BOMBSHELL: Mater Dei Hazing Scandal

[HawgGoneIt]

5 minutes ago, HurricaneNick said:

The kid with “lifelong traumatic brain injuries” competed in high school sports this year. The incident should’ve never happened. I’m not excusing that behavior, actually really pisses me off, but to think every allegation is true is also wrong. 

There is video of the incident along with kids sitting around disinterested as if it is just another day in the locker room. Lol. 

I'm not saying many allegations are true, but, if it quacks like a duck it's usually a duck. I did see a rabbit one time that thought he was a duck but he couldn't quack, and I saw a duck that thought it was a chicken following the chickens around the yard, but it didn't crow, it quacked. 

 

Just because the DA doesn't think it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in front a jury also doesn't mean it is not true. Just means he doesn't think he can prosecute hazing successfuly.

[HurricaneNick]

1 minute ago, RedZone said:

All I know is there is a kid with a busted up face and brain.......and, there's video proof and doctor's reports of said ritual injuries........is that a lie?

You want so desperately to believe it's all one big lie and will float down the money train till it vanishes......why?> you are hurricanewendy, head mater dei cheerleader and head mater dei picture poster!

Never said it was a lie, never said I wanted it to vanish. You’re flailing, scrambling for something. Embarrassing. You’re a joke. What did the mayor say about the Catholic school tv deal you manic bum? Tell us. 

[RedZone]

1 minute ago, HurricaneNick said:

Never said it was a lie, never said I wanted it to vanish

Well, accept it!

and, don't be so proud of yourself because nothing is happening yet regarding the case.

 

[MCJoeSpeed]

7 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Just because the DA doesn't think it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in front a jury also doesn't mean it is not true. Just means he doesn't think he can prosecute hazing successfuly.

http://orangecountyda.org/civica/press/display.asp?layout=15&Entry=6198

The DA said there were two people fighting.  

[HawgGoneIt]

21 minutes ago, MCJoeSpeed said:

http://orangecountyda.org/civica/press/display.asp?layout=15&Entry=6198

The DA said there were two people fighting.  

Of course there was. Did the stories in the papers say anything other? 

I haven't seen one that did. 

The papers allege hazing, and I tend to think that's a reasonable conclusion given the video and head injured kids claim in the law suit. 

The DA says he can't prove that in court, but, that doesn't make it untrue. 

I can't figure out why he jumped out there with that statement. Seems really strange, and he even says he knows it is, but, he printed it and signed it anyway. Lol

[MCJoeSpeed]

6 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I can't figure out why he jumped out there with that statement. Seems really strange, and he even says he knows it is, but, he printed it and signed it anyway. Lol

did you miss this part?

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office does not normally comment on investigations involving juveniles. However, the facts surrounding the situation that occurred in a Mater Dei High School boys’ locker room involving two teenage football players has been so erroneously reported by the media we have no choice but to correct the record and provide the accurate facts.

[res ipsa loquitur]

I've been a lurker on this board for a long time, but the erroneous/incorrect comments on this thread have motivated me to break my silence.

As background, I (1) am a former player on a National #1 ranked MD football team (though that ranking unfortunately did not last through the end of the season); (2) graduated from a top law school and now work as a litigator at one of the top 100 law firms in the world; and (3) my wife currently is an attorney assisting a judge in this court--though she works for a different judge than the one hearing this case. Feel free to take my opinions with a grain of salt given my inherent bias towards MD and Rollinson as a former player.  But, my statements of fact and about the state of the law will be far more accurate than anything posted here so far (or in the LA Times and OC Register to be fair).

First, as explained in further detail below, the OC Register and LA Times articles are total hit jobs orchestrated by plaintiff's counsel to arouse public outrage and hopefully obtain a settlement. The media has ignored all evidence to the contrary and completely uncritically parroted the naked/conclusory allegations of plaintiff's counsel.

