the inner workings of the SSAC but yet that is exactly what they did in the Hamilton Case.

But hey, it’s just football. And the toll road is just transportation. And out current Governor defying the state Constitution is just politics. They all go hand in hand in West Virginia and if you can't complain about one, what's the use to complain about any of them.

Or do you select which miscarriages of justice you protest?

Aaron, just because you interpet something a particular way, doesn't make it so.

The WVSC agrees with me. That's it. Don't be such a sore "loser". It isn't a very attractive quality.

Interesting. The WV Supreme Court agrees with you yet you can't explain how their previous decisions don't jive with this current one and I'm a sore loser yet when I point out that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you, you say courts aren't always right. The difference between you and I on this Stephanie is I'm not basing my viewpoint on the outcome of a political race. That and I actually know what I'm talking about.

Now perhaps if you want to pull your head out of your...and explain how their decision jives with Oakley, Hamiltion and the WV Code, you might have an argument. Until then, your just Dan Greer crying.

by **Stephanie** Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:42 am

You're going to have to explain to me what this has to do with Dan Greear, Aaron. I have met him at most a handful of times. I KNOW he wouldn't know who I am upon hearing my name, although he might recognize me by sight particularly if I had my son with me.

Interesting little story..........

Shortly before the election I took Loyd to a "rally" at the State House. It was billed as "The Rally for Truth In Government" and was supposedly being held to demand then Governor Manchin to answer questions surrounding the federal investigation and the subpeonas and all that.

Anyway we attended and the mention of federal investigation was in passing only. Lance Schultz, new head of the WV Conservative Foundation was introduced by a gentleman I know only as Mike. Lance takes to the podium and it was a whole lot of fundie ranting. I mean, seriously, the man started off by saying his priorities in life are God and country in that order and that he knows Jesus suffered and died for his sins and it went on and on and on like that.

Now there we are, my son and I, standing in this "crowd" of perhaps 70 people and Dan Greear was standing directly in front of me. After about 15 minutes of this my son pulls on my sleeve and I look down at him and he says in a normal speaking voice, "Mom, if I wanted to hear this crap I would have gone to church! What is this guy doing and when can we leave?" I KNOW Dan Greear heard that because he actually turned his head and looked at Loyd. I was a bit embarrassed but nearly burst out laughing just the same.

Back to the discussion at hand.......Neither of us is an attorney, much less a judge. It is NOT my job to read, analyze and interpret every previous case ever decided related to this or any other issue. I read the WV Code. I know what the code says. I read Webster's decision. I know what it says AND I read the WVSC decision. I agree with the WVSC decision. In fact, if you look back to the beginning of this thread, I disagreed with Webster's intervention in the first place.

Most of my disagreement stems from the fact that WV Code specifically states that the SSAC sets and enforces rules and regulations for high school athletics. The reason why I so strongly object to any court or judge interferring in this sort of disagreement stems from my experience sitting on a school committee. Unless there is some evidence of blatant favoritism it has long been my deeply held belief that the judicial system should not be used as an avenue to appeal suspensions or other forms of punishment the governing agency imposes on a high school athlete, team, or school.

You disagree with me, and I accept that, Aaron. I don't care that you disagree with me but I do wish that you would consider that perhaps I don't view this from the same vantage point as you. Yes I'm a parent and my children have participated in high school sports and other extracurricular activities. Yes I'm a taxpayer and have been somewhat politically active all of my adult life. However, I also have played another role and have experiences that you do not.

Webster was wrong. WVSC was correct. That is my opinion. Get over it.

by Aaron Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:51 am

No Webster was not wrong and that is where Dan Greer comes into play in this conversation. You supported Greer, he lost so Webster couldn't possibly make the correct decison.

I might believe otherwise if you could even attempt to explain the Hamiltion decision in which a state court interfered with the suspensions or other forms of punishment the governing agency imposes on a high school athlete, team, or school or if you could explain the section of the WV Code that authorizes judical review.

As you've kept your head burried on both issues, you can disagree all you want but your motive is clear to me.

by **Stephanie** Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:23 am

Well I gave in and read the Hamilton decision. I continue to disagree with your assertion that it plays any role here. Hamilton deals with eligibility. This clearly is not an eligibility issue. Better luck next time.

by Aaron Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:32 am

You stated the SSAC wasn't open to judicial review. There were no stipulations. Now you're adding them. I think you need to make up your mind, is the SSAC open to judicial review or not?

