LEGAL RESOURCES
In many instances, all parties to a SafeSport/USEF SafeSport matter have reached out to our organization for recommendations and/or suggestions for names of legal counsel who have demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the SafeSport matters. Both to assist someone in making a SafeSport report and walking them through the process, and also to those that have been contacted by SafeSport due to any form of potential investigation. The Athletes Equity Resource Center provides informational and educational materials for all parties and athletes in 51 Olympic sports. AERC ‘s purpose in offering such materials is to ensure that each and every party has equal access to the resources they need for their opportunity for a fair and just investigation, whatever that may entail.
In an effort to assist, we provide the names of such counsel upon receiving their permission to list their names should someone need to contact them about SafeSport. It is important to note that we do not endorse any particular counsel and provide this list as simply an extra possible resource. AERC will never know if you contacted any such counsel. You must use your own judgment when determining legal assistance.
The following attorneys have agreed to place their names on the available consultation list:.
California
Mike Caddell: mac@caddellchapman.com
Cynthia Chapman: cbc@caddellchapman.com
Howard Jacobs: https://www.athleteslawyer.com/
Florida
Michael Romm: mromm@rommlaw.com
Illinois
Steve Silvey: https://www.pattersonlawfirm.com/who-we-are/our-attorneys/steve-silvey/
New York
Jack Wiener:JackRWiener@gmail.com
Virginia
Tamara Tucker: tamara.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com
Bill Tucker: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com
Texas
Michael Caddell: mac@caddellchapman.com
Dan Cogdell: dcogdell@joneswalker.com
Chris Downey: Chris@Downeylawfirm.com
AERC provides information and is in no way responsible for choices made by users of AERC material. AERC is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt Delaware Corporation. All contributions are tax-deductible.
Athletes Equity Resource Center
7942 W Bell Rd, Suite C5-471
Glendale, AZ 85308
AthletesEquityResourceCenter.com
AERC Update
https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/44806087/juriese-colon-ceo-us-center-safesport
U.S. Center for SafeSport fires CEO Ju'Riese Colón
Associated Press
Apr 22, 2025, 07:17 PM ET
The Federalist Article
U.S. Center For SafeSport Shows The Dangers Of Delegating Power To Private Entities
By: George M. Perry
April 10, 2025
AP News - SafeSport knew of allegations against former cop before hiring him as investigator
By EDDIE PELLS
Updated 9:41 PM EDT, April 2, 2025
People at the U.S. Center for SafeSport knew a former police officer was the subject of an internal investigation at his former job but hired him anyway, according to details released Wednesday by Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is looking into the matter.
Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter this week to the center’s CEO, Ju’Riese Colon, asking more questions about why the organization hired Jason Krasley as an investigator even though it had knowledge of his potential legal trouble.
“You conceded that this was ‘concerning information’ but hired him nonetheless after being unable to ascertain additional information,” Grassley wrote to Colon, who had revealed that information to the senator in response to his original request in February, which stemmed from reporting by The Associated Press about Krasley’s arrests.
“I find this deeply troubling,” Grassley wrote.
Krasley has been charged with multiple sex crimes, including rape, sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, from episodes that occurred during his time at the Allentown, Pennsylvania, police department, and before he was hired by the center in 2021.
The center, which investigates sex-abuse cases in Olympic sports, fired Krasley in November, two months after learning of his initial arrest for allegedly stealing money the Allentown police vice team had seized in a drug bust. Later came Krasley’s arrest for sex crimes and, in June 2024, an arrest for harassment that was resolved in December.
Grassley’s letter recounts what Colon wrote to him: that one of Krasley’s references during the hiring process “shared with you that he was the subject of an internal investigation by the Allentown police department.” The case, the letter said, was based on statements from an alleged victim that the person later recanted.
The center provided the AP with its response to Grassley, dated March 14, in which Colon writes that the case has triggered several changes in the center’s vetting process. Under the new rules, she wrote, “this disclosure would have raised a red flag and prompted additional scrutiny into the alleged conduct that led to the internal investigation.”
