BOMBSHELL: Mater Dei Hazing Scandal

[The Colonel]

57 minutes ago, res ipsa loquitur 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?

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.

 

I still find it odd Rollinson would not consider expulsions for fighting and causing serious physical injury, and allowed the player to remain on the team, but he was so quick to offer up expulsion to players who made only verbal threats. Rollinson is a coach, not a lawyer. Anyhow, when exactly did he meet with the police?  When did Mater Dei Administration meet with police?  

[res ipsa loquitur]

44 minutes ago, The Colonel said:

I still find it odd Rollinson would not consider expulsions for fighting and causing serious physical injury, and allowed the player to remain on the team, but he was so quick to offer up expulsion to players who made only verbal threats. Rollinson is a coach, not a lawyer. Anyhow, when exactly did he meet with the police?  When did Mater Dei Administration meet with police?  

I do not know the extent to which expulsion was considered in this case, but that is not Rollo's call.  He directly controls whether players are on his team. And "Player 2" was not allowed on the team for last season after the fight occurred.

Separately, you are misrepresenting my original post. In my case, Rollo said he would "support" my parents asking the administration to expel the players who threatened me. But, he never had the power to directly make that call. To the extent that Rollo made no similar statement to the plaintiff's parents, it makes sense given the fact that Plaintiff initiated the fight, was equally wrong, and was deserving of his own punishment--unlike me.

Lastly, I'm assuming you're not a minority--let alone a person who has been threatened with physical violence simultaneously by multiple people of another race who look down on you and see themselves as superior. Apparently, you cannot empathize with that situation and see it as per se less dangerous and deserving of possible expulsion than a mutual fight between fairly similarly sized individuals (another thing that the article mischaracterized--claiming that "Player 2" is visually far more imposing and bigger than the plaintiff). So, I understand that, no matter what I tell you about what actually happened with me and what Rollo did for me, you'll "still find it odd" and never get it. I'm thankful that Rollo had a greater sense of empathy.

[RedZone]

8 hours 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"?

I really don't have time for your foolishness, son.

Next week maybe we get a lurker with a totally different twist, one that is not a mater dei fanboy.

Know this.

I'm not God and I'm not the judge. So don't try SO hard next time.

 

 

 

[RedZone]

If the kid that was busted up doesn't receive any justice then shame on everyone involved. Those people will be judged by God and they will to go to bed every night with that thought on their minds.

[THEOC89]

13 hours 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 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?

As a Lawyer you should know that The DA only Prosecutes Cases they Believe they can win Beyond a Reasonable doubt…. This one has Reasonable Doubt because both kids were apparently willing participants…..

The Investigator for The Sheriffs Office Recommended Felony Charges be Filed, so no matter what legal spin you try to put on it, there is something there….

Plus Rollo waiting 3 months to talk to The Investigators?… Total Cover up and The MD principal Stonewalled the Victims Father and wouldn’t meet with him…,

Plus Rollo told the Dad “If I had  a dollar for every time they played Bodies or Slappy’s I would be a Millionaire”….. 

Just another Stain Since Rollo “Changed his ways”…. 1 Semester Football transfers, Van Pool Kids Robbing a Convenience Store, Player Spitting in another players face on TV in The Open Game and Rollo doing nothing, and now some poor kid getting the crap beat out of him on video in the MD Locker room while everyone sits around and watches….

This case will hinge on wether or not anyone else from MD comes forward to confirm this “Bodies” thing is a real thing at MD…. If others come forward, Rollo and MD has a Big Problem…. Otherwise this looks like a horrible, isolated incident….

[Testadura]

California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM 2017)

CA 3471. Right to Self-Defense: Mutual Combat or Initial Aggressor

A person [i] who engages in mutual combat [below mutual combat is defined, and it alone is insufficient; you must have a right to self-defense] or [ii] who is the initial aggressor has a right to self-defense only if:

1. [Player 2] actually and in good faith tries to stop fighting;

[AND]

2. [Player 2] indicates, by word or by conduct, to [Player 1], in a way that a reasonable person would understand, that [Player 2] wants to stop fighting and that [Player 2] has stopped fighting(;/.)