And I'm curious, where did you read Hamilton? Do you have a link as I lost mine and it's not an easily found case.

by **Stephanie** Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:42 am

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19891042386SE2d656_11027.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006

by Aaron Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:46 am

OK, now answer the question. Is the SSAC open to judicial review or not?

by **Stephanie** Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:47 am

I am not at all convinced you ever read Hamilton before I provided you with the link, btw.

by Aaron Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:22 pm

I read Hamilton (from an original document by the way) when it was decided in 1989. It was of particular interest considering I heard the judge (I'm pretty sure it was Todd Kaufman but I could be wrong on that one) rule in favor of Chris. I'm very familiar with the case.

Perhaps that's why my English teacher disagrees with you. My final paper was a position paper in which she gave me an A and suggested I submit it for publication in the Sunday Gazette Mail. She was particularly impressed my use of the Hamilton case as a reference.

For the record the page you sent me the link to, I've had in my favorites for almost a month now. The only reason I ask you for a link is that I do not believe you read the decision, which by the way has resulted in only 1 of 7 (the last I heard) athlete regaining eligibility under this decision. I've forgotten more about the Hamilton case then you know.

I can't help but note though that for the third time, you avoided my question so I'll ask again.

Is the WVSSAC open to judicial review, yes or no? It's a very simple question.

by **Stephanie** Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:14 pm

Aaron wrote:I read Hamilton (from an original document by the way) when it was decided in 1989. It was of particular interest considering I heard the judge (I'm pretty sure it was Todd Kaufman but I could be wrong on that one) rule in favor of Chris. I'm very familiar with the case.

Perhaps that's why my English teacher disagrees with you. My final paper was a position paper in which she gave me an A and suggested I submit it for publication in the Sunday Gazette Mail. She was particularly impressed my use of the Hamilton case as a reference.

For the record the page you sent me the link to, I've had in my favorites for almost a month now. The only reason I ask you for a link is that I do not believe you read the decision, which by the way has resulted in only 1 of 7 (the last I heard) athlete regaining eligibility under this decision. I've forgotten more about the Hamilton case then you know.

I can't help but note though that for the third time, you avoided my question so I'll ask again.

Is the WVSSAC open to judicial review, yes or no? It's a very simple question.

Is your English teacher an attorney now? Aaron, that ruling specifically dealt with eligibility, not suspensions or other disciplinary actions. That is crystal clear.

Is the SSAC open for judicial review? That would depend upon the circumstances. In America, most anything is open for judical review. Lawyers attempt to litigate all kinds of things to make money, or to make a name for themselves, or for ideological purposes. That does not mean they will be victorious nor does bringing action indicate the courts should necessarily be involved in a give scenario.

Obviously the current WVSC agrees with me that the SSAC is entitled to punish this particular group of students however they see fit. Over 20 years ago a different WVSC ruled that the SSAC's eligibility rules were unfair to a particular student. I see nothing in that ruling that indicates a Circuit Court Judge can intervene in disciplinary actions doled out by that organization. You, like Judge Webster, are incorrect in assuming otherwise.

btw.....I also read the Mayo case and was heartened to see WV's highest court upheld the SSAC's authority. The "buck" has to stop somewhere. In the case of high school athletics, in almost all circumstances, with very few exceptions, it stops with the SSAC. From what I can discern, historically that is the way it is and always has been in this state. IMO, after reading relavent WV Code, and 3 different WVSC rulings, that is as it should be.

I'm finished with this subject. I'm online trying to wrap up last minute Christmas shopping. It's free shipping Friday, you know Smile

by Aaron Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:44 pm

Chris Hamilton was SUSPENDED by the SSAC for his senior season of high school.

And it seems you're changing your tune again. Now your saying almost anything is open to judicial review so are you now admitting that the SSAC is open to judicial review.

I would suggest you read JUDGE WEBSTER's opinion again and try doing so without your Dan Greer bias. If you did, you would see where she was correct in her decision, a point that the Supreme Court agreed with in the Mayo decision by the way.