Second, you can (and people often do) lie in a lawsuit. But, here, despite the provable lies in the complaint (evidence that has yet to come out will bare this out), Rollo and MD cannot countersue the plaintiff or open original actions against the LA Times or the OC Register for defamation. In short, this is due to the first amendment. A plaintiff has a first amendment right to petition the government, i.e., to file a civil complaint. If an action were filed alleging that the plaintiff's complaint is defamatory, it would be thrown out on an anti-SLAPP motion. Re the LA Times and OC Register, if you look closely, the articles take great pains to clarify either that they are offering opinions (as opposed to stating facts) or to note that they are quoting "facts" from the complaint. By reporting what the complaint says (even if its BS), the newspapers are insulated from a defamation lawsuit. (*Some small caveats to my statement that there are no repercussions to a BS complaint: (i) In federal court (this is state court), there is the Twombley/Iqbal standard that a complaint must be "plausible." If a complaint is not plausible, the case can be dismissed immediately. (ii) If a claim is so baseless that the attorney did not believe in good faith it was true, the court could issue a sanctions order, e.g., requiring the payment of defendant's attorneys fees. This is very rare, but it recently happened in some of the 2020 election cases that were thrown out.)

Third, there is no hazing at MD football--let alone a culture of hazing. More facts will come out later, but one should note that even the complaint admits that the plaintiff lied to the trainer about what happened to him and that kids initially tried to hide the incident from the coaches and administration (though the complaint tries to cover for this issue by alleging that the trainer made a "face" suggesting that he did not believe the plaintiff's lie). This is because they knew they'd get in big trouble--MD and Rollo do not tolerate such actions (more on that below). The player who  is the subject of the complaint was severely punished though he was allowed to come back to the team this year. (This incident is from last season. Also, curious that people who are supposedly so worried about the safety of kids waited 9 months--until the week of the championship game, when the story would have the most impact and could encourage a bigger settlement--to go public. Weren't they putting kids at risk by not going public sooner? Answer: no, because there is no hazing. This is an isolated incident.  But the plaintiff's parents are mad (i) that their son, who broke school rules by getting in a fight that he instigated, was punished at all and (ii) that the brown kid who hurt their son was suspended but not permanently expelled. )

Fourth, MD and Rollo acted quickly. The next day, there were all hands on deck meetings involving all coaches of all sports. The AD and administration informed coaches of the incident and to be on the lookout for any similar violence. MD also (as supported by the OC DA's statement) cooperated with a thorough investigation and actually brought the incident to the OC DA's attention--there was zero cover up. People who could bring criminal charges against anyone involved were informed. Yes, MD did not release some public statement, and rightly so. This incident involved juveniles who were both rightly punished. If the OC DA had found that there was evidence to support a hazing charge, which would implicate Rollo or any other adults, it would have been made public at that time. But, there was not "a shred of evidence" to support any such charges (the OC DA's actual words today).

Fifth and finally, I do not know whether or not Rollo said what the complaint quotes him as supposedly saying to the dad, i.e., if I had a $100 for every time the kids played bodies I'd be a millionaire. Only Rollo and the dad know what was said. But, I am very skeptical of the father's account based, in part, on a relevant incident I experienced when I played at MD. I am racially ambiguous (half black and half Filipino), but I could pass for Arab. At MD, under my pads, I used to regularly wear a t-shirt with the word "MECCA"—the name of a hip-hop clothing brand—across the front of it. One day, three evangelical Christian players on the team—one of them a pivotal starter—saw the t-shirt, asked if I was Muslim, and threatened to "kick [my] ass"  if I ever wore it again. My parents reported the incident directly to Coach Rollinson, who immediately got the school's administration involved and disciplined the offending players. Further, Coach Rollinson told my parents that they had his support if they decided they wanted to seek charges against the players and/or wanted to have the players expelled. Most significantly to me (and relevant to recent events), Coach Rollinson brought me into his office and said, among other things, "I don't care if we lose every game this season, your safety is my top priority." I'll always remember those words (i) considering the supposed/false win at all costs perspective of MD that outsiders have and (ii) because I was a bench warmer. Rollo put a bench warmer's safety over the success of his best team in years.

