Chris Jans
- By nosok23
- Iowa Men's Basketball
- 10 Replies
He would be on the top of the list to replace Fran. He was assistant at Grand View before I went there in 97. Great guy and would be a big time hire when FM hits the road…
en.m.wikipedia.org
Chris Jans - Wikipedia
Jaxx DeJean Creating His Own Path, Forging Relationships with Iowa
- By Eliot Clough
- The Press Box
- 9 Replies
As you know, I made the trip to Ida Grove over the weekend, mostly to connect with Jaxx DeJean and watch him play on Friday night.
I spoke with Jaxx and his head coach about his recruitment, how he's developed as a football player thus far, the Cooper comparison, and more.
STORY:
iowa.rivals.com
I spoke with Jaxx and his head coach about his recruitment, how he's developed as a football player thus far, the Cooper comparison, and more.
STORY:
Hawkeye Beacon - Jaxx DeJean Creating His Own Path, Forging Relationships with Iowa
The younger brother of Cooper DeJean, 2026 four-star ATH Jaxx is set on building his own college football path.
iowa.rivals.com
IU Doctor accused of sexually abusing Men's BB players in 90's
- Off Topic
- 7 Replies
I didn't know anything about this til now. Sounds like good old Bobby Knight might have had a hand in it too. Being an IU BB player in the 90's must have been hell. Physically abused by knight and sexually abused by the team doctor.
www.nbcnews.com
The former Indiana University basketball team doctor accused of sexually assaulting players back in the 1990s invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination dozens of times during a recent deposition when he was asked whether he performed rectal examinations on young athletes, according to the transcript of his testimony.
Dr. Bradford Bomba Sr., who testified on Dec. 4 via video, also twice invoked his Fifth Amendment right when asked if then-coach Bob Knight told him to do “digital rectal exams on his players.” However, he did answer several questions about his general scope of duties and time working for the university.
Bomba, 88, had been ordered to submit to a deposition by U.S. Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia, who is presiding over a federal lawsuit filed in October by two former players, Haris Mujezinovic and Charlie Miller, against the university’s trustees. Neither Knight, who died last year at age 83, nor Bomba are listed as defendants.
They claim Bomba repeatedly sexually assaulted them and their teammates under the guise of doing physical examinations and that the school was aware this was happening but did nothing to stop him.
Bomba first invoked the Fifth Amendment when he declined, through his lawyer, to answer whether he ever performed a physical exam on a player “anywhere other than on campus.”
The now-retired doctor also declined to answer a question about whether he ever reported the “abuse of a student athlete to anyone,” and another question asking if he knew what Title IX is.
Mujezinovic and Miller are suing the IU trustees under Title IX, a federal law that requires all universities that receive federal funds to put safeguards in place to protect students from sexual predators.
Bomba did testify at the deposition that IU provided him with a questionnaire that needed to be completed and that he documented the procedures he did on those forms, which were then returned to the university. He also agreed, under questioning, that he and Knight had been “close friends.”
Kathleen Delaney, who represents Mujezinovic and Miller, said in the lawsuit that there could be “at least one hundred” alleged victims. She had no immediate comment Friday on the deposition, which Bomba’s guardians had unsuccessfully attempted to delay by claiming he was not competent to testify.
“I’m pleased that the Court required Dr. Bomba, Sr. to testify,” Mujezinovic, who watched the deposition by video, said in a statement first reported by The Herald Times. “He did not even try to justify what he did to me and others under the guise of ‘medical care.’ Watching him testify was a difficult experience for me, but an important step in the pursuit of justice.”
“This is important evidence confirming that the University knew what was going on and did nothing to protect us from what I now understand was sexual abuse,” Miller said in his statement. He too watched the deposition by video.
Indiana University is represented by the Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg law firm and three of the firm’s lawyers were monitoring the deposition but, according to the transcript obtained by NBC News, did not pose any questions.
Also watching the deposition was IU’s “in-house counsel” Anthony Prather, the transcript showed.
Indiana University hired Bomba to provide medical care to all of its sports teams from 1962 to 1970, and from 1979 until the late 1990s he was the basketball team’s doctor, according to the lawsuit.
Mujezinovic and Miller said in the lawsuit that they “were routinely and repeatedly subjected to medically unnecessary, invasive, and abusive digital rectal examinations” by Bomba.
Bomba had played football for Indiana University and was nicknamed “Frankenstein” by coaches and players “due to the large size of his hands and fingers,” the lawsuit added.
