You forgot the main point of this arguement. The Mitchells won the court case!!! Highlands did not roll the dice. They played Mike when he was eligible and didn't play him when he was ruled ineligible. In the end the Mitchells won the case and he would have been eligible the whole time.

 

Perhaps LN can help clear this up. I know you want to lay low on this one LN so I am not asking for opinion, just facts. Was there ever a final determination that Mitchell was eligible? Ryan Ernst seemed to say in his latest article that Mitchell was determined to be ineligible. The fact that Highlands did not play Mitchell in the title game after the court ruling indicates Highlands considered Mitchell's status at that time to be ineligible. And I don't think this letter by the Ft. Thomas school board is because Mitchell was determined eligible but because of the KHSAA changing their rules about playing players due to court intervention. So was Mitchell determined to be eligible by the final decision of the courts or KHSAA?

Perhaps LN can help clear this up. I know you want to lay low on this one LN so I am not asking for opinion, just facts. Was there ever a final determination that Mitchell was eligible? Ryan Ernst seemed to say in his latest article that Mitchell was determined to be ineligible. The fact that Highlands did not play Mitchell in the title game after the court ruling indicates Highlands considered Mitchell's status at that time to be ineligible. And I don't think this letter by the Ft. Thomas school board is because Mitchell was determined eligible but because of the KHSAA changing their rules about playing players due to court intervention. So was Mitchell determined to be eligible by the final decision of the courts or KHSAA?

 

I will let LN take care of this one, but I know that Mitchell was deemed eligilble.

No, they were granted an injunction pending the appeal hearing.

 

Get your FACTS straight before you join this conversation.

Get your FACTS straight before you join this conversation.

 

What facts are wrong? Did a court of law make a final ruling, or did they grant a temporary injunction? The only involvement of the courts was to allow Mitchell to play until the KHSAA ruled on his appear. Did I miss something?

What facts are wrong? Did a court of law make a final ruling, or did they grant a temporary injunction? The only involvement of the courts was to allow Mitchell to play until the KHSAA ruled on his appear. Did I miss something?

 

Please read the letter at the beginning of this thread. It clearly states that Mitchell was ultimately found eligible by the court of law.

 

Over the years there have been many threads on this issue and many many times the facts have been laid out along with the chronology of the events. If you are seriously courious as to the Facts of the case, please reread the threads pertaining to Mitchell.

 

I just can't get over those that , I assume read the Facts yet continue to ask for the Facts, or the truth. I am guessing that the truth or facts aren't what you want to hear therefore you insist on not believing them.

 

Mexi, I quoted you, however my post applies to many on here.

What facts are wrong? Did a court of law make a final ruling, or did they grant a temporary injunction? The only involvement of the courts was to allow Mitchell to play until the KHSAA ruled on his appear. Did I miss something?

 

The Circuit court held a trial and ultimatly found in favor of the Mitchells. The KHSAA did appeal the circuit courts permanant injunction but by the time the COA got to the KHSAA's appeal, the case was dismissed because Mitchell had graduated and the appeal was determined moot. So the Mitchells won the case.

Thats only because they dont play 6A. Yet. 20n10

 

Sorry for being off-topic but I could careless if Highlands was in 6A. Unlike some people I have the ability to pull for/support mutiple schools. And yes if Highlands was playing against X or T. I would pull for X or T! If Highlands was to beat X or T it would still be ok for me because I don't live or die by a win or loss.

Sorry for being off-topic but I could careless if Highlands was in 6A. Unlike some people I have the ability to pull for/support mutiple schools. And yes if Highlands was playing against X or T. I would pull for X or T! If Highlands was to beat X or T it would still be ok for me because I don't live or die by a win or loss.

 

and....?

Please read the letter at the beginning of this thread. It clearly states that Mitchell was ultimately found eligible by the court of law.

 

Over the years there have been many threads on this issue and many many times the facts have been laid out along with the chronology of the events. If you are seriously courious as to the Facts of the case, please reread the threads pertaining to Mitchell.

 

I just can't get over those that , I assume read the Facts yet continue to ask for the Facts, or the truth. I am guessing that the truth or facts aren't what you want to hear therefore you insist on not believing them.

 

Mexi, I quoted you, however my post applies to many on here.

 

Did the Court rule that he was ultimately eligible and his transfre should have been ok'd from the get go, or just that it is ok to play under an injunction? There's a difference.

 

For the record, I got no problem w/ Mitchell switching to Highlands to get a better opportunity to play at the next level. I would have done the same thing. I just don't see why the need to get the 12 wins back. You get to keep the trophy?

Did the Court rule that he was ultimately eligible, or just that it is ok to play under an injunction? There's a difference.

 

AND Mitchell was ultimately declared eligible by the KHSAA. (Everybody always forgets that part.)

Did the Court rule that he was ultimately eligible and his transfre should have been ok'd from the get go, or just that it is ok to play under an injunction? There's a difference.

 

For the record, I got no problem w/ Mitchell switching to Highlands to get a better opportunity to play at the next level. I would have done the same thing. I just don't see why the need to get the 12 wins back. You get to keep the trophy?

 

The main reason is that the KHSAA is not above the judicial system of the United States of America.

 

Another reason is I played on the team and I want the wins back.

The main reason is that the KHSAA is not above the judicial system of the United States of America.

 

Another reason is I played on the team and I want the wins back.

 

That, I understand and empathize with.

AND Mitchell was ultimately declared eligible by the KHSAA. (Everybody always forgets that part.)

 

When did this happen? Have a link?

When did this happen? Have a link?

 

Read this article everyone please. This is what started this whole debate. http://cincinnati.com/blogs/preps/2010/02/10/highlands-challenging-mitchell-ruling/ . And I do not have the exact date on when it happened but the Ft. Thomas board of education would not have written this letter if Mitchell was deemed ineligible.

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.

 

I thought LN may have answered the question about Mitchell being ruled eligible. The above quote is from his post #160 in this thread. So Mitchell was ruled eligible by a Circuit Court and that was the final ruling made in the case in the courts. That being true, this is even more clear cut to me that Highlands should get their 12 wins back.