P.S. When the story broke in the OC Register, I sent the story of my experience to Eric Sondheimer and reporters at the OC Register. I have yet to receive a response. The narrative that some in the media wish to push (again, insulated from any defamation suits based on the pending lawsuit) is clear. So who's really trying to cover things up?

[HawgGoneIt]

31 minutes ago, MCJoeSpeed said:

did you miss this part?

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office does not normally comment on investigations involving juveniles. However, the facts surrounding the situation that occurred in a Mater Dei High School boys’ locker room involving two teenage football players has been so erroneously reported by the media we have no choice but to correct the record and provide the accurate facts.

What facts were erroneously reported?? I've been reading along with the posted stories and haven't seen what he's on about. Lol. 

He's no better than them apparently. He didn't provide the facts that he feels were so erroneously reported.

[MCJoeSpeed]

5 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

What facts were erroneously reported?? I've been reading along with the posted stories and haven't seen what he's on about. Lol. 

He's no better than them apparently. He didn't provide the facts that he feels were so erroneously reported.

I'll pray that your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills improve.  You'll need it in the new economy.  Jesus love you.

[HawgGoneIt]

3 minutes ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

I've been a lurker on this board for a long time, but the erroneous/incorrect comments on this thread have motivated me to break my silence.

As background, I (1) am a former player on a National #1 ranked MD football team (though that ranking unfortunately did not last through the end of the season); (2) graduated from a top law school and now work as a litigator at one of the top 100 law firms in the world; and (3) my wife currently is an attorney assisting a judge in this court--though she works for a different judge than the one hearing this case. Feel free to take my opinions with a grain of salt given my inherent bias towards MD and Rollinson as a former player.  But, my statements of fact and the state of the law will be far more accurate than anything posted here so far (or in the LA Times and OC Register to be fair).

First, as explained in further detail below, the OC Register and LA Times articles are total hit jobs orchestrated by plaintiff's counsel to arouse public outrage and hopefully obtain a settlement. The media has ignored all evidence to the contrary and completely uncritically parroted the naked/conclusory allegations of plaintiff's counsel.

Second, you can (and people often do) lie in a lawsuit. But, here, despite the provable lies in the complaint (evidence that has yet to come out will bare this out), Rollo and MD cannot countersue the plaintiff or open original actions against the LA Times or the OC Register for defamation. In short, this is due to the first amendment. A plaintiff, has a first amendment right to petition the government, i.e., to file a civil complaint. action filed that alleges the plaintiff's complaint is defamatory would be thrown out on an anti-SLAPP motion. Re the LA Times and OC Register, if you look closely, the articles take great pains to clarify either that they are offering opinions (as opposed to stating facts) or to note that they are quoting "facts" from the complaint. By reporting what the complaint says (even if its BS), the newspapers are insulated from a defamation lawsuit. (*Some small caveats to my statement that there are no repercussions to a BS complaint: (i) In federal court (this is state court), there is the Twombley/Iqbal standard that a complaint be "plausible." If a complaint is not plausible, the case can be dismissed immediately. (ii) If a claim is so baseless that the attorney did not believe in good faith that the claims were true, the court could issue a sanctions order, e.g., requiring the payment of defendant's attorneys fees. This is very rare, but it recently happened in some of the 2020 election cases that were thrown out.)

Third, there is no hazing at MD football--let alone a culture of hazing. More facts will come out later, but one should note that even the complaint admits that the plaintiff lied to the trainer about what happened to him and that kids initially tried to hide the incident from the coaches and administration (though the complaint tries to cover for this issue by alleging that the trainer made a "face" suggesting that he did not believe the plaintiff's lie). This is because they knew they'd get in big trouble--MD and Rollo do not tolerate such actions (more on that below). The player who  is the subject of the complaint was severely punished though he was allowed to come back to the team this year. (This incident is from last season. Also, curious that people who are supposedly so worried about the safety of kids waited 9 months--until the week of the championship game, when the story would have the most impact and could encourage a bigger settlement--to go public. Weren't they putting kids at risk by not going public sooner? Answer: no, because there is no hazing. This is an isolated incident.  But parents are mad (i) that their son, who broke school rules by getting in a fight  that he actually instigated was punished at all and (ii) that the brown kid who hurt their son was suspended but not permanently expelled. )