“Dr. Bomba, Sr.’s routine sexual assaults were openly discussed by the Hoosier men’s basketball players in the locker room in the presence of IU employees, including assistant coaches, athletic trainers, and other Hoosier men’s basketball staff,” according to the lawsuit.
Mujezinovic, who spent two seasons at Indiana from 1995 to 1997, and Miller, who played for the Hoosiers from 1994 through 1998, are seeking unspecified damages. They have also urged former teammates to come forward and join their lawsuit.
Doctor accused of abusing Indiana University athletes repeatedly invokes Fifth Amendment in deposition
Dr. Bradford Bomba Sr., 88, was deposed about allegations that he preyed on student-athletes in the 1990s.
www.nbcnews.com
The former Indiana University basketball team doctor accused of sexually assaulting players back in the 1990s invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination dozens of times during a recent deposition when he was asked whether he performed rectal examinations on young athletes, according to the transcript of his testimony.
Dr. Bradford Bomba Sr., who testified on Dec. 4 via video, also twice invoked his Fifth Amendment right when asked if then-coach Bob Knight told him to do “digital rectal exams on his players.” However, he did answer several questions about his general scope of duties and time working for the university.
Bomba, 88, had been ordered to submit to a deposition by U.S. Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia, who is presiding over a federal lawsuit filed in October by two former players, Haris Mujezinovic and Charlie Miller, against the university’s trustees. Neither Knight, who died last year at age 83, nor Bomba are listed as defendants.
They claim Bomba repeatedly sexually assaulted them and their teammates under the guise of doing physical examinations and that the school was aware this was happening but did nothing to stop him.
Bomba first invoked the Fifth Amendment when he declined, through his lawyer, to answer whether he ever performed a physical exam on a player “anywhere other than on campus.”
The now-retired doctor also declined to answer a question about whether he ever reported the “abuse of a student athlete to anyone,” and another question asking if he knew what Title IX is.
Mujezinovic and Miller are suing the IU trustees under Title IX, a federal law that requires all universities that receive federal funds to put safeguards in place to protect students from sexual predators.
Bomba did testify at the deposition that IU provided him with a questionnaire that needed to be completed and that he documented the procedures he did on those forms, which were then returned to the university. He also agreed, under questioning, that he and Knight had been “close friends.”
Kathleen Delaney, who represents Mujezinovic and Miller, said in the lawsuit that there could be “at least one hundred” alleged victims. She had no immediate comment Friday on the deposition, which Bomba’s guardians had unsuccessfully attempted to delay by claiming he was not competent to testify.
“I’m pleased that the Court required Dr. Bomba, Sr. to testify,” Mujezinovic, who watched the deposition by video, said in a statement first reported by The Herald Times. “He did not even try to justify what he did to me and others under the guise of ‘medical care.’ Watching him testify was a difficult experience for me, but an important step in the pursuit of justice.”
“This is important evidence confirming that the University knew what was going on and did nothing to protect us from what I now understand was sexual abuse,” Miller said in his statement. He too watched the deposition by video.
Indiana University is represented by the Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg law firm and three of the firm’s lawyers were monitoring the deposition but, according to the transcript obtained by NBC News, did not pose any questions.
Also watching the deposition was IU’s “in-house counsel” Anthony Prather, the transcript showed.
Indiana University hired Bomba to provide medical care to all of its sports teams from 1962 to 1970, and from 1979 until the late 1990s he was the basketball team’s doctor, according to the lawsuit.
Mujezinovic and Miller said in the lawsuit that they “were routinely and repeatedly subjected to medically unnecessary, invasive, and abusive digital rectal examinations” by Bomba.
Bomba had played football for Indiana University and was nicknamed “Frankenstein” by coaches and players “due to the large size of his hands and fingers,” the lawsuit added.
“Dr. Bomba, Sr.’s routine sexual assaults were openly discussed by the Hoosier men’s basketball players in the locker room in the presence of IU employees, including assistant coaches, athletic trainers, and other Hoosier men’s basketball staff,” according to the lawsuit.
Mujezinovic, who spent two seasons at Indiana from 1995 to 1997, and Miller, who played for the Hoosiers from 1994 through 1998, are seeking unspecified damages. They have also urged former teammates to come forward and join their lawsuit.
Defense Lawyers Seek to Block Special Counsel Report in Trump Documents Case
- By cigaretteman
- Off Topic
- 5 Replies
Defense lawyers asked both the Justice Department and a federal judge on Monday night to stop the special counsel, Jack Smith, from publicly releasing a report detailing his investigation into President-elect Donald J. Trump’s mishandling of classified documents after he left office in 2021.
