When was this court ruling made? If made recently, was Mitchell still actively appealing this case after all these years?

 

I was wondering the same thing. It seems as though someone had to go to a lot of expense as well? Does anyone have a link to the story on him winning his appeal?

I think the actual ruling is a few years back. Maybe someone else would know a specific time frame.

I think the actual ruling is a few years back. Maybe someone else would know a specific time frame.

 

 

December 2004?

December 2004?

 

No, not the original ruling. It was later on but I can't remember how much later.

The article, the letter and the thread all suggest that the "no win scenario" HHS was put in (follow the KHSAA or the Court order [and risk being sanctioned]) has been remedied. Now, apparently, a school which follows the order of a court of competent jurisdiction is granted a "safe harbor" against being punished for doing so. Can someone point me to that rule change in the KHSAA procedures?

 

Assuming that change has been implemented, is the KHSAA really arguing "Yeah, we realize it was a no-win scenario you were put in. In fact, we changed the rules so schools wouldn't be put in the same situation again. However, you knew those were the rules when you decided to play Mitchell in accordance with the Court order, so we're not going to revisit the punishments we levied against you"?

 

Also, chronologically & simplifying, please tell me if this is correct (it has been so long):

 

A - the KHSAA investigating officer recommended the waiver be granted to allow Mitchell to play

B - the full KHSAA disagreed with their own investigating officer and denied the waiver

C - the Circuit court agreed w/ the Mitchells and issued a temporary order ("TRO") allowing Mitchell to play UNTIL a full trial could be held on the merits

D - the KHSAA appealed the issuance of the TRO to the Ct. of Appeals which, on the eve of the State Championship Game, agreed with the KHSAA, stated the Circuit court should not have issued the TRO and remanded the case back to the Circuit court for a trial on the merits

E - KHSAA sanctioned HHS prior to the Circuit court holding a trial on the merits

F - the Circuit court held a trial on the merits (after football season but before track season because I thought I remembered that Mitchell was permitted to run track for HHS in the spring of his senior season) and ultimately found in favor of the Mitchells

G - either the KHSAA didn't appeal that ruling to the Ct. of Appeals b/c Mitchell's HS eligibility was either over or almost over OR they did appeal it and the Ct. of Appeals agreed with the Circuit court; either way, the final ruling from the courts of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was in favor of the Mitchells

H - HHS asks for all sanctions from E above to be rescinded since in G it was ultimately determined that Mitchell should have been eligible

I - KHSAA either says "No" or simply does nothing (which has the effect of allowing the sanctions to stand)

I was wondering the same thing. It seems as though someone had to go to a lot of expense as well? Does anyone have a link to the story on him winning his appeal?

 

I do not have any link or anything on the final ruling of this case. I was told last night, after much discussion, that the KHSAA has spent (Now this is a rough estimate but it is a ball park answer) around $250,000 fighting a case that they lost. I have no information on the lawyers from the Mitchells or Highlands side of things.

 

Bridgid DeVries (KHSAA Comissioner) is retiring on July 9 2010. Supposedly after she retires this issue should be cleared up real quick. I have heard from a reliable source that she is a MAJOR reason that this is being held up.

I do not have any link or anything on the final ruling of this case. I was told last night, after much discussion, that the KHSAA has spent (Now this is a rough estimate but it is a ball park answer) around $250,000 fighting a case that they lost. I have no information on the lawyers from the Mitchells or Highlands side of things.

 

Bridgid DeVries (KHSAA Comissioner) is retiring on July 9 2010. Supposedly after she retires this issue should be cleared up real quick. I have heard from a reliable source that she is a MAJOR reason that this is being held up.

 

If that is true, why didn't Ft. Thomas wait till she is gone in June to submit the letter? Just asking. No innuendo of any kind meant.

The article, the letter and the thread all suggest that the "no win scenario" HHS was put in (follow the KHSAA or the Court order [and risk being sanctioned]) has been remedied. Now, apparently, a school which follows the order of a court of competent jurisdiction is granted a "safe harbor" against being punished for doing so. Can someone point me to that rule change in the KHSAA procedures?