<Give element 3 in cases of mutual combat>

[AND]

3. [Player 2] gives [Player 1] a chance to stop fighting.  If [Player 2] meets these requirements, [Player 2] then has a right to self-defense if the opponent continues to fight.

[[the following is from the jury charge:]  A fight is mutual combat when it began or continued by mutual consent or agreement.  That agreement may be expressly stated or implied and must occur before the claim to self defense arose.]

 

[HawgGoneIt]

6 hours ago, THEOC89 said:

As a Lawyer you should know that The DA only Prosecutes Cases they Believe they can win Beyond a Reasonable doubt…. This one has Reasonable Doubt because both kids were apparently willing participants…..

The Investigator for The Sheriffs Office Recommended Felony Charges be Filed, so no matter what legal spin you try to put on it, there is something there….

Plus Rollo waiting 3 months to talk to The Investigators?… Total Cover up and The MD principal Stonewalled the Victims Father and wouldn’t meet with him…,

Plus Rollo told the Dad “If I had  a dollar for every time they played Bodies or Slappy’s I would be a Millionaire”….. 

Just another Stain Since Rollo “Changed his ways”…. 1 Semester Football transfers, Van Pool Kids Robbing a Convenience Store, Player Spitting in another players face on TV in The Open Game and Rollo doing nothing, and now some poor kid getting the crap beat out of him on video in the MD Locker room while everyone sits around and watches….

This case will hinge on wether or not anyone else from MD comes forward to confirm this “Bodies” thing is a real thing at MD…. If others come forward, Rollo and MD has a Big Problem…. Otherwise this looks like a horrible, isolated incident….

Apparently this guy is disputing the waiting some months to speak to investigators and also pretty much saying they are basically lying in the suit in several places. That could be true, there is often a lot of fluff in lawsuits meant for effect. 

So, having said that, how is the media running what's in the suit and mentioning what they saw in the video with their own eyes, in dispute with the facts? Apparently enough so that this DA came out when he usually wouldn't and speak about a case like this. 

The suit alleges a lot of stuff. It may or may not be true, or cross the threshold of reaaonable doubt for a criminal prosecution, but, it also may be true to the word. Eventually the school will settle or face a jury who either then will believe the allegations in the suit or not. 

I fail to think the media is running a hit job on Mater Dei, when they're quite frankly just reporting allegations from the suit brought by the dad and head injured kid. 

Idk how Rollinson and others avoid interviews by investigators to be honest. Maybe they did or maybe they didn't, but they seem like high profile people that would be easy to find and question. 

This entire thing is odd and interesting. I really believe that there is some gang initiation or hazing shit going on. The kids cheering and jeering and the ones being uninterested just all lead me to believe shit like this has happened in there enough that its not out of the ordinary.

It may not be a team wide thing or it could be. I have no idea, but, it certainly doesn't come off as an isolated thing due to the allegations, and video proof. 

[World Citizen]

The kids are the ones who seem to be forgotten in situations like this.  Not just those involved but those who hear about it or those who actually saw it.  Everything, when we really think about it, is a teaching moment, especially when kids are involved.  However, people naturally go to their positions in either  defense or in attack mode and the more we do this the teaching moment becomes more difficult.  Bottom line, IMO, is kids shouldn't be hurting each other and kids shouldn't be ok with kids hurting each other.  The adults should be all over this and it seems they are just circling the wagons and looking to deflect blame and liability.  

[res ipsa loquitur]

1 hour ago, THEOC89 said:

As a Lawyer you should know that The DA only Prosecutes Cases they Believe they can win Beyond a Reasonable doubt…. This one has Reasonable Doubt because both kids were apparently willing participants…..

The Investigator for The Sheriffs Office Recommended Felony Charges be Filed, so no matter what legal spin you try to put on it, there is something there….

Plus Rollo waiting 3 months to talk to The Investigators?… Total Cover up and The MD principal Stonewalled the Victims Father and wouldn’t meet with him…,

Plus Rollo told the Dad “If I had  a dollar for every time they played Bodies or Slappy’s I would be a Millionaire”….. 

Just another Stain Since Rollo “Changed his ways”…. 1 Semester Football transfers, Van Pool Kids Robbing a Convenience Store, Player Spitting in another players face on TV in The Open Game and Rollo doing nothing, and now some poor kid getting the crap beat out of him on video in the MD Locker room while everyone sits around and watches….