The two-pronged attempt to block the report’s release arrived only two weeks before Mr. Trump is to be sworn in for a second term as president. With the case against Mr. Trump already dismissed, the report would essentially be Mr. Smith’s final chance to lay out damaging new details and evidence, if he has any.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers, in an aggressively worded letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, said they had recently been shown a draft copy of Mr. Smith’s report, calling it an example of the special counsel’s “politically motivated attack” against Mr. Trump. They demanded that Mr. Garland not allow Mr. Smith to make the report public and “remove him promptly” from his post.
“The release of any confidential report prepared by this out-of-control private citizen unconstitutionally posing as a prosecutor would be nothing more than a lawless political stunt, designed to politically harm President Trump,” the lawyers wrote. In separate court papers, lawyers for Mr. Trump’s two co-defendants in the classified documents case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, sought a more direct path toward stopping the release of Mr. Smith’s report. They asked the judge who oversaw the case, Aileen M. Cannon, to issue an emergency order to bar Mr. Smith from making the report public until the case “has reached a final judgment and appellate proceedings are concluded.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Lawyers for President-elect Donald J. Trump urged the attorney general in a letter to stop the special counsel from publicly releasing a final report on the case, while lawyers for his co-defendants, in a court filing, asked the same of the judge who oversaw the case.
Read Document 40 pages
Both attempts to block Mr. Smith could face an uphill battle.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers have no power to force Mr. Garland to stop the report from coming out, and their letter amounted to little more than a belligerent request. It is also unclear whether Judge Cannon would have the authority to tell the attorney general how to handle a report by a special counsel that he himself appointed, especially when the case is technically out of her hands and in front of an appeals court.
That happened because Judge Cannon threw out the case in its entirety in July, ruling, in the face of decades of precedent, that Mr. Smith had been unlawfully appointed as special counsel. Mr. Smith and his deputies challenged that decision, and it was being considered by a federal appeals court in Atlanta when Mr. Trump won the election in November.
Citing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president, Mr. Smith dropped the appeal where Mr. Trump was concerned, effectively ending his role in the case. But he did not drop the appeal against Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira, and federal prosecutors in Florida now plan to pursue it when Mr. Smith steps down, likely before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.
Mr. Smith has also moved to dismiss the other federal case he brought against Mr. Trump, accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. It remains unclear when Mr. Smith plans to file a report in that case and whether it will accompany the report on the documents prosecution or be contained in a separate document.
The effort by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to block the release of the report was only their latest attempt to kill or push back any legal filings or proceedings that might be embarrassing or damaging to the president-elect.
Earlier on Monday, a state judge in Manhattan rejected Mr. Trump’s most recent attempt to delay his sentencing on 34 felony charges, saying that the hearing would go on as scheduled on Friday.
Justice Department regulations call for all special counsels to file reports to the attorney general explaining why they filed the charges they did, and why they decided not to file any other charges they might have been considering. The attorney general can then decide whether to release the report to the public.
It remains unclear when Mr. Smith was planning to finish his report in the classified documents case. But the lawyers for Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira said in their court papers that the report was likely to be released “within the next few days.”
Should either or both reports eventually see the light of day, it is possible they will not contain much in the way of new or revelatory information.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
The report in the classified documents case could be complicated by the fact that it would likely have to undergo a careful review by the intelligence community for any classified information it contained. The report in the election interference case might not break significant new ground, if only because in October Mr. Smith filed a sprawling, 165-page brief laying out the evidence he planned to offer at trial.
Still, in their letter to Mr. Garland, Mr. Trump’s lawyers complained that the draft report in the classified documents case said that Mr. Trump had “harbored a ‘criminal design’” and was the “head of the criminal conspiracies” detailed in the indictment. The draft also said, the lawyers wrote, that “Mr. Trump violated multiple federal criminal laws.”
Mr. Trump’s lawyers turned the tables on Mr. Smith, accusing him of “unethical” conduct and “improper activities.” Those accusations had possible implications for future retribution against Mr. Smith, given that two of the lawyers who signed the letter to Mr. Garland, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, have been chosen by Mr. Trump to serve in high positions in his Justice Department.While Mr. Garland has not said publicly whether he intends to release either report by Mr. Smith, he has done so in the past with other reports by other special counsels.
In February, for example, Mr. Garland permitted the release of a report by the special counsel Robert K. Hur concerning President Biden’s handling of classified materials after he served as vice president. The report concluded that criminal charges were not warranted, but also offered an unflattering assessment of Mr. Biden’s memory and cognitive capacity in the middle of the 2024 presidential campaign.