 

Assuming that change has been implemented, is the KHSAA really arguing "Yeah, we realize it was a no-win scenario you were put in. In fact, we changed the rules so schools wouldn't be put in the same situation again. However, you knew those were the rules when you decided to play Mitchell in accordance with the Court order, so we're not going to revisit the punishments we levied against you"?

 

Also, chronologically & simplifying, please tell me if this is correct (it has been so long):

 

A - the KHSAA investigating officer recommended the waiver be granted to allow Mitchell to play

B - the full KHSAA disagreed with their own investigating officer and denied the waiver

C - the Circuit court agreed w/ the Mitchells and issued a temporary order ("TRO") allowing Mitchell to play UNTIL a full trial could be held on the merits

D - the KHSAA appealed the issuance of the TRO to the Ct. of Appeals which, on the eve of the State Championship Game, agreed with the KHSAA, stated the Circuit court should not have issued the TRO and remanded the case back to the Circuit court for a trial on the merits

E - KHSAA sanctioned HHS prior to the Circuit court holding a trial on the merits

F - the Circuit court held a trial on the merits (after football season but before track season because I thought I remembered that Mitchell was permitted to run track for HHS in the spring of his senior season) and ultimately found in favor of the Mitchells

G - either the KHSAA didn't appeal that ruling to the Ct. of Appeals b/c Mitchell's HS eligibility was either over or almost over OR they did appeal it and the Ct. of Appeals agreed with the Circuit court; either way, the final ruling from the courts of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was in favor of the Mitchells

H - HHS asks for all sanctions from E above to be rescinded since in G it was ultimately determined that Mitchell should have been eligible

I - KHSAA either says "No" or simply does nothing (which has the effect of allowing the sanctions to stand)

 

 

This is a very complicated thing but from my perspective that this is mostly correct, although the timeline is off. When Mitchell won his appeal I am pretty sure it was 2009.

 

Section F - is incorrect. Mitchell was not ruled eligible for track at the time he was able to run. He missed out on the whole track season. But he ended up being eligible because the courts ruled in his favor about 4 years after he was out of high school. So he was eligible for track but not till, i believe 2009.

 

Section G - is obviously not correct because you gave 2 scenarios. The second of the two sceanrios i believe is correct.

Don't like to play by the rules, let a judge who supports your community rule on it. Then try to strong arm the KHSAA, even though he was ineligable by the rules put forth by our athletic governing body. Many students have been ineligable under the same guidelines, their communities just don't have the same political power backing. This is a simple example of Highlands wanting to let the KHSAA know that it would be unwise to not comply with their wishes in the future, since they have entirely too much state political power. WHAT A JOKE.

 

Now dag gonnit. You have just figured out the whole reason why Highlands is sooooo Good in Football. Your right. Maybe Highlands should step aside for a yr and give your program the same inside advantage as you suggest they have which obviously is the reason why they win the actual games on the field and we will let you take that political advantage for a few yrs and then perhaps you guys might win a few State Championships. The part I like the best about your comments is the "strong arm". Classic, just classic. I must say it helped the Birds beat that stingy Cincy St X team this yr, it had absoulutely nothing to do with the will to win and the fact that this game was won on the field. If you dont like the way Highlands wins and perhaps you are one that gets sick and tired of picking up that paper on Sat mornings and reading about HHS then I suggest you rally your football program and do something about it. On the field that is. :thumb: 20n10

The article, the letter and the thread all suggest that the "no win scenario" HHS was put in (follow the KHSAA or the Court order [and risk being sanctioned]) has been remedied. Now, apparently, a school which follows the order of a court of competent jurisdiction is granted a "safe harbor" against being punished for doing so. Can someone point me to that rule change in the KHSAA procedures?

 

Assuming that change has been implemented, is the KHSAA really arguing "Yeah, we realize it was a no-win scenario you were put in. In fact, we changed the rules so schools wouldn't be put in the same situation again. However, you knew those were the rules when you decided to play Mitchell in accordance with the Court order, so we're not going to revisit the punishments we levied against you"?

