I will answer your question with a question, if there are any future disputes what good can come out of this?

 

What harm could come of this? I would expect the KHSAA to rule impartially on any future issues that arise.

I think if this discussion is going to continue, then someone from Highlands needs to refresh some memories of the event.

 

What I remember:

 

Fact:

 

Judge William Wehr ruled on the case. Bill was a CovCath grad and a member of the first CovCath football team.

 

Fact:

 

Mitchell played football for CovCath for three years and lived in Florence, Ky during that time.

 

Fact:

 

Mitchell and his Mother and Father rented an apt in Ft. Thomas and transferred their son to Highlands for his senior year.

 

Not sure of:

 

Mitchells did not sell their home at the time, but allowed their oldest son to live in it, while he attended NKU.

 

Not sure of:

 

Mitchell wanted to play offensive, but Coach Ray thought his best option in College was on the "D" side of the ball.

 

Fact: Coach Ray was correct as he played DB in College is now a DB for Oakland in the NFL.

 

Right, wrong been a while.....

 

Which ruling did "Bill" rule on? Was it all of them? Was their multiple rulings?

You are assuming that 94 knows few facts about the situations.

I know that assumption to be incorrect.

 

I agree with you and guru on this move.

 

I was responding to YOUR post. I would assume that 94 can answer for his/herself.

Which ruling did "Bill" rule on? Was it all of them? Was their multiple rulings?

 

I believe on the ruling to allow him to play during the season.

I will answer your question with a question, if there are any future disputes what good can come out of this?

 

Come on... . I asked first. I will answer your question. I would hope like any ruling body or court or judge that if rules are broken that the punishment would fit the crime spelled out by the laws/rules for any current or future disputes. That the judges are impartial in their application of these laws/rules/punishments. That each situation is looked at closely and carefully.

 

I think good can actually come from the whole situation because it can show how the rules/bylaws and application of them can work and when they do not work they are corrected/updated/amended. That is how progress seems to be made. I state again, I think the association has and does a pretty good job of managing things. They have a tough job to do and by and large for the most part I think they get it right.

I was responding to YOUR post. I would assume that 94 can answer for his/herself.

 

You were right that I know few facts of my own accord.

Most of mine came from discussions with 94.

I forgot some of this stuff but can I ask why the family got an apartment? And why he changed schools?

What harm could come of this? I would expect the KHSAA to rule impartially on any future issues that arise.

 

:thumb:

I was under the impression that one of the conditions of becoming a member school of the KHSAA was to let their decisions supercede all legal court precedings. Therefore, once you become a member of this organization, you are basically giving up all of your rights to litigation. So, in the HHS case, they violated one of the conditions of the KHSAA by getting the court injunction.

 

I think you need to read the rules again.

You were right that I know few facts of my own accord.

Most of mine came from discussions with 94.

 

I have no reason to doubt or believe 94, but it would still be best for him/her to answer for themselves. Either way, if someone else tells you something, is it a given fact then?

Anybody wonder on how many threads get started on this topic? How many get closed? And how MANY post will be in each??

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Anybody wonder on how many threads get started on this topic? How many get closed? And how MANY post will be in each??

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

If you remember this case and the previous year's case with Nevels you would understand that it stirs passion on all sides.

I was under the impression that one of the conditions of becoming a member school of the KHSAA was to let their decisions supercede all legal court precedings. Therefore, once you become a member of this organization, you are basically giving up all of your rights to litigation. So, in the HHS case, they violated one of the conditions of the KHSAA by getting the court injunction.

 

 

Just curious here as to where you came upon that impression. I really have no idea, but I would find it very hard to agree to such a stipulation.

I forgot some of this stuff but can I ask why the family got an apartment? And why he changed schools?

 

Education would be my guess. :thumb:

I was under the impression that one of the conditions of becoming a member school of the KHSAA was to let their decisions supercede all legal court precedings. Therefore, once you become a member of this organization, you are basically giving up all of your rights to litigation. So, in the HHS case, they violated one of the conditions of the KHSAA by getting the court injunction.

 

That impression would be wrong, although from what I hear, most Board Members are under the same impression. Why do I feel that impression is wrong? Because the KHSAA's own due process procedure ( specifically Section 3.I of the procedure) permits a party to appeal the KHSAA's position to the judicial system. Now I ask you, student, if one of the conditions of becoming a member meant that the KHSAA's decisions superceded all legal court proceedings, why would the KHSAA expressly permit a party to appeal the KHSAA's decision to the judicial system?

 

Wouldn't the right to appeal a KHSAA decision to the judicial system by contradictory to the assertion that the KHSAA's decision superceded the judiciary's decision?

 

What good is a right to appeal to the judiciary (which is granted via the due process procedure) if a school can't follow it and is bound by the KHSAA decision?

 

For Leatherneck and the lawyers out there, can an administrative agency of the state (which the KHSAA is) even legally require, as a condition of membership, that a school agree to accept the KHSAA's decision as final and superceding the judiciary? Taken in another context, could the Employment Compensation agency tell an unemployed person that a condition to filing an unemployment claim meant that such person had to agree that the Employment Compensation agency's decision supeceded a subsequent court ruling on the issue?

 

Having posed those questions, I do find it odd that Highlands would now, at this point in time, request the State Board to direct the KHSAA to reverse the sanctions. The only reason I can think they would do so is that the General Assembly has now told the KHSAA in no uncertain terms, I'm advised by friends in the LRC, that the KHSAA cannot impose such sanctions in the future. Perhaps the Highlands administration believes that if the KHSAA cannot impose those sanctions in the future, it was wrong for them to impose them in the past and that the State Board will agree with that reasoning.

 

Hemlock any one?