Fourth, MD and Rollo acted quickly. The next day, there were all hands on deck meetings involving all coaches of all sports. The AD and administration informed coaches of the incident and to be on the lookout for any similar violence. MD also (as supported by the OC DA's statement) cooperated with a thorough investigation and actually brought the incident to the OC DA's attention--there was zero cover up. People who could bring criminal charges against anyone involved were informed. Yes, MD did not release some public statement, and rightly so. This incident involved juveniles who were both rightly punished. If the OC DA had found that there was evidence to support hazing, which would implicate Rollo or any other adults, it would have been made public at that time. But, there was not "a shred of evidence" to support any such charges (the OC DA's actual words today).

Fifth and finally, I do not know whether or not Rollo said what the complaint quotes him as supposedly saying to the dad, i.e., if I had a $100 for every time the kids played bodies I'd be a millionaire. Only Rollo and the dad know what was said. But, I am very skeptical of the father's account based, in part, on a relevant incident I experienced when I played at MD. I am racially ambiguous (half black and half Filipino), but I could pass for Arab. At MD, under my pads, I used to regularly wear a t-shirt with the word "MECCA"—the name of a hip-hop clothing brand—across the front of it. One day, three evangelical Christian players on the team—one of them a pivotal starter—saw the t-shirt, asked if I was Muslim, and threatened to "kick my ass"  if I ever wore it again. My parents reported the incident directly to Coach Rollinson, who immediately got the school's administration involved and disciplined the offending players. Further, Coach Rollinson told my parents that they had his support if they decided they wanted to seek charges against the players and/or wanted to have the players expelled. Most significantly to me (and relevant to recent events), Coach Rollinson brought me into his office and said, among other things, "I don't care if we lose every game this season, your safety is my top priority." I'll always remember those words (i) considering the supposed/false win at all costs perspective of MD that outsiders have and (ii) because I was a bench warmer. Rollo put a bench warmer's safety over the success of his best team in years.

P.S. When the story broke in the OC Register, I sent the story of my experience to Eric Sondheimer and reporters at the OC Register. I have yet to receive a response. The narrative that some in the media wish to push (again, insulated from any defamation suits based on the pending lawsuit) is clear. So who's really trying to cover things up?

Why were several kids apparently completely uninterested in some orchestrated fight going on? Is this not something to peak the interest of potential hazing culture going on in that locker room? I mean they carried on like it wasn't even happening, right? Didn't flinch at the language being used by the cheer section. Didn't look up to see what the apparent scuffle was at all. Very strange to me. Maybe it's just normal to completely ignore a fight between some of their teammates and that language is also very normal. Seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

It's difficult to put that to rest regardless of how you feel about the media reporting. The reporting appeared to me to pretty much print the allegations in the suit, and then discuss what they saw themselves in the videos, and compare that to the allegations in the suit. 

[HawgGoneIt]

3 minutes ago, MCJoeSpeed said:

I'll pray that your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills improve.  You'll need it in the new economy.  Jesus love you.

Show me the erroneously reported facts. Do what the DA did not. It would be much appreciated from me, who apparently needs your prayers for reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. 

Help me out pal. I tend to derp sometimes. 

[res ipsa loquitur]

1 minute ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Why were several kids apparently completely uninterested in some orchestrated fight going on? Is this not something to peak the interest of potential hazing culture going on in that locker room? I mean they carried on like it wasn't even happening, right? Didn't flinch at the language being used by the cheer section. Didn't look up to see what the apparent scuffle was at all. Very strange to me. Maybe it's just normal to completely ignore a fight between some of their teammates and that language is also very normal. Seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

It's difficult to put that to rest regardless of how you feel about the media reporting. The reporting appeared to me to pretty much print the allegations in the suit, and then discuss what they saw themselves in the videos, and compare that to the allegations in the suit. 