Colon outlined enhancements of the center’s code of ethics and the addition of an ethics clause employees must adhere to. She said she is now personally interviewing all final candidates for jobs and that the center plans to contract with an outside consultant to review its recruiting and hiring process.
She also said the center now checks the National Decertification Index (NDI), which keeps track of discipline related to officer misconduct.
The center’s letter said Krasley handled 124 cases, 15 of which were open when he was terminated.
The center said there were no complaints of sexual misconduct while Krasley worked there.
The ex-cop is free on bail awaiting trial. His attorney has asserted his client’s innocence in the sex-crime cases, which date to 2015, most recently calling them “meritless and uncorroborated allegations from drug-addled and impaired prostitutes.”
The center has also hired a third-party firm to reach out to people whose cases were handled by the former cop.
That carried potential to retraumatize victims, one of whom, Jacqui Stevenson, told the AP the center’s outreach about a case that had long been resolved triggered “a total panic attack.”
In her letter, Colon explained that the two-month delay in firing Krasley was because of a concerted effort not to take steps that would compromise the criminal investigation — reasoning that did not sway Grassley.
“I imagine you appreciate that impressions regarding SafeSport’s judgment in hiring and firing decisions impact impressions of SafeSport’s ability to properly investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct in the sports community,” Grassley wrote.
Grassley sent a separate letter to the center’s chair, April Holmes, saying there “appears to be a lack of oversight by the Board to adequately supervise the CEO ... and other officers and directors in their duties to the organization.”
The senator questioned whether an increase in funding — something Colon has asked for — from its current budget of around $21 million a year would solve its problems, some of which he suggested are rooted in the complex nature of resolving sex-abuse allegations.
He said “there is concern that SafeSport is not prioritizing serious sexual and child abuse cases over other cases, which is causing more serious cases to languish without proper investigation.”
There was criticism of the center’s spending, including its $2.4 million in billing for legal services in 2023.
Also, Grassley pointed out $50,000 on dues and subscriptions, $36,000 on bank fees and credit cards and more than $390,000 on travel, all “expenses that seem excessive for a non-profit organization and financial decisions that seem counter-productive to the organization.”
Grassley asked Holmes to answer a series of questions, including how the board determined salaries for executives, including Colon, who made more than $400,000 in 2023, which included a $58,000 bonus.
Holmes said the board received the letter and would respond by Grassley’s May 1 deadline.
https://apnews.com/article/safesport-arrested-investigator-7706c88d1b788f1987a4cd7906c4e9a1
March 31, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Ju’Riese Colón
U.S. Center for SafeSport
Denver, CO 80246
Dear Ms. Colón,
I write in follow-up to your March 2025 response to my February 2025 letter regarding reports that former U.S. Center for SafeSport (“SafeSport”) investigator Jason Krasley faces criminal charges1 for theft, rape, sexual assault, involuntary servitude with the threat of serious physical harm, and patronizing prostitutes. (2)
Your letter was not entirely responsive to my inquiries, and the information you did provide caused additional concerns and prompted additional questions.
You informed me that, prior to Mr. Krasley’s hire, one of his references shared with you that he was the subject of an internal investigation by the Allentown police department. More specifically, you stated that the reference indicated that “a defendant in one of Mr. Krasley’s trafficking cases coerced victims into making false allegations” and that “after interviews and prison
phone records were reviewed, the victims’ statements were recanted.” You conceded that this was “concerning information” but hired him nonetheless after being unable to ascertain additional information. I find this deeply troubling. I imagine you appreciate that impressions regarding SafeSport’s judgment in hiring and firing decisions impact impressions of SafeSport’s ability to
properly investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct in the sports community. Congress designated SafeSport to protect athletes from abuse in sports and expects the organization to serve as a faithful guardian of public trust and a steward of taxpayer funding. You also indicated that you received information about the May 2019 allegations against Mr. Krasley (“theft by unlawful taking – movable prop[erty],” “receiving stolen property,” and
1 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. MJ-31102-CR-0000486-2024 (Nov 15, 2024),
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/MdjDocketSheet?docketNumber=MJ-31102-CR-0000486-
2024&dnh=3lto4Jsv31F8axMQIsd%2FRA%3D%3D
2 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. MJ-31103-CR-0000010-2025 (Jan. 10, 2025),
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/MdjDocketSheet?docketNumber=MJ-31103-CR-0000010-
2025&dnh=azUf5wu6OkgBZJrTEn5%2FWA%3D%3D.
