Because Mitchell was granted a temporary injuntion to play at the time by the courts, and it turns out that Mitchell was allowed to play for the whole season because he won the court case not too long ago. The judicial systems rule is higher than the KHSAA's rule. The Whitley County person could have challenged it in court but didn't and that is completly their fault. Every case is unique and different.

 

Why or who was still appealing this case through the court system so long after the incident occurred?

Because Mitchell was granted a temporary injuntion to play at the time by the courts, and it turns out that Mitchell was allowed to play for the whole season because he won the court case not too long ago. The judicial systems rule is higher than the KHSAA's rule. The Whitley County person could have challenged it in court but didn't and that is completly their fault. Every case is unique and different.

 

This kid was also granted a temporary injunction to play, but instead of only missing a couple of games, he had to sit the entire season. Whitley Co.'s administration told him they would not play him until the KHSAA approved it, regardless of a court order, because they had agreed to abide by the KHSAA's rules by becoming a member school.

This kid was also granted a temporary injunction to play, but instead of only missing a couple of games, he had to sit the entire season. Whitley Co.'s administration told him they would not play him until the KHSAA approved it, regardless of a court order, because they had agreed to abide by the KHSAA's rules by becoming a member school.

 

Thats all fine and dandy what they did, but if you keep the focus on the kid (In my opinion like it is supposed to be) he could have played that entire season if it were the same circumstances at Mike Mitchell. This stuff is ruled on a case by case basis and I do not know all the facts to be able to say anything about the Whitley Co. player's case. If the player used his legal right to take it to court and won then he would be able to play too. At the end of the day Mike and his family won the court case and the KHSAA lost because the Mitchell family had the right to do so because they are able to appeal their case to the judicial system according the KHSAA bylaws. Again he WON the court case.

If however there are no facts in the record establishing athletic intent, then the BOC cannot, and should not, let their feelings, their hunches, their gut be the basis of their decision. The rule of law and fairness in this country requires courts and administrative agencies to base their decisions on the facts; not their personal feelings. Woe be all of society if courts, juries and administrative agencies can make decisions based on feelings and not facts.

 

LN - any chance you could explain this to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals out in SF? Sorry to be so off topic.

What other costs do you think are involved?

 

Oh....wait! I forgot paper and printer ink! I agree that printer ink is WAY too expensive!

 

First :lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

And second one penny spent is to much. Time to let this case go.

I didn't think your record mattered that much as long as you won a state championship. I would think they would be happy that that wasn't taken from them.

I didn't think your record mattered that much as long as you won a state championship. I would think they would be happy that that wasn't taken from them.

 

The reason Highlands people are mad is because Mike Mitchell won his court case and the KHSAA did not give the wins back that were won fair and square and by the rules

Let's recap just for old-times sake...shall we !

 

Clearly HHS chose to play Mitchell when a "Court of Compentent Jurisdiction" ruled him eligible and DIDN"T play him when a "Court of Compentent Jurisdiction" ruled him ineligible;

 

Clearly HHS had two options:

 

a) follow a court order - honor the kids right to participate in a high-school sport

 

b) voilate a court order - deny the kids right to participate in a high school sport because KHSAA said he shouldn't (btw, you can't restore the ability of a HS kid to play later when the legal wrangling is over)

 

Obviously they chose option a) and the result was:

 

He played when the Court ruled he could....didn't play when the Court ruled he couldn't;

 

Aftermath:

 

Ultimately it was determined (there's that legal wrangling again) that he should have been eligible to play the entire season and that KHSAA cannot supercede a court order.

 

KHSAA changed their by-laws to reflect the court rulings, so thankfully this will not likely occur again;

 

HHS wants reversal of decision by KHSAA sanctions that were placed on them CONTRARY to the subsequent rulings by a "Court of Competent Jurisdiction" that would reflect the history that took place on the field, not in a courtroom/boardroom;

 

Their current letter/appeal is based on a matter of principle;

 

Subsequent posts from this one will continue to not understand the difference between law, KHSSA policy, governing bodies, and personal biases;

 

And in the end, HHS will still house the 2004 state championship trophy, Mr. Mitchell received an opportunity to participate in HS football, and at least he is well past this part of his life and ..........maybe we should all do the same:isurrender:

 

Or........maybe it is all about schematics .........