It's not hard to figure out if you don't start from your premise that there is hazing. Have you ever been in a subway or on a bus when people start doing something crazy?  Its a common reaction to ignore the incident. This is particularly unsurprising given that there are only a couple kids in the locker room in the video. With a larger group, an individual would feel more empowered to jump in and break up a fight--knowing there is sufficient back up.  If this was hazing, why weren't other's cheering it on.  Hazing by definition (California Penal Code § 245.6) is a right of initiation. Odd for a supposed hazing incident to involve so little involvement by any others, no?

Either way, we are both speculating and trying to read the minds of about 3 or 4 teenagers who were in a large room when two other teenagers came in midway through fist fighting. As OC DA and MD determined through investigation, there was no broader apparatus around this fight--encouraging or sanctioning it. And the after the fact punishments and disclosure to the OC DA are consistent with an effort to prevent such incidents--not condone them.

[MCJoeSpeed]

8 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Show me the erroneously reported facts.

[maxchoboian]

14 minutes ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

I've been a lurker on this board for a long time, but the erroneous/incorrect comments on this thread have motivated me to break my silence.

Feel free to take my opinions with a grain of salt given my inherent bias towards MD and Rollinson as a former player.  But, my statements of fact and the state of the law will be far more accurate than anything posted here so far (or in the LA Times and OC Register to be fair).

 

It's page 11.

I'm not convinced your post is "far more accurate than anything posted here so far", as you suggest. It might be, but you just never know. Hell, you might be GSB. As a long time lurker, I'm sure you get it.

Thanks for contributing, though. MD has a huge target on their chest, and being exposed to various viewpoints is a good thing in these instances.

[HawgGoneIt]

1 minute ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

It's not hard to figure out if you don't start from your premise that there is hazing. Have you ever been in a subway or on a bus when people start doing something crazy?  Its a common reaction to ignore the incident. This is particularly unsurprising given that there are only a couple kids in the locker room in the video. With a larger group, an individual would feel more empowered to jump in and break up a fight--knowing there is sufficient back up.  If this was hazing, why weren't other's cheering it on.  Hazing by definition (California Penal Code § 245.6) is a right of initiation. Odd for a supposed hazing incident to involve so little involvement by any others, no?

Either way, we are both speculating and trying to read the minds of about 3 or 4 teenagers who were in a large room when two other teenagers came in midway through fist fighting. As OC DA and MD determined through investigation, there was no broader apparatus around this fight--encouraging or sanctioning it. And the after the fact punishments and disclosure to the OC DA are consistent with an effort to prevent such incidents--not condone them.

Yeah idk. Seems like there was some others cheering it on. There were also others acting as if it was so normal so as to be completely uninterested in the ruckus and cheering. 

Again, just because the DA didn't see enough to actually feel as if he could win a prosecution against anyone, doesn't mean it isn't happening. It simply means he didn't feel like he could successfully prosecute the case. 

I'm just an interested observer completely disconnected from any emotions involving this one way or the other. 

The actions of the two fighting kids were odd. The cheering from others was odd. Their language was apparently odd. The fact that several others totally ignored a fight and cheering also very odd. Of course this is coming from someone without a dog in the fight at all. Just on the outside looking in like so many folks that watch court tv and Nancy Grace and etc. 

[res ipsa loquitur]

 

8 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Show me the erroneously reported facts. Do what the DA did not. It would be much appreciated from me, who apparently needs your prayers for reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. 

Help me out pal. I tend to derp sometimes. 

Among other things, the reports falsely claim that there was a cover up and no real investigation by MD and/or the DA. There was. In addition, the media claims that MD has a culture of hazing and that this "bodies" game was common and well known on the team--it was not. It is implied that "Player 2"  was not punished while the injured plaintiff was punished (supposedly as retaliation). Player 2 was, severely and was not allowed to return to the team for the season (though that was not severe enough for the rich parents of the white student/plaintiff's liking) and there was no retaliation.

I could go on.

