The biggest game of the year for the Illini is tomorrow in U.S. Central District Court. Terrence Shannon Jr’s legal team filed a 109-page memorandum on 01/10/24 in support of his Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. To summarize, see the 🧵 below:
The case was removed to Federal Court by the Univ. of Illinois (out of state court in Champaign Co.). The suit claims the criminal charges will not be tried in Douglas County (KS) until well after the season is over + after the NBA Draft on June 27, 2024 which will cause irreparable harm to TSJ.
The above dates are indeed true. A potential criminal trial date in Kansas could be as early as the fall of 2024 or even stretch into late 2025. TSJ will be long gone by then to the NBA if allowed to play.
Of note, TSJ has a terrific legal team which features U of I alum, Mark Goldenberg, who represented then Assistant Coach Jimmy Collins + Richard Nagy during 1990 NCAA investigation with Deon Thomas and LaPhonso Ellis. TSJ’s lawyers are in good standing and well respected by the Illinois athletic administration.
The above dates are indeed true. A potential criminal trial date in Kansas could be as early as the fall of 2024 or even stretch into late 2025. TSJ will be long gone by then to the NBA if allowed to play.
Of note, TSJ has a terrific legal team which features U of I alum, Mark Goldenberg, who represented then Assistant Coach Jimmy Collins + Richard Nagy during 1990 NCAA investigation with Deon Thomas and LaPhonso Ellis. TSJ’s lawyers are in good standing and well respected by the Illinois athletic administration.
Fortunately, for TSJ, the State of Illinois recently + successfully argued in obtaining a preliminary junction that “courts have repeatedly found that college athletes suffer irreparable harm when they are denied the opportunity to play sports.” (See, Ohio v. NCAA, decided one month ago)
All TSJ must do at this point is show there is “some likelihood” that he will succeed on his claims (a very low bar, I might add).
The key point in all this and where I believe the suit favors TSJ: a University employee transported TSJ to Lawrence in the scope of his employment which triggers Title IX. However, Illinois determined the alleged incident fell outside of Title IX and thus did not provide TSJ those protections.
As a consequence, the suit claims Illinois violated its own policies and by suspending TSJ from the team, breached its contractual obligations to TSJ (i.e., scholarship paperwork) and Illinois has contradicted itself in defining exactly what standards apply to disciplinary proceedings against TSJ.
All TSJ must do at this point is show there is “some likelihood” that he will succeed on his claims (a very low bar, I might add).
The key point in all this and where I believe the suit favors TSJ: a University employee transported TSJ to Lawrence in the scope of his employment which triggers Title IX. However, Illinois determined the alleged incident fell outside of Title IX and thus did not provide TSJ those protections.
As a consequence, the suit claims Illinois violated its own policies and by suspending TSJ from the team, breached its contractual obligations to TSJ (i.e., scholarship paperwork) and Illinois has contradicted itself in defining exactly what standards apply to disciplinary proceedings against TSJ.
The suit further alleged that the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics’ policy is completely one-sided and the 3-person panel of faculty members were more focused on the harm to Illinois and not TSJ’s presumption of innocence. Two bizarre facts: (1) there was no investigation by Illinois, and (2) there was no hearing that TSJ attended to present his side (wow!). Further, there was no record of any proceedings ever provided to TSJ nor was there an explanation of the “ruling.” These seems suspicious at best and utterly irresponsible at worst.
To a reasonable, objective observer, TSJ was promised the “presumption of innocence” by the University, but all actions to date indicate otherwise.
To a reasonable, objective observer, TSJ was promised the “presumption of innocence” by the University, but all actions to date indicate otherwise.
Even more interesting, Illinois started another process against TSJ on January 5, 2024, that has received little publicity. Apparently, Illinois’ Office of Student Conflict Resolution indicates he violated their policy, too. It is unclear what he violated from the suit. His attorneys claim this disciplinary process is inconsistent with the first process that led to his suspension from the team.
This lawsuit is not about the criminal case whatsoever. It is strictly temporary and to enforce relief immediately. That said, the lawsuit takes repeated digs at the underlying criminal case and the shoddy investigation to date.
The primary factors in TSJ’s favor:
1) TSJ needs to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits in light of the irreparable harm he could suffer absent injunctive relief. Again, this is a fairly low bar.
2) There is credible evidence that,
procedurally, Title IX was not followed correctly and TSJ’s due process rights were arguably violated. Title IX is incredibly detailed and is to be liberally construed in favor of applicability.
3) There is a likelihood that the DIA policy is found to be substantively unconscionable because the terms are so slanted in favor of Illinois and against a student.
4) TSJ can likely show that the OSCR Policy and DIA Policy contradict themselves which creates a justiciable controversy in need of the court’s resolution.
5) Any reasonable person could determine that TSJ would suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary, injunctive relief, which, when balancing the harms, and the public interest presumption of innocence, this way heavily in favor of innocent, until proven guilty as opposed to guilty until proven innocent.
6) Although not discussed above, TSJ argues he only signed scholarship paperwork and not any other policies. Artfully stated, the suit alleges one would need a Venn diagram to explain Illinois’ overlapping standards to expose their inconsistencies.
1) TSJ needs to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits in light of the irreparable harm he could suffer absent injunctive relief. Again, this is a fairly low bar.
2) There is credible evidence that,
procedurally, Title IX was not followed correctly and TSJ’s due process rights were arguably violated. Title IX is incredibly detailed and is to be liberally construed in favor of applicability.
3) There is a likelihood that the DIA policy is found to be substantively unconscionable because the terms are so slanted in favor of Illinois and against a student.
4) TSJ can likely show that the OSCR Policy and DIA Policy contradict themselves which creates a justiciable controversy in need of the court’s resolution.
5) Any reasonable person could determine that TSJ would suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary, injunctive relief, which, when balancing the harms, and the public interest presumption of innocence, this way heavily in favor of innocent, until proven guilty as opposed to guilty until proven innocent.
6) Although not discussed above, TSJ argues he only signed scholarship paperwork and not any other policies. Artfully stated, the suit alleges one would need a Venn diagram to explain Illinois’ overlapping standards to expose their inconsistencies.
Last, but not least, the suit alleges that any alleged harm to Illinois and its reputation would be mitigated by the fact that a court of equity would be telling Illinois what to do, which would bind their decision, thus shifting blame to the court system as opposed to the University for the temporary decision. This saves face for everyone at Illinois if the result backfires and/or he is ultimately convicted.
If he, in fact, committed the crime, that will prove itself in the court system. But until then, TSJ (just like you and I), deserves the presumption of innocence.
Therefore, the Petition for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should be granted. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason and we all deserve a full opportunity to present both sides of the story before we are stripped of our rights completely. ⚖️
If he, in fact, committed the crime, that will prove itself in the court system. But until then, TSJ (just like you and I), deserves the presumption of innocence.
Therefore, the Petition for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should be granted. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason and we all deserve a full opportunity to present both sides of the story before we are stripped of our rights completely. ⚖️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