“tamper[ing] with/fabricat[ing] physical evidence”3 ) and June 2024 allegations against him (“criminal mischief – damage property,” “harassment – subject other to physical contact,” and “harassment – comm[unicating] lewd, threatening, etc. language”4
). However, you neglected to tell me a key detail I asked for regarding how or from whom you learned of these allegations. I
am disappointed that you remained silent on this point, and I expect to learn about this in your next letter. Worse, SafeSport retained Krasley for two months after learning of these allegations as well as an ongoing criminal investigation against Krasley.
You admitted that there were individuals who reached out to SafeSport to express concerns about Mr. Krasley’s abilities as an investigator. These individuals “express[ed] concerns about [Mr. Krasley’s] communication style, professionalism, and investigation tactics.” You did not elaborate further. This ought to have inspired SafeSport to quickly inquire further and take appropriate action to ensure that Mr. Krasley, and all of SafeSport’s investigators, were carrying out their duties thoroughly and professionally – and to make appropriate employment decisions to that effect.
Please answer the sets of questions below by May 1, 2025.
You referenced a third-party recruitment firm that was involved in Mr. Krasley’s hiring. (a) Which third-party recruitment firm was SafeSport working with at the time of Mr. Krasley’s hiring?
(b) What criteria were considered by SafeSport in its selection of this firm to carry out
recruitment efforts?
(c) What criteria did the firm consider as it sought to recruit candidates for the role of
investigator?
(d) Is this the same firm that conducted Mr. Krasley’s reference checks?
(e) Who were Mr. Krasley’s references? Please include their titles and organizations.You stated that a “reputable third-party provider” conducted background checks for
prospective employees.
(a) Who was the “reputable third-party provider” with whom you contracted to perform criminal background checks on prospective employees at the time you hired Mr. Krasley?
(b) Is this the same provider with whom you contract for this purpose currently?
(c) If not, who is the current provider, and what prompted the change in providers?On any application form for candidates seeking employment as SafeSport investigators,
does SafeSport directly ask applicants if they have ever been the subject of any internal or external investigation in the context of any prior employment and the result of any such investigation?
3 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. MJ-31102-CR-0000486-2024,
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/MdjDocketSheet?docketNumber=MJ-31102-CR-0000486-
2024&dnh=3lto4Jsv31F8axMQIsd%2FRA%3D%3D. Quote is cleaned up.
4 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. CP-39-CR-0004245-2024 (Nov. 14, 2024),
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-39-CR-0004245-
2024&dnh=uopLzu4SsCKQiYlQGHa6Rw%3D%3D.
Why didn’t SafeSport apply additional scrutiny into Mr. Krasley’s alleged conduct that was the topic of the police department’s internal investigation regarding him? Why did SafeSport hire him despite the troubling information it did have at its disposal at that time?
You did not answer my question regarding how SafeSport became aware of the May 2019 and June 2024 allegations against Mr. Krasley. Please do so now.
You fired Mr. Krasley more than two full months after you became aware of the May 2019 and June 2024 allegations against Mr. Krasley. (a) Why didn’t SafeSport suspend Mr. Krasley immediately?
(b) Why didn’t SafeSport fire Mr. Krasley sooner?
(c) Did law enforcement ask SafeSport to refrain from taking action against Mr. Krasley
for any period of time?
(d) What were the nature of SafeSport’s internal deliberations about the allegations
against him?
(e) What safeguards did SafeSport implement during the two months Mr. Krasley
worked for SafeSport despite being the subject of criminal charges and a pending
criminal investigation?You shared that there were individuals who reached out to SafeSport to express concerns
about Mr. Krasley as an investigator.