[res ipsa loquitur]

23 minutes ago, maxchoboian said:

It's page 11.

I'm not convinced your post is "far more accurate than anything posted here so far", as you suggest. It might be, but you just never know. Hell, you might be GSB. As a long time lurker, I'm sure you get it.

Thanks for contributing, though. MD has a huge target on their chest, and being exposed to various viewpoints is a good thing in these instances.

I get the joke--it's a good one 🙂

Thank you for welcoming me to the board.

And to clarify, my statements about legal standards (e.g., whether MD and Rollo could sue for defamation--they can't) are more accurate. Regarding my factual claims, some (I'm confident) are more accurate. But, as I said in my original post, please feel free to take my statements with a grain of salt given my history with Rollo and MD (and what I know about the parents of the plaintiff).

[res ipsa loquitur]

20 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Yeah idk. Seems like there was some others cheering it on. There were also others acting as if it was so normal so as to be completely uninterested in the ruckus and cheering. 

Again, just because the DA didn't see enough to actually feel as if he could win a prosecution against anyone, doesn't mean it isn't happening. It simply means he didn't feel like he could successfully prosecute the case. 

I'm just an interested observer completely disconnected from any emotions involving this one way or the other. 

The actions of the two fighting kids were odd. The cheering from others was odd. Their language was apparently odd. The fact that several others totally ignored a fight and cheering also very odd. Of course this is coming from someone without a dog in the fight at all. Just on the outside looking in like so many folks that watch court tv and Nancy Grace and etc. 

Fair enough

[RedZone]

1 hour ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

I've been a lurker on this board for a long time, but the erroneous/incorrect comments on this thread have motivated me to break my silence.

As background, I (1) am a former player on a National #1 ranked MD football team (though that ranking unfortunately did not last through the end of the season); (2) graduated from a top law school and now work as a litigator at one of the top 100 law firms in the world; and (3) my wife currently is an attorney assisting a judge in this court--though she works for a different judge than the one hearing this case. Feel free to take my opinions with a grain of salt given my inherent bias towards MD and Rollinson as a former player.  But, my statements of fact and the state of the law will be far more accurate than anything posted here so far (or in the LA Times and OC Register to be fair).

First, as explained in further detail below, the OC Register and LA Times articles are total hit jobs orchestrated by plaintiff's counsel to arouse public outrage and hopefully obtain a settlement. The media has ignored all evidence to the contrary and completely uncritically parroted the naked/conclusory allegations of plaintiff's counsel.

Second, you can (and people often do) lie in a lawsuit. But, here, despite the provable lies in the complaint (evidence that has yet to come out will bare this out), Rollo and MD cannot countersue the plaintiff or open original actions against the LA Times or the OC Register for defamation. In short, this is due to the first amendment. A plaintiff has a first amendment right to petition the government, i.e., to file a civil complaint. If an action were filed alleging that the plaintiff's complaint is defamatory, it would be thrown out on an anti-SLAPP motion. Re the LA Times and OC Register, if you look closely, the articles take great pains to clarify either that they are offering opinions (as opposed to stating facts) or to note that they are quoting "facts" from the complaint. By reporting what the complaint says (even if its BS), the newspapers are insulated from a defamation lawsuit. (*Some small caveats to my statement that there are no repercussions to a BS complaint: (i) In federal court (this is state court), there is the Twombley/Iqbal standard that a complaint must be "plausible." If a complaint is not plausible, the case can be dismissed immediately. (ii) If a claim is so baseless that the attorney did not believe in good faith that the claims were true, the court could issue a sanctions order, e.g., requiring the payment of defendant's attorneys fees. This is very rare, but it recently happened in some of the 2020 election cases that were thrown out.)