 

Also, chronologically & simplifying, please tell me if this is correct (it has been so long):

 

A - the KHSAA investigating officer recommended the waiver be granted to allow Mitchell to play

B - the full KHSAA disagreed with their own investigating officer and denied the waiver

C - the Circuit court agreed w/ the Mitchells and issued a temporary order ("TRO") allowing Mitchell to play UNTIL a full trial could be held on the merits

D - the KHSAA appealed the issuance of the TRO to the Ct. of Appeals which, on the eve of the State Championship Game, agreed with the KHSAA, stated the Circuit court should not have issued the TRO and remanded the case back to the Circuit court for a trial on the merits

E - KHSAA sanctioned HHS prior to the Circuit court holding a trial on the merits

F - the Circuit court held a trial on the merits (after football season but before track season because I thought I remembered that Mitchell was permitted to run track for HHS in the spring of his senior season) and ultimately found in favor of the Mitchells

G - either the KHSAA didn't appeal that ruling to the Ct. of Appeals b/c Mitchell's HS eligibility was either over or almost over OR they did appeal it and the Ct. of Appeals agreed with the Circuit court; either way, the final ruling from the courts of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was in favor of the Mitchells

H - HHS asks for all sanctions from E above to be rescinded since in G it was ultimately determined that Mitchell should have been eligible

I - KHSAA either says "No" or simply does nothing (which has the effect of allowing the sanctions to stand)

 

 

Neither option in G is correct as I recall. The KHSAA did appeal the Circuit Court's permanent injunction holding that Mitchell was eligible. However by the time the COA got to hearing the KHSAA's appeal, Mitchell had graduated and the COA dismissed the appeal as being moot.

Also, chronologically & simplifying, please tell me if this is correct (it has been so long):

 

A - the KHSAA investigating officer recommended the waiver be granted to allow Mitchell to play

B - the full KHSAA disagreed with their own investigating officer and denied the waiver

C - the Circuit court agreed w/ the Mitchells and issued a temporary order ("TRO") allowing Mitchell to play UNTIL a full trial could be held on the merits

D - the KHSAA appealed the issuance of the TRO to the Ct. of Appeals which, on the eve of the State Championship Game, agreed with the KHSAA, stated the Circuit court should not have issued the TRO and remanded the case back to the Circuit court for a trial on the merits

E - KHSAA sanctioned HHS prior to the Circuit court holding a trial on the merits

F - the Circuit court held a trial on the merits (after football season but before track season because I thought I remembered that Mitchell was permitted to run track for HHS in the spring of his senior season) and ultimately found in favor of the Mitchells

G - either the KHSAA didn't appeal that ruling to the Ct. of Appeals b/c Mitchell's HS eligibility was either over or almost over OR they did appeal it and the Ct. of Appeals agreed with the Circuit court; either way, the final ruling from the courts of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was in favor of the Mitchells

H - HHS asks for all sanctions from E above to be rescinded since in G it was ultimately determined that Mitchell should have been eligible

I - KHSAA either says "No" or simply does nothing (which has the effect of allowing the sanctions to stand)

 

I think you are pretty close, but in re: section G, I think you missed it.

 

The original temporary injunction allowing Mitchell to play was issued by the Circuit court, and the KHSAA appealed it.

 

The Court of Appeals ruled after the Bell Co game that the temporary injunction should not have been issued. (They didn't rule on Mitchell's eligibility, just that the injunction shouldn't have been issued.)

 

Sometime later (after the season was over) the Circuit Court issued a permanent injunction ruling that Mitchell was indeed eligible.

 

The KHSAA again appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals, and my understanding is that the Court of Appeals dismissed the KHSAA's appeal on the grounds that the point was moot because Mitchell had already graduated.

The main part about this is that Mitchell was ruled eligible and Highlands had wins stripped away from them for having an ineligible player, even though that player was eligible!

Yea, we won those games fair and square. Now give them back.:madman::taz:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe he was replying to the part of your post that said that all members, by joining the KHSAA, agree to abide and be bound by the decisions of the KHSAA. I understand your point and there is language to that affect I believe on the membership application, which is probably why you have that understanding.