(a) How many individuals reached out “expressing concerns about [Mr. Krasley’s] communication style, professionalism, and investigation tactics”? To which specific employees at SafeSport were these concerns communicated initially and subsequently?
(b) What was the status of the individuals who shared concerns about Mr. Krasley as an investigator? (I.e., victims, parents of victims, fellow SafeSport investigators or other colleagues)
(c) What were the precise concerns regarding his communication style, professionalism, and investigation tactics?
(d) How, if at all, did SafeSport respond to and address these concerns? Why didn’t the concerns become grounds for a performance evaluation and corrective measures, suspension, and/or termination?You commissioned Aleta Law, a third-party firm, to audit Mr. Krasley’s cases “to ensure fairness and adherence to the Center’s investigative protocol” and promised that “a report on the findings w[ould] be made publicly available upon completion.”5 Please share the report directly with me as part of your response to this letter, or as soon as it is completed.
5 “Arrest of a Previous U.S. Center for SafeSport Investigator,” SafeSport (Feb. 4, 2025),
https://uscenterforsafesport.org/important-update/.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
THOMAS NAVARRO; JAMES GIORGIO; NINA SHAFFER, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
– v. –
UNITED STATES CENTER FOR SAFESPORT; UNITED STATES OLYMPIC & PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE; UNITED STATES EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION, INC., Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA AT CHARLOTTESVILLE
https://athletesequityresourcecenter.com/s/Navarro-Opening-Brief-Stamped.pdf
Dear colleagues:
You are receiving the attached order issued by Judge Woodard of Florida as it pertains to his experiences and findings against the US Center for SafeSport. As one can imagine, the frustrations were many of SafeSport's clear ignoring of court orders and subpoenas such that the judge wrote this detailed order.
This order comes on the heels of learning the US Center for SafeSport were derelict in their hiring processes such that a former police officer with sexual assault charges made his way to being an investigator who investigated SafeSport cases for sexual assault victims for over three years. He is one of many bad hires by SafeSport.
It is imperative that each of you heed notice of what is happening at SafeSport, which is operating with little to no oversight.
In the 2023 990 forms one can see revenue of $24.7 million, expenses at $21.6 million, assets of $15.9 million and liabilities of $1.75 million.
Ask yourself how SafeSport has made the Olympic Sports movement safer after spending over $150 million since 2018. In 2023 the US Center for SafeSport's annual report touts handling of 24,000 cases and finding 2,000 athletes to have violated the code such that they are placed on a national database. The CEO of this organization is earning over $400,000 per year, while other salaries on the executive level exceed $150,000 each. Executive compensation is $1.5 million and other salaries and wages $10 million +. All of this to locate 2,000 athletes the Center believes to be at risk.
We thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule actually read and digest this information. Change is necessary and after eight years, it is needed now!
FEDERAL COURT ORDER STAMPED SAFESPORT
USA TODAY
Judge issues scathing SafeSport ruling, saying it 'perpetuated a fraud' in case
Senator Grassley letter to CEO of the Center for Safesport
grassley_to_safesport_-_hiring_practices
AP article.
Senate response to Safesport Investigator with sex crimes. questions of vetting & multiple failures of background checks at Safesport.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2025/02/27/safesport-withheld-evidence-athletes-case/80757404007/#e5hy2oaht8amvuvzxe3ne9wvbb4fmav6
AERC
AthletesEquityResourceCenter.com
AES
AthletesforEquity.org
Diane Carney
847-922-6167
≡ U.S. CENTER FOR SAFESPORT ≡
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: a) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., perpetrated a fraud upon the Court, the People of the State of Florida, the Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defendant; b) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence; c) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., acted in bad faith, intentionally, and with malice; and d) that the court finds the evidence of fraud, collusion, pretense, and similar wrongdoing to be clear, convincing, intentional, and beyond doubt.”