This case will hinge on wether or not anyone else from MD comes forward to confirm this “Bodies” thing is a real thing at MD…. If others come forward, Rollo and MD has a Big Problem…. Otherwise this looks like a horrible, isolated incident….

Sheriffs are not attorneys and even they only recommended charges against “Player 2” for his battery of the plaintiff (going beyond what the DA later interpreted as “mutual” combat). If you watch the video, I can see arguments both ways, but, as the plaintiff punched “Player 2” in the face first and the fight ended quickly after “Player 2” punched the plaintiff in the face, I would agree with the DA’s interpretation. Regardless, the sheriff did not recommend a “hazing” charge or anything else against MD—something you seem to be implying.

As you’re a non-lawyer, I don’t expect you to understand or know that state prosecutors are far less conservative (not in the politics sense) than federal prosecutors. They will push forward with less clear cut cases. And this OC DA has reason to go after MD and not appear to be soft on crime based on his election and the DA he unseated (who was known for a lot of cronyism and being lenient towards “friends”). DA Spitzer is more incentivized to bring a case  than not—there’s just no there there.

Lastly, your other points might have been salient if the “facts” you repeated were true. They’re not. The only thing that I cannot say is definitively untrue (as I was not there) is the supposed “quote” of what Rollo said to the dad. As I said in my original post though, that quote is dubious given what I experienced with Rollo and given the fact that there can be no counter suit for defamation if you straight up lie in a civil complaint—e.g., make up a bogus “quote.”

[res ipsa loquitur]

7 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

The kids are the ones who seem to be forgotten in situations like this.  Not just those involved but those who hear about it or those who actually saw it.  Everything, when we really think about it, is a teaching moment, especially when kids are involved.  However, people naturally go to their positions in either  defense or in attack mode and the more we do this the teaching moment becomes more difficult.  Bottom line, IMO, is kids shouldn't be hurting each other and kids shouldn't be ok with kids hurting each other.  The adults should be all over this and it seems they are just circling the wagons and looking to deflect blame and liability.  

This was in February 2021. The adults were “all over this” way back then. But, Plaintiff’s parents are mad that the adults were all over this to such a degree that their son was punished too. 

To the extent that there is a “circling of the wagons” it’s to rebut lies. This thread is already filled with MD diehards saying that, if the allegations were true, heads should roll. They’re just not. 

Finally, it’s terrible that the plaintiff got a scar, concussion, and broken nose. He was treated and the player who caused those injuries was punished. 

[The Colonel]

11 hours ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

Lastly, I'm assuming you're not a minority--let alone a person who has been threatened with physical violence simultaneously by multiple people of another race who look down on you and see themselves as superior. Apparently, you cannot empathize with that situation and see it as per se less dangerous and deserving of possible expulsion than a mutual fight between fairly similarly sized individuals (another thing that the article mischaracterized--claiming that "Player 2" is visually far more imposing and bigger than the plaintiff). So, I understand that, no matter what I tell you about what actually happened with me and what Rollo did for me, you'll "still find it odd" and never get it. 

1. Don’t assume anything about me, because you’re wrong in your assumptions. 

2. I can appreciate your past experience, but this isn’t about you.

3. You never answered my question.  When did Rollo meet with the police?  You said the report that he and MD admin did not meet with police for over two months was false.

[Testadura]

3 hours ago, Testadura said:

California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM 2017)

CA 3471. Right to Self-Defense: Mutual Combat or Initial Aggressor

A person [i] who engages in mutual combat [below mutual combat is defined, and it alone is insufficient; you must have a right to self-defense] or [ii] who is the initial aggressor has a right to self-defense only if:

1. [Player 2] actually and in good faith tries to stop fighting;

[AND]

2. [Player 2] indicates, by word or by conduct, to [Player 1], in a way that a reasonable person would understand, that [Player 2] wants to stop fighting and that [Player 2] has stopped fighting(;/.)

<Give element 3 in cases of mutual combat>

[AND]

3. [Player 2] gives [Player 1] a chance to stop fighting.  If [Player 2] meets these requirements, [Player 2] then has a right to self-defense if the opponent continues to fight.

[[the following is from the jury charge:]  A fight is mutual combat when it began or continued by mutual consent or agreement.  That agreement may be expressly stated or implied and must occur before the claim to self defense arose.]