The two-pronged attempt to block the report’s release arrived only two weeks before Mr. Trump is to be sworn in for a second term as president. With the case against Mr. Trump already dismissed, the report would essentially be Mr. Smith’s final chance to lay out damaging new details and evidence, if he has any.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers, in an aggressively worded letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, said they had recently been shown a draft copy of Mr. Smith’s report, calling it an example of the special counsel’s “politically motivated attack” against Mr. Trump. They demanded that Mr. Garland not allow Mr. Smith to make the report public and “remove him promptly” from his post.
“The release of any confidential report prepared by this out-of-control private citizen unconstitutionally posing as a prosecutor would be nothing more than a lawless political stunt, designed to politically harm President Trump,” the lawyers wrote. In separate court papers, lawyers for Mr. Trump’s two co-defendants in the classified documents case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, sought a more direct path toward stopping the release of Mr. Smith’s report. They asked the judge who oversaw the case, Aileen M. Cannon, to issue an emergency order to bar Mr. Smith from making the report public until the case “has reached a final judgment and appellate proceedings are concluded.”
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Read Defense Lawyers’ Arguments to Block a Trump Documents Case Report
Lawyers for President-elect Donald J. Trump urged the attorney general in a letter to stop the special counsel from publicly releasing a final report on the case, while lawyers for his co-defendants, in a court filing, asked the same of the judge who oversaw the case.
Read Document 40 pages
Both attempts to block Mr. Smith could face an uphill battle.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers have no power to force Mr. Garland to stop the report from coming out, and their letter amounted to little more than a belligerent request. It is also unclear whether Judge Cannon would have the authority to tell the attorney general how to handle a report by a special counsel that he himself appointed, especially when the case is technically out of her hands and in front of an appeals court.
That happened because Judge Cannon threw out the case in its entirety in July, ruling, in the face of decades of precedent, that Mr. Smith had been unlawfully appointed as special counsel. Mr. Smith and his deputies challenged that decision, and it was being considered by a federal appeals court in Atlanta when Mr. Trump won the election in November.
Citing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president, Mr. Smith dropped the appeal where Mr. Trump was concerned, effectively ending his role in the case. But he did not drop the appeal against Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira, and federal prosecutors in Florida now plan to pursue it when Mr. Smith steps down, likely before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.
Mr. Smith has also moved to dismiss the other federal case he brought against Mr. Trump, accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. It remains unclear when Mr. Smith plans to file a report in that case and whether it will accompany the report on the documents prosecution or be contained in a separate document.
The effort by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to block the release of the report was only their latest attempt to kill or push back any legal filings or proceedings that might be embarrassing or damaging to the president-elect.
Earlier on Monday, a state judge in Manhattan rejected Mr. Trump’s most recent attempt to delay his sentencing on 34 felony charges, saying that the hearing would go on as scheduled on Friday.
Justice Department regulations call for all special counsels to file reports to the attorney general explaining why they filed the charges they did, and why they decided not to file any other charges they might have been considering. The attorney general can then decide whether to release the report to the public.
It remains unclear when Mr. Smith was planning to finish his report in the classified documents case. But the lawyers for Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira said in their court papers that the report was likely to be released “within the next few days.”
Should either or both reports eventually see the light of day, it is possible they will not contain much in the way of new or revelatory information.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
The report in the classified documents case could be complicated by the fact that it would likely have to undergo a careful review by the intelligence community for any classified information it contained. The report in the election interference case might not break significant new ground, if only because in October Mr. Smith filed a sprawling, 165-page brief laying out the evidence he planned to offer at trial.
Still, in their letter to Mr. Garland, Mr. Trump’s lawyers complained that the draft report in the classified documents case said that Mr. Trump had “harbored a ‘criminal design’” and was the “head of the criminal conspiracies” detailed in the indictment. The draft also said, the lawyers wrote, that “Mr. Trump violated multiple federal criminal laws.”
Mr. Trump’s lawyers turned the tables on Mr. Smith, accusing him of “unethical” conduct and “improper activities.” Those accusations had possible implications for future retribution against Mr. Smith, given that two of the lawyers who signed the letter to Mr. Garland, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, have been chosen by Mr. Trump to serve in high positions in his Justice Department.While Mr. Garland has not said publicly whether he intends to release either report by Mr. Smith, he has done so in the past with other reports by other special counsels.
In February, for example, Mr. Garland permitted the release of a report by the special counsel Robert K. Hur concerning President Biden’s handling of classified materials after he served as vice president. The report concluded that criminal charges were not warranted, but also offered an unflattering assessment of Mr. Biden’s memory and cognitive capacity in the middle of the 2024 presidential campaign.