/Updated/That direct language came from a Supplemental Order filed on Tuesday, 25 February, by Seminole County (Fla.) Court Judge John Woodard, pertaining to a 2022 case involving one or more Florida female water polo players, with at least one filing a complaint with the U.S. Center for SafeSport and others participating as witnesses.
A Florida prosecution in 2022 concerning the incident was contributed to by a SafeSport investigator, which the Court described as “provided to influence the present case prosecution.”
However, in August 2022:
“the State learned that SafeSport filtered information, attempting to influence the Sheriff’s investigation. The State learned that SafeSport provided an incomplete file, withholding exculpatory information and withholding witness statements potentially favorable to the defendant.”
The Court then asked for production by SafeSport of all materials related to the case in January 2023, which was promptly refused by SafeSport’s counsel. Subsequent requests were made in December 2023 and February 2024, also refused by SafeSport. Requests from the Seminole County Sheriff in March, April and May 2024 were also refused.
The Sheriff then sent criminal subpoenas for the requested evidence in May, July and August 2024, and in September:
“Complaining witness [name withheld at SafeSport request] admitted that she reported the wrong date, wrong time, and wrong location. She admitted that SafeSport knew the information was false. [Name withheld at SafeSport request] admitted her Sheriff sworn affidavit was not accurate and that she had made no attempts to amend those nor speak to the prosecutors to explain her mistakes. The court makes a credibility determination and finds that the SafeSport reports and [name withheld at SafeSport request] reports are unreliable, unbelievable, and false.
“The exculpatory information is and was within the knowledge, custody, and control of SafeSport.
“The exculpatory information is and was within a SafeSport file that was the subject of numerous court orders and properly issued subpoenas.
“The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defense counsel went above and beyond any duty, and made every reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the exculpatory material and compliance by SafeSport to no avail.”
That led to this conclusion:
“Therefore, the court finds that it is clear, convincing, and beyond doubt:
“A. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., perpetrated a fraud upon the court, the People of the State of Florida, the Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defendant;
“B. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence; and
“C. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., acted in bad faith, intentionally, and with malice.”
It added in its Conclusions of Law (citations omitted):
“The United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., violated defendant’s constitutional right to due process, intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence from the court, the State’s Attorney, and the defendant. Suppression of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.
“Here, the court, the State, and the defendant operated in good faith, but was repeatedly blocked for over two years. SafeSport repeatedly and knowingly interfered with the investigation.”
Woodard’s order noted that his Court has authority to impose sanctions, but did not do so in this order, but he closed the underlying criminal case in view of the statements made by witnesses and left only his Order from Tuesday on the record.
A request for comment was made to SafeSport and will be added to this post if/once received.
¶
SafeSport has been under fire for more than a year and especially in view of the 1 March 2024 report of the Congress’ Commission on the State of the U.S. Olympics and Paralympics, which criticized the lengthy period of investigation and judgement on many cases submitted to it. Two Congressional hearings followed in March 2024, also focusing on SafeSport performance.
A bill introduced last December by U.S. Rep. Deborah Ross (D-North Carolina) and others – H.R. 10326: “Safer Sports for Athletes Act of 2024” – did not progress and has not been re-introduced so far in 2025.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a 10 February letter to SafeSport, asking for details of its hiring procedures in view of the arrest of a former SafeSport investigator for alleged criminal activities undertaken at his prior job as a police officer in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
And the Arizona-based Athletes Equity Resource Center has created a Web site with a running log of actions filed against SafeSport, including Judge Woodard’s order.
All of this continues to be a bad look for the Center for SafeSport, which was created by the Congress in 2017 as a means to get bad actors out of Olympic sport in the U.S., and funded in part by a required $20 million payment each January by the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee.
Judge Woodard’s order now makes SafeSport out as a bad actor – it is also being sued elsewhere – and will only increase pressure for reform within it and the U.S. Olympic Movement
https://athletesequityresourcecenter.com/s/217527824-Order-Filed-By-Judiciary.pdf
“Florida judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that SafeSport interfered and obstructed a criminal investigation.”