 

Sammy,

That jury charge accurately reflects the law, and is read to the jury before it deliberates.  In other words, it's a standard charge, approved by Cali courts and its legal commissions.   A criminal statute is not handed to the jury.  Plain English is handed to juries--hence, the existence and use of state-approved model jury charges, which are tweaked a bit now and again to be tailored to the situation.

If a mutual-combat fight exists, I don't think that that by itself is a defense or de-criminalized--because if it were, then why would one need the affirmative defense of self-defense to the mutual-combat (assault) charge.  But you Cali guys can figure that out.  I've just seen this mutual combat pop up a lot recently, and it's odd.  My wife was an Asst US Atty for 5 years (criminal prosecutions) and a federal District Court law clerk (handling criminal and civil), a civil litigator at a top-25 international firm, and a federal criminal-defense lawyer for 20 years, and it's odd (politically odd).  and I've surpassed her achievements in every way (lol), which is why she comes to me with the questions.  lol

[Wosinc]

18 hours ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

 

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. )

This is the part I find hard to believe.  Every high school team I was ever associated with suffered from hazing to one degree or another.

[Testadura]

On 11/23/2021 at 7:28 PM, The Stache said:

 

 

 

Sammy,

Cut and pasted from your initial post.  Get a copy of the video, and let's watch it.  Here's what the news and the cops say they saw and heard on the video:

Video:  “'Where’s your watch?'”  what sort of combat is this?  watches?  maybe it's a circle jerk?  quickest comes first?  oh, it's Bodies.  ***  Video:  "The shout from a Mater Dei High School football player alerted his teammates to two players about to square off in the school’s freshman locker room for Bodies ***." ***

"Around 2:40 p.m. on the afternoon of Feb. 4, Player 1 was getting ready for practice when he was encouraged by another teammate to participate in a game of Bodies with Player 2."  ***  “"At that point I didn’t even know (Player 2’s) name.'” *** “'The next day I found it on social media.'"  "I also didn’t know (the teammate’s) name, the kid who asked me if I wanted to do Bodies with (Player 2).  I found him in the yearbook.'”  Doesn't sound as if 1 and 2 had any reason other than Bodies to fight, right?  Complete strangers usually don't fight.  "On a video, as the fight is about to begin, Player 1 shakes his head from side to side as if apprehensive."  Video:  "The fight starts in the freshman locker room, the players exchanging punches to the torso area?"  Yes, that's Bodies.

***  Video:  “There is also yelling, screaming and roars of laughter audible on a video of the fight.  But the video also shows other Mater Dei players sitting at their lockers getting dressed or looking at their cell phones, seemingly oblivious to the brawl."  ho, hum.  235 vs 175.  junior who never played before vs. 235 lb with a juiced in dad who is a feeder and coach.  nothing to see.  just another tiny guy with no friends picking on a 235-lb stranger to get a rep.  got it

"The video shows that at one point Player 2 hit Player 1 in the face with a couple glancing blows.  Player 1 responds [that means it happened after the 2 head shots] with a wild, above-the-shoulder high swing that misses badly.  Player 2 then throws Player 1 to the ground.  Player 1 gets back up and is knocked down again by a hard haymaker punch to the side of his head.  Other players are heard in the background making whooping sounds."  3 head shots and a slam.

Video:  "Player 1 gets up again and is struck by a hard punch to the face. “'Oh, my God,'” shouts one teammate in the background of the video."  Again, that damn video keeps popping up.  "Player 1 stops and holds his head in his hands, his right hand covering a pair of gashes over his right eye.  But Player 2 lunges toward Player 1 and [sucker] punches him in the face again, a blow that produces a loud smacking sound on the video."  In sum, 5 punches and a slam, the 5th after P1 had stopped after receiving 4 punches to the head and the slam.  “'Hey, chill, chill, chill,'” a teammate is heard in the background."  You don't tell 2 guys going at it to "chill."  Not unless the cops are coming.  Very odd behavior for a fight; not very odd for what was intended to be strictly Bodies.