The facts don't agree with you or the Supreme Court, who's principal opinion in the Mayo case was the cost of the increase in legal defense if the Mayo decision were upheld.

by **Stephanie** Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:55 pm

On 13 May 1988, when Mr. Hamilton was a high-school sophomore, Herbert Hoover officials wrote to the state Secondary Schools Activities Commission2 to determine whether Mr. Hamilton would be eligible to play football his senior year. On 19 May 1988, the Commission responded that Mr. Hamilton would not be eligible as a senior, in accordance with the Commission's rules, because he had repeated the ninth grade. Mr. Hamilton appealed the ruling to the Commission's Board of Appeals, which on 14 November 1988 sustained the denial of eligibility.

by **Stephanie** Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:56 pm

Search the document, big fella. Neither the word "suspend" nor the word "suspension" even appear anywhere in the document.

by Aaron Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:17 pm

He was told he could not play his senior season. He even enjoyed something Henry, Harris and the others from South Charleston did not in that he was allowed to appeal the decision and was still suspended from playing his senior season. Instead of accepting that decision because the SSAC answers to no one, he sued in a court of law. The lower court ruled for the SSAC. It was the the West Virginia State Supreme Court that overturned the lower court ruling which "held that the Commission's rules, as interpreted, served a legitimate purpose and were validly applied to Mr. Hamilton" and sided with the plaintiff, interfering with the SSAC and upholding judicial review of the SSAC.

What about my statement is incorrect?

by **Stephanie** Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:22 pm

He was told he was ineligible to play his senior year, Aaron. It was not a suspension. It was not a penalty. It was not a disciplinary action. It was an eligibility rule.

The WVSC in 2010 acknowledged the SSAC's authority to discipline high school athletes and teams. Nothing you, or anyone else, has shown indicated the WVSC has ever ruled otherwise. Hamilton was an eligibility issue. Try dictionary.com if this confuses you.

by Aaron Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:46 pm

You've still not answered my question Stephanie. It's a simple question.

In the Hamilton decision, did the Supreme Court not interfere with the inner workings of the SSAC? Why do you keep dancing around very simple questions?

by Aaron Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:09 am

Apparently some don't believe the recent West Virginia Supreme Court decision giving full anonymity to the WVSSAC is as final as that organization wants everyone to believe.

A Monongalia County Circuit Judge has issued a temporary injunction that will allow one of Trinity Christian Schools’ best players to continue to play basketball despite being ruled ineligible by the WVSSAC.

A.J. Mayle was ruled ineligible by the WVSSAC based on the “Transfer Back” rule. Mayle attended Cheat Lake Middle School before attending Trinity for his freshman and sophomore years. He spent his junior year at The Kiski School in Pennsylvania (an all-boys boarding school) before returning to Trinity for his senior year.

source

The judge granted a permanent injunction, the player finished the season and Trinity made it to the Class A Basketball championship game, losing to Weirton Madonna. It will be interesting to see how the SSAC handles this case. They can't let it stand or precedent will be set but as Trinity lost, some want to just let it slide.

by **Stephanie** Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:06 pm

Aaron wrote:Apparently some don't believe the recent West Virginia Supreme Court decision giving full anonymity to the WVSSAC is as final as that organization wants everyone to believe.

A Monongalia County Circuit Judge has issued a temporary injunction that will allow one of Trinity Christian Schools’ best players to continue to play basketball despite being ruled ineligible by the WVSSAC.

A.J. Mayle was ruled ineligible by the WVSSAC based on the “Transfer Back” rule. Mayle attended Cheat Lake Middle School before attending Trinity for his freshman and sophomore years. He spent his junior year at The Kiski School in Pennsylvania (an all-boys boarding school) before returning to Trinity for his senior year.

source

The judge granted a permanent injunction, the player finished the season and Trinity made it to the Class A Basketball championship game, losing to Weirton Madonna. It will be interesting to see how the SSAC handles this case. They can't let it stand or precedent will be set but as Trinity lost, some want to just let it slide.

Aaron,

Just because a judge can use the power of a court to coerce an organization to do something doesn't make it correct.

by Aaron Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:11 pm

I'm confused. I thought the State Supreme Court just said in December that the SSAC couldn't be coerced.

by **Stephanie** Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:04 pm

Which is why I expect the WVSC to tell that Monongalia judge he was as wrong as Carrie Webster. Wouldn't you?

by Aaron Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:20 pm

But the Monongalia judge is not wrong. The SSAC didn't enforce their rules as they are written just as they didn't in the South Charlestion case, which is why Webster was right and the State Supreme Court was wrong, an opinion I can't seem to find by the way.

by Aaron Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:31 pm

I ask a question in the basket Stephanie that reminds me of both situtaions. Tell me what you think and I'll tell you what happened.

by Sponsored content