Filing # 217527824 E-Filed 02/25/2025 01:48:01 PM
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN RE: UNITED STATES CENTER A FOR SAFESPORT, INC
CASE NUMBER: 2022-MM-002950 & CASE NUMBER: 2022-MM-001423-A
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
This matter being heard on a Motion to Expunge pursuant to Florida Statutes s. 943.0585(4)(c), due notice having been given, the court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, the court conducting a hearing on January 10, 2025, considering the testimony, evidence, court record, and being fully advised, the court finds as follows.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., is established under 36 USC § 220541 (SafeSport). It represents itself to the public as a private entity organized under the laws of Colorado. SafeSport conducts business and intentionally submits itself to the jurisdiction of every state. SafeSport maintains a Registered Agent in Florida. At relevant times in 2022 and 2023, SafeSport’s General Counsel, Heather O’Brien, was also an active member of the Florida Bar.
2. April 15, 2022, SafeSport’s “Investigator” Scott Tripp provided information to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department (the Sheriff) in support of an investigation opened in February, 2022. The information purported to be related to details on behalf of a complaining witness, Emily Cummings and an events witness, Maddie Shea. SafeSport’s report and information was provided to influence the present case prosecution.
3. Between 2022 and December, 2023, SafeSport conducted an independent investigation resulting in multiple recorded interviews of witnesses and hundreds of pages of documents related to SafeSport’s report to the Sheriff.
4. In August, 2022, complying with the good faith obligation to provide discovery, the State learned that SafeSport filtered information, attempting to influence the Sheriff’s investigation. The State learned that SafeSport provided an incomplete file, withholding exculpatory information and withholding witness statements potentially favorable to the defendant.
5. January 23, 2023 the court issued an Order requiring the production of “evidence currently … in the possession of SafeSport in 10 days from the date of this Order or provide a sworn, written response showing good cause why this Order cannot be complied with.”
6. Also on January 23, 2023, a subpoena duces tecum issued concurrent with the Order of production to SafeSport. Among other requests the subpoena noted in part that:
The SafeSport file is missing the following:…
e. Any and all reports prepared by SafeSport for the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department …
i. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations between SafeSport and [witness]
E.C. that occurred prior to April 14, 2022.
j. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations between SafeSport and ANY alleged witness that occurred prior to April 14, 2022.
k. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations between SafeSport and [witness] Tiana Boule.
l. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations between SafeSport and [witness] Kerstyn Farley.
m. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations between SafeSport and [witness] Marina Karman.
n. Any and all correspondence including but not limited to any video, audio, and, or notes of conversations that occurred after August 3, 2022 …
SafeSport files are identified by the following case numbers: 2022-00947, 2022- 00544, 2022-00497, 2022-00495, 2022-00496, 2022-00409, 2022- 00498.
7. In a letter dated January 26, 2023, counsel for SafeSport, Mr. Joe Zonies acknowledged receipt of the Order and the subpoena. Counsel attempted to object, refused any cooperation, and refused compliance.
8. December 8 and 11, 2023, SafeSport conducted a recorded JAMS “arbitration” hearing, presenting some of the witness testimony and some of the investigation documents related to SafeSport's report to the Sheriff.
9. This court issued an Order that SafeSport produce, under seal, the audio/video recordings or transcripts of the JAMS arbitration conducted on December 8 & 11, 2023, involving defendant and some or all of the witnesses identified in paragraph 6 above. SafeSport is the custodian of those audio/visual recordings or transcripts.
10. On February 1, 2024, this court issued another Order that SafeSport produce the audio/video recording or transcript of the JAMS arbitration conducted on December 8 and 11, 2023.
11. On February 8, 2024, SafeSport counsel, Mr. Zonies, replied to the Order via e-mail, wherein he declared his refusal to comply with this court’s Order. Mr. Zonies compounded his contempt for the court by sending a similar e-mail letter to the State, also indicating his refusal to comply with the Order.