Video:  “What the (expletive),” Player 1 shouted at Player 2. “I thought this was Bodies.”  P1 is such a liar.  There is no such thing as Bodies, number 1, and number 2, 175 lbs picked on 235 lbs.  Back to Video:  For good measure, "Player 2 is then heard [on the damn video] directing a racial epithet at Player 1 on the video, a comment also alleged in the court filing." ***  P2 and his dad must be class acts.  I can't fathom why P1 and his dad are so vindictive.

"A cell phone recording of the altercation taken by one of the Mater Dei players who set up the fight was shared among Monarchs players, according to a court filing."  Not hard to corroborate.  Sammy, get your mitts on it.  "The player, the suit alleges, “'filmed the incident on his cell phone, and then later disseminated it with intent to humiliate and embarrass (Player 1).'”  "A player also provided a cellphone video to Dunbar, the Mater Dei linebackers coach.  [Doesn't P2 play LB?  lol]  Dunbar shared the video with David Nisson, an attorney representing Player 2.  Nisson eventually provided the video to the Santa Ana PD."  So, now the cops can view it.  Let's see how they saw it, shall we?
 

[res ipsa loquitur]

19 minutes ago, Wosinc said:

This is the part I find hard to believe.  Every high school team I was ever associated with suffered from hazing to one degree or another.

Hundreds of former players from as recent as last season just got together for Thanksgiving practice (not long after the story broke). All of us were asking each other (and especially the most recent players) if they ever heard of there being hazing on the team and/or had heard of some "bodies" initiation ritual. The universal answer was no. It is simply not a thing for MD football. That's what makes the story so perplexing and dubious for former players--let alone people like me who have seen the video, have direct connections to the plaintiff, and know what is definitively untrue in the articles and complaint.

When I was a player, we used to hear stories about other schools' weird (usually sexual exploitative as opposed to violent) hazing rituals that were done--including at some other trinity league school--and make fun of them. Mater Dei's football team under Rollinson has been an exceptional program completely separate from its obvious success on the field.

To be fair clear, however, Rollinson is not God. Further, Mater Dei (and especially the Catholic Church) are far from perfect. It's not like someone could never come up with valid criticisms. But hazing isn't one of them. Its just not a thing.

P.S. If anyone doubts my story, I went public on NPR's Air Time this morning using my real name. I would note that during this morning's show, the NPR host was very pleasant and cordial, but Scott M. Reid (the reporter who broke this story in the OC Register) said nothing to me--consistent with my earlier emails being ignored. In addition, Mr. Reid admitted, when asked by the NPR Host, that his "investigative journalism" did not include talking to any other parents or players to corroborate the story and/or whether there is hazing on the football team. The media stories and lawsuit so far are purely based on the video (which you can see for yourselves was a gross fight but entirely mischaracterized if you look it up on twitter) and talking to the plaintiff and his parents. Curious, no?

[res ipsa loquitur]

3 hours ago, The Colonel said:

1. Don’t assume anything about me, because you’re wrong in your assumptions. 

2. I can appreciate your past experience, but this isn’t about you.

3. You never answered my question.  When did Rollo meet with the police?  You said the report that he and MD admin did not meet with police for over two months was false.

1. So you have faced threats of racial violence and still think it was odd that Rollinson responded how he did to my situation? Or are you just leaning into a small percentage of your 23 and Me results (see below)?

2. I understand that the injuries to the plaintiff and whether he was properly protected/cared for are not about me. But your back and forth with me was about me and my story--suggesting that it is false. It happened, sorry if it takes away from your "MD and Rollo are evil" party.

3. As I said in earlier posts, more information will come out later, and I'm not going to divulge things that others have asked me not to at this time. So, again, for now I'll leave it at, no, it is not "true Rollinson and the MD Administration refused to meet with Santa Ana police for over two months after the incident."

[MD87]

9 hours ago, RedZone said:

I really don't have time for your foolishness, son.

Next week maybe we get a lurker with a totally different twist, one that is not a mater dei fanboy.

Know this.

I'm not God and I'm not the judge. So don't try SO hard next time.

 

 

 

Of course you just referred to a person of color as "son."  Because of course you did. smh

[The Colonel]

46 minutes ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

1. So you have faced threats of racial violence and still think it was odd that Rollinson responded how he did to my situation? Or are you just leaning into a small percentage of your 23 and Me results (see below)?