Third, there is no hazing at MD football--let alone a culture of hazing. More facts will come out later, but one should note that even the complaint admits that the plaintiff lied to the trainer about what happened to him and that kids initially tried to hide the incident from the coaches and administration (though the complaint tries to cover for this issue by alleging that the trainer made a "face" suggesting that he did not believe the plaintiff's lie). This is because they knew they'd get in big trouble--MD and Rollo do not tolerate such actions (more on that below). The player who  is the subject of the complaint was severely punished though he was allowed to come back to the team this year. (This incident is from last season. Also, curious that people who are supposedly so worried about the safety of kids waited 9 months--until the week of the championship game, when the story would have the most impact and could encourage a bigger settlement--to go public. Weren't they putting kids at risk by not going public sooner? Answer: no, because there is no hazing. This is an isolated incident.  But the plaintiff's parents are mad (i) that their son, who broke school rules by getting in a fight that he instigated, was punished at all and (ii) that the brown kid who hurt their son was suspended but not permanently expelled. )

Fourth, MD and Rollo acted quickly. The next day, there were all hands on deck meetings involving all coaches of all sports. The AD and administration informed coaches of the incident and to be on the lookout for any similar violence. MD also (as supported by the OC DA's statement) cooperated with a thorough investigation and actually brought the incident to the OC DA's attention--there was zero cover up. People who could bring criminal charges against anyone involved were informed. Yes, MD did not release some public statement, and rightly so. This incident involved juveniles who were both rightly punished. If the OC DA had found that there was evidence to support a hazing charge, which would implicate Rollo or any other adults, it would have been made public at that time. But, there was not "a shred of evidence" to support any such charges (the OC DA's actual words today).

Fifth and finally, I do not know whether or not Rollo said what the complaint quotes him as supposedly saying to the dad, i.e., if I had a $100 for every time the kids played bodies I'd be a millionaire. Only Rollo and the dad know what was said. But, I am very skeptical of the father's account based, in part, on a relevant incident I experienced when I played at MD. I am racially ambiguous (half black and half Filipino), but I could pass for Arab. At MD, under my pads, I used to regularly wear a t-shirt with the word "MECCA"—the name of a hip-hop clothing brand—across the front of it. One day, three evangelical Christian players on the team—one of them a pivotal starter—saw the t-shirt, asked if I was Muslim, and threatened to "kick my ass"  if I ever wore it again. My parents reported the incident directly to Coach Rollinson, who immediately got the school's administration involved and disciplined the offending players. Further, Coach Rollinson told my parents that they had his support if they decided they wanted to seek charges against the players and/or wanted to have the players expelled. Most significantly to me (and relevant to recent events), Coach Rollinson brought me into his office and said, among other things, "I don't care if we lose every game this season, your safety is my top priority." I'll always remember those words (i) considering the supposed/false win at all costs perspective of MD that outsiders have and (ii) because I was a bench warmer. Rollo put a bench warmer's safety over the success of his best team in years.

P.S. When the story broke in the OC Register, I sent the story of my experience to Eric Sondheimer and reporters at the OC Register. I have yet to receive a response. The narrative that some in the media wish to push (again, insulated from any defamation suits based on the pending lawsuit) is clear. So who's really trying to cover things up?

Bullshit!

[dntn31]

Just now, RedZone said:

Bullshit!

Wow! What a rebuttal! I'm sold. 😂

[RedZone]

1 minute ago, dntn31 said:

Wow! What a rebuttal! I'm sold. 😂

It's all that is needed for that load of crap!

Jesus  Christ!

[res ipsa loquitur]

21 minutes ago, RedZone said:

It's all that is needed for that load of crap!

Jesus  Christ!

Which part do you think is untrue?  IDK if its against the board's rules, but (if it's not) I'll post my real identity if you want to challenge me.  I'll even give you my California Bar Number if you want to allege that I'm misleading the public and violating my oath in some form. Have at it. If you want to say that my summary of the racist incident that happened to me (and what Rollo did to protect my safety) is untrue, I have contemporaneous emails to back up my claims. I can also screen shot the emails that I sent to the LA Times and OC Register, which they have since ignored. I'm an open book. 

Why does a factual, educated and informed rebuttal to a narrative you apparently hold so dearly engender so much anger in you? Are you that hard up for a more valid reason to hate Mater Dei than "that team's objectively better than mine at football and it makes me feel sad"?