A. Mr. Zonies made a material misrepresentation to this court, specifically mis-citing: “As required by federal statute, the [SafeSport] Center’s files are considered “confidential” and not subject to civil subpoena. 36 U.S.C. § 220541(f)(4)(C)(i).” (emphasis added). Mr. Zonies intentionally failed to represent that the Order was issued by this court, vested with criminal court authority, and not as a civil court matter. Mr. Zonies intentionally failed to reference or adhere to the dictates of 36 U.S.C. § 220541(f)(4)(C) (ii), which provides: Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to prohibit the [SafeSport] Center from providing work product described in clause (i) to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of assisting in a criminal investigation.
12. On March 1, 2024, a new report was filed with the Sheriff by the defendant to commence investigation into potential falsification of a police report by witnesses Marina Karman, Maddie Shea and complaining witnesses, Emily Cummings and Kerstyn Farley.
13. On March 18, 2024, the Sheriff opened another investigation into the report of false information being submitted by SafeSport and witnesses referenced above.
14. On April 24, 2024, Sheriff’s Detective Mike Pivowar, e-mailed SafeSport’s attorney Mr. Zonies a letter requesting records and information in connection with the ongoing criminal investigation, specifically seeking the audio/visual recordings or transcripts of the JAMS arbitration, noting that while SafeSport’s work product may be confidential, there is a clear exception to cooperate with law enforcement to assist with a criminal investigation.
15. On May 3, 2024, Detective Pivowar sent another e-mail to Jessica Perrill, SafeSport’s General Counsel and Vice President of Response and Resolutions, again requesting records and information in connection with SafeSport’s investigation, specifically the audio/visual recordings or transcripts of the JAMS arbitration pursuant to 36 U.S.C. § 220541(f)(4)(C)(ii).
16. Neither SafeSport, Mr. Zonies, nor Ms. Perrill acknowledged or responded to Detective Pivowar’s communications. Thereafter, on May 20, 2024, Detective Pivowar issued a criminal subpoena for the audio/visual recordings or transcripts of the JAMS arbitration conducted on December 8 and 11, 2023.
17. On May 28, 2024, the criminal subpoena was served via Certified Mail to SafeSport’s Colorado Registered Agent.
18. On July 24, 2024, the criminal subpoena was served via personal service on the Colorado Registered Agent for SafeSport.
19. On August 1, 2024, the criminal subpoena was served on SafeSport’s Florida Registered Agent.
20. On August 22, 2024, defense counsel issued another subpoena to SafeSport in accord with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, also requesting SafeSport’s file and audio/visual recordings or transcripts of the JAMS arbitration conducted on December 8 and 11, 2023.
21. On August 26, 2024, the criminal subpoena was served via personal service on SafeSport’s Florida Registered Agent.
22. Dated September 3, 2024, the court received affidavit testimony confirming that complaining witness Kerstyn Farley was wrong in the details submitted to the Sheriff’s Office and that SafeSport knew the details were wrong.
23. Complaining witness Kerstyn Farley admitted that she reported the wrong date, wrong time, and wrong location. She admitted that SafeSport knew the information was false. Farley admitted her Sheriff sworn affidavit was not accurate and that she had made no attempts to amend those nor speak to the prosecutors to explain her mistakes. The court makes a credibility determination and finds that the SafeSport reports and Kerstyn Farley’s reports are unreliable, unbelievable, and false.
24. The exculpatory information is and was within the knowledge, custody, and control of SafeSport.
25. The exculpatory information is and was within a SafeSport file that was the subject of numerous court orders and properly issued subpoenas.
26. The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defense counsel went above and beyond any duty, and made every reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the exculpatory material and compliance by SafeSport to no avail.
27. Therefore, the court finds that it is clear, convincing, and beyond doubt:
A. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., perpetrated a fraud upon the court, the People of the State of Florida, the Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defendant;
B. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence; and
C. That the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., acted in bad faith, intentionally, and with malice.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
27. The court has jurisdiction as SafeSport is present in the State of Florida by operation of 36 U.S.C. § 220541, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and SafeSport Authorization Act of 2017, which mandates that SafeSport operate and conduct business in each of the fifty United States.