2. I understand that the injuries to the plaintiff and whether he was properly protected/cared for are not about me. But your back and forth with me was about me and my story--suggesting that it is false. It happened, sorry if it takes away from your "MD and Rollo are evil" party.

3. As I said in earlier posts, more information will come out later, and I'm not going to divulge things that others have asked me not to at this time. So, again, for now I'll leave it at, no, it is not "true Rollinson and the MD Administration refused to meet with Santa Ana police for over two months after the incident."

Dude, get over yourself. I never said you lied about your experience. LOL. But you sure play the victim card, don’t you?  Ok. Let’s try the “lawyer speak” shall we?  Is it true Rollinson did not meet with police for over two months (as reported)? Notice I did not ask if he “refused” to meet with police. 

[HurricaneNick]

8 hours ago, RedZone said:

If the kid that was busted up doesn't receive any justice then shame on everyone involved. Those people will be judged by God and they will to go to bed every night with that thought on their minds.

Nothing like the guy that called a veteran the N word on here telling the board others will be judged by God. Just incredible. The lack of awareness is humiliating. Does God judge white people that call African Americans the N word or does He let that slide? 

[MD87]

1 hour ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

Hundreds of former players from as recent as last season just got together for Thanksgiving practice (not long after the story broke). All of us were asking each other (and especially the most recent players) if they ever heard of there being hazing on the team and/or had heard of some "bodies" initiation ritual. The universal answer was no. It is simply not a thing for MD football. That's what makes the story so perplexing and dubious for former players--let alone people like me who have seen the video, have direct connections to the plaintiff, and know what is definitively untrue in the articles and complaint.

When I was a player, we used to hear stories about other schools' weird (usually sexual exploitative as opposed to violent) hazing rituals that were done--including at some other trinity league school--and make fun of them. Mater Dei's football team under Rollinson has been an exceptional program completely separate from its obvious success on the field.

To be fair clear, however, Rollinson is not God. Further, Mater Dei (and especially the Catholic Church) are far from perfect. It's not like someone could never come up with valid criticisms. But hazing isn't one of them. Its just not a thing.

P.S. If anyone doubts my story, I went public on NPR's Air Time this morning using my real name. I would note that during this morning's show, the NPR host was very pleasant and cordial, but Scott M. Reid (the reporter who broke this story in the OC Register) said nothing to me--consistent with my earlier emails being ignored. In addition, Mr. Reid admitted, when asked by the NPR Host, that his "investigative journalism" did not include talking to any other parents or players to corroborate the story and/or whether there is hazing on the football team. The media stories and lawsuit so far are purely based on the video (which you can see for yourselves was a gross fight but entirely mischaracterized if you look it up on twitter) and talking to the plaintiff and his parents. Curious, no?

Was Reid's original report an opinion piece?  If not, he needs to be fired.

[MD87]

6 minutes ago, The Colonel said:

Dude, get over yourself. I never said you lied about your experience. LOL. But you sure play the victim card, don’t you?  Ok. Let’s try the “lawyer speak” shall we?  Is it true Rollinson did not meet with police for over two months (as reported)? Notice I did not ask if he “refused” to meet with police. 

Get over yourself?  Really?  He's provided far more informative insight than the rest of you armchair lawyers.

[RedZone]

11 minutes ago, MD87 said:

Of course you just referred to a person of color as "son."  Because of course you did. smh

You mater dei people play too many games. smh

Don't let fear get the best of you.

 

[MD87]

1 minute ago, RedZone said:

You mater dei people play too many games. smh

Don't let fear get the best of you.

 

WTAH?!  Hitting the bottle a little early today, no?

[RedZone]

10 minutes ago, HurricaneNick said:

Does God judge white people that call African Americans the N word or does He let that slide? 

He judges us all.....were you not taught that at mater dei? Oh wait, you were playing "bodies" when that class was held.

God judges people who call people crackers and etc too. 

This isn't really about me. It's about God looking at you right now and mater dei.

Hold your head up!

[The Colonel]

13 minutes ago, MD87 said:

Get over yourself?  Really?  He's provided far more informative insight than the rest of you armchair lawyers.

He said I lied about his experience. Not true. I believe him. All he has basically said is what has been reported is untrue, but then says he will not divulge any information. I guess we can disagree on whether that is truly informative.