 

The problem is that, while the application may contain such language, the due process procedure of the KHSAA specifically allows for appeals of their decisions to the judiciary. So there is some inconsistency of the two positions. On one doc it says members will be bound by the KHSAA decisions. In another doc it say members can appeal the KHSAA decisions to the judiciary.

 

Personally, I think it ludicrous for the KHSAA to attempt to require schools to be bound by the decisions of the KHSAA. Again, the KHSAA is not some private club the schools truly voluntarily elect to join, with there being plenty of other options out there for the schools to join. I know that some people believe that the KHSAA is a voluntary association. But if a school wants to participate in official state sanctioned Ky high school athletics, a school has only one choice: join the KHSAA. It's like telling me that joining the Kentucky Bar Association is voluntary. I have to join the Ky Bar Association if I want to be admitted to and practice law in Ky. One could argue that it's voluntary because if I don't want to join I don't have to join. But if I don't join, then I can't practice law in Ky. Not really voluntary as I think of the word. It's the only game in town and if I want to play in the game, I have to join.

 

Furthermore the KHSAA, as an agent of the state, cannot legally require its members to waive their right to appeal to the judiciary. Believe it or not, at one point in time, not too long ago, the KHSAA tried to put language on its membership application that forced members to waive their state and federal constitutional rights as to eligibility decisions of the KHSAA! It blew my mind when I heard about that and I remember thinking to myself: just who does the KHSAA think they are? Fortunately the folks at the State Board and the LRC told the KHSAA to remove that language, although IMO the language wouldn 't have been enforceable any way.

 

You and others may not think this way, but the KHSAA is like every other state agency (K-OSHA, the Ky Office of Employment, Ky ABC, etc) in that their final administrative decisions are appealable to the judiciary, regardless of what language may be on membership applications, forms, etc. You may think the KHSAA is different, but that is false. I'm sure that some people at the KHSAA and maybe a majority of the schools would prefer that the KHSAA decisions would not be appealable to the judiciary, but it's not a matter of what they want. It's a matter of what the law requires. If you disagree on that point, I direct your attention to KRS 13B.140. Here is the link: http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/013B00/140.PDF.

 

Whitley County may have elected to not play the student even though the student got a temporary injunction of eligibilty. That was their choice I guess. Other schools may feel that to so decide is just a back door approach to undermine the statutory and constitutional rights of students to exercise their Chapter 13B rights and thus not elect to not play the kid on the principle of the matter.

 

As I have oft stated, I as an attorney find it bewildering that the educators involved with the KHSAA would even think of having themselves and other schools act in a manner that violates the Ky statutes and constitution. Perhaps some think I'm being polly annish, but I thought educators were supposed to teach and practice compliance with the law and the powers of the judicial branch.

 

I've heard it said that the KHSAA is opposed to allowing schools to appeal their decisions to the judiciary because it increases costs to the KHSAA (and ultimately the schools), takes time to handle the lawsuits, etc. There is no doubt that they are probably correct in those assertions. But those are not valid grounds for ignoring what our statutes and constitution state and require. A business can't choose to ignore a ruling of the court just because it will cause some costs to the business or make the business do additional things. You can't ignore an order of the court telling you to tear down a building that violated a zoning ordinance just because it will cost you money and time to tear down building. Putting the shoe on the other foot (and in an analogy more appropriate for the KHSAA's effort to force schools to abide by their final decision and not appeal it to the judiciary) , the city or county that you live in can't require you to waive your right to appeal a final decision of its Board of Adjustment to the judiciary (as a condition to you living in the city or county) just because your appeal may cost the city or county funds to handle your appeal.

 

I hope you consider my post with an open mind and I am not trying to be offensive. I know it's difficult for a lot of people (particularly school officials) to accept because school officials for a long, long time have felt that the KHSAA is some type of voluntary, private club that is free to do whatever a majority of the schools want it to do. Unfortunately, they have been mistaken for a long, long time.

 

I thought you were sitting this one out? :lol:

 

How much do you post when you're really into it.

I thought you were sitting this one out? :lol:

 

How much do you post when you're really into it.

 

 

Go back to 2004 and you'll get an idea of what his posts would be like if he was really into it.