[MD87]

6 minutes ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

Which part do you think is untrue?  IDK if its against the board's rules, but (if it's not) I'll post my real identity if you want to challenge me.  I'll even give you my California Bar Number if you want to allege that I'm misleading the public and violating my oath in some form. Have at it. If you want to say that my summary of the racist incident that happened to me (and what Rollo did to protect my safety) is untrue, I have contemporaneous emails to back up my claims. I can also screen shot the emails that I sent to the LA Times and OC Register, which they have since ignored. I'm an open book. 

Why does a factual, educated and informed rebuttal to a narrative you apparently hold so dearly engender so much anger in you? Are you that hard up for a more valid reason to hate Mater Dei than "that team's objectively better than mine at football and it makes me feel sad"?

You're new here, so word to the wise: If you'd like a prompt response from this cat, you might want to avoid big words like "contemporaneous" and "engender."  It takes time to look them up.

[The Colonel]

2 hours ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

 

Fifth and finally, I do not know whether or not Rollo said what the complaint quotes him as supposedly saying to the dad, i.e., if I had a $100 for every time the kids played bodies I'd be a millionaire. Only Rollo and the dad know what was said. But, I am very skeptical of the father's account based, in part, on a relevant incident I experienced when I played at MD. I am racially ambiguous (half black and half Filipino), but I could pass for Arab. At MD, under my pads, I used to regularly wear a t-shirt with the word "MECCA"—the name of a hip-hop clothing brand—across the front of it. One day, three evangelical Christian players on the team—one of them a pivotal starter—saw the t-shirt, asked if I was Muslim, and threatened to "kick my ass"  if I ever wore it again. My parents reported the incident directly to Coach Rollinson, who immediately got the school's administration involved and disciplined the offending players. Further, Coach Rollinson told my parents that they had his support if they decided they wanted to seek charges against the players and/or wanted to have the players expelled. Most significantly to me (and relevant to recent events), Coach Rollinson brought me into his office and said, among other things, "I don't care if we lose every game this season, your safety is my top priority." I'll always remember those words (i) considering the supposed/false win at all costs perspective of MD that outsiders have and (ii) because I was a bench warmer. Rollo put a bench warmer's safety over the success of his best team in years.

 

Rollinson was willing to expel three players for verbally threatening you, but he did not expel two players who actually fought each other to the point of serious injury?  That doesn’t make sense.

Also, is it true Rollinson and the MD Administration refused to meet with Santa Ana police for over two months after the incident?

[res ipsa loquitur]

1 hour ago, The Colonel said:

Rollinson was willing to expel three players for verbally threatening you, but he did not expel two players who actually fought each other to the point of serious injury?  That doesn’t make sense.

Also, is it true Rollinson and the MD Administration refused to meet with Santa Ana police for over two months after the incident?

Rollinson was willing to expel three players for verbally threatening you, but he did not expel two players who actually fought each other to the point of serious injury?

Yes. In my case it was three on one, racist, and I was 100% innocent--I had merely committed the offense of appearing to be Muslim (I'm Catholic by the way). That's a hate crime. (As opposed to mutual combat, which is not a crime under the CA penal code, as the OC DA noted today).

In the present case, it is two equally wrong parties. Arguably, the plaintiff was the worse party.  The video has been posted to twitter under Bill Plaschke's tweet of his opinion column so--since it's now public--I'll comment as to its contents (not divulging further things that will come out).  Even in this limited video, you can see that the plaintiff punched the other player in the face first and that the OC Register article falsely implied that the plaintiff was on the ground trying to defend himself when he was punched repeatedly in the face. Under such circumstances, one could seek to have both of the players expelled, but they were suspended instead. This is more than the players who threatened me ultimately got as I decided to cautiously accept their apologies and no further threats or incidents occurred. Rather than a suspension or expulsion, they essentially received probation and were forced to do a bunch of bear crawls instead of getting to practice. Also, their parents all apologized to my parents in person.

Is it true Rollinson and the MD Administration refused to meet with Santa Ana police for over two months after the incident?

No.