Edited February 11, 201016 yr by remmac

The reason Highlands people are mad is because Mike Mitchell won his court case and the KHSAA did not give the wins back that were won fair and square and by the rules

 

What exactly did the court rule? Did the court determine he had a "bona fide" change in address or what was the ruling?

Let's recap just for old-times sake...shall we !

 

Clearly HHS chose to play Mitchell when a "Court of Compentent Jurisdiction" ruled him eligible and DIDN"T play him when a "Court of Compentent Jurisdiction" ruled him ineligible;

 

Clearly HHS had two options:

 

a) follow a court order - honor the kids right to participate in a high-school sport

 

b) voilate a court order - deny the kids right to participate in a high school sport because KHSAA said he shouldn't (btw, you can't restore the ability of a HS kid to play later when the legal wrangling is over)

 

Obviously they chose option a) and the result was:

 

He played when the Court ruled he could....didn't play when the Court ruled he couldn't;

 

Aftermath:

 

Ultimately it was determined (there's that legal wrangling again) that he should have been eligible to play the entire season and that KHSAA cannot supercede a court order.

 

KHSAA changed their by-laws to reflect the court rulings, so thankfully this will not likely occur again;

 

HHS wants reversal of decision by KHSAA sanctions that were placed on them CONTRARY to the subsequent rulings by a "Court of Competent Jurisdiction" that would reflect the history that took place on the field, not in a courtroom/boardroom;

 

Their current letter/appeal is based on a matter of principle;

 

Subsequent posts from this one will continue to not understand the difference between law, KHSSA policy, governing bodies, and personal biases;

 

And in the end, HHS will still house the 2004 state championship trophy, Mr. Mitchell received an opportunity to participate in HS football, and at least he is well past this part of his life and ..........maybe we should all do the same:isurrender:

 

Or........maybe it is all about schematics .........

 

Very funny, I guess in the end the attitude @ HHS is just win baby we'll go to court to give the appearance of doing it ethically after the fact. You know just schematics....:thumb:

What exactly did the court rule? Did the court determine he had a "bona fide" change in address or what was the ruling?

 

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

This kid was also granted a temporary injunction to play, but instead of only missing a couple of games, he had to sit the entire season. Whitley Co.'s administration told him they would not play him until the KHSAA approved it, regardless of a court order, because they had agreed to abide by the KHSAA's rules by becoming a member school.

 

 

You nailed it right there! When you agree to become a member school (which is optional), you also agree to abide by their rulings and decisions (even when they do not go in your favor). That is an agreement that the KHSAA has with all of it's member schools. Good for the Whitley Co. AD, he made the right decision.

I want to take a different angle for second. I have a question for those HHS' people "in the know" regarding this Mitchell situation. Let's leave the court decision completely aside for just one brief second. Based on the facts that you know to be true - and certainly HHS had to have done their own due diligence at the time in trying to decide whether Mitchell's move was legitimate - was his move indeed legitimate?

 

I ask because hopefully you can at least appreciate that to those of us that are "non-HHS'ers", this move sounds rather disingenuous and based in good part (if not solely) on athletics. Unfortunately, our court system makes mistakes all the time. The courts are run by human beings and human beings are not infallible. Does anyone think O.J. was innocent? The court says he was. But was he really?

 

I know the court says Mitchell was eligible. But was he really?

If I remember correctly, the Mitchell's moved to Fort Thomas in December of his junior year. He began attending Highlands that January. The first time I met him he was standing in front of the school that winter in a tux because he was a member of the school choir.

 

I believe his parents said he was unhappy at Covington Catholic and had been having trouble academically. They thought a change of schools would help him in that area. The Mitchell's also said they moved to the one-floor apartment in Fort Thomas in part because Michael's mother had injured her foot or leg and couldn't get up the steps in their Florence home.

 

In the end, Michael did better in the classroom at Highlands and enjoyed his experience there.

You nailed it right there! When you agree to become a member school (which is optional), you also agree to abide by their rulings and decisions (even when they do not go in your favor). That is an agreement that the KHSAA has with all of it's member schools. Good for the Whitley Co. AD, he made the right decision.

 

 

Then why have the appeal option? And if you do appeal, aren't you abiding by another one of their rulings making that avenue available?