28. The court has jurisdiction as SafeSport intentionally inserted itself into, initiated, and interfered with a criminal investigation conducted by duly authorized law enforcement officers in the State of Florida.
29. The court has jurisdiction as SafeSport did purposely, knowingly conduct business within Seminole County, the State of Florida, and maintains a registered agent office within the State of Florida.
30. The United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., violated defendant’s constitutional right to due process, intentionally withholding exculpatory evidence from the court, the State’s Attorney, and the defendant. Suppression of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Floyd v. State, 902 So. 2d 775, 777-778 (Fla 2005). Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Also see Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (Intentionally withholding presentence investigation material is violation of due process). Here, the court, the State, and the defendant operated in good faith, but was repeatedly blocked for over two years. SafeSport repeatedly and knowingly interfered with the investigation.
31. SafeSport withholding exculpatory evidence is akin to an intentional destruction of evidence. SafeSport’s actions raise a rebuttable presumption that the hidden evidence was adverse to the claims. Seaway Biltmore, Inc. v. Abuchaibe, 348 So. 3d 23 (Fla DCA 3d Dist. 2022). Here, SafeSport not only failed to dispute the presumption, it intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence. Moreover, the court has clear, convincing, unrebutted testimony that SafeSport had specific knowledge that its reports to the Sheriff were false and fraudulent. Accord, League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363, 390-392 (Fla. 2015) (Systematic destruction of evidence the court may infer unconstitutional intent).
32. Under the circumstances of SafeSport’s conduct here, the court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions and enter these supplemental findings when fraudulent conduct is perpetrated upon the court. Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 993 So. 2d 1014, 1018 (Fla. DCA 2d Dist. 2008). The court’s power to address SafeSport’s conduct is indispensable to the proper administration of justice because no litigant has a right to trifle with the courts, but “only on a clear finding of fraud, pretense, collusion, or similar wrongdoing.” Id. "[T]ampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society". Id at pages 1020-1021, citing Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944), receded from on other grounds by Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17 (1976). WHEREUPON IT IS
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: a) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., perpetrated a fraud upon the Court, the People of the State of Florida, the Sheriff’s Office, the State’s Attorney Office, and defendant; b) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence; c) that the United States Center for SafeSport, Inc., acted in bad faith, intentionally, and with malice; and d) that the court finds the evidence of fraud, collusion, pretense, and similar wrongdoing to be clear, convincing, intentional, and beyond doubt;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition to expunge and the petition to seal filed concurrently is hereby granted. Other than this Supplemental Order pertaining to “In Re United States Center for SafeSport, Inc.,” all court records pertaining to the above-styled case shall be sealed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.692;
IT IS FUTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Supplemental Order pertaining to “In Re United States Center for SafeSport, Inc.” and only this Supplemental Order, shall remain in the public record; and
The Court thanks and acknowledges the good faith effort and contributions by the State Attorney’s Office, the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, the defendant, and all the defense counsel that provided services pro bono supporting and assisting the court under unnecessarily difficult circumstances.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at the Seminole County Courthouse,
Sanford, Florida, on Tuesday, February 25, 2025.
John Woodard, County Judge
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_to_safesport_-_hiring_practices.pdf
TO READ THE FULL FOUR PAGE LETTER CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE
United States Senate
WashingtonDC 20510
February 10, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Ju’Riese Colón
U.S. Center for SafeSport
Denver, CO 80246
Dear Ms. Colón,
I write regarding reports that a former U.S. Center for SafeSport (“SafeSport”) investigator faces criminal charges1 for theft, rape, sexual assault, involuntary servitude with the threat of serious physical harm, and patronizing prostitutes.
Congress created SafeSport to investigate sensitive cases of sexual abuse and harassment. Claimants share deeply personal information with SafeSport investigators. For some, the memories they share with SafeSport are among their worst. Claimants and respondents alike deserve impartial, fair investigators who have not been accused of sexual misconduct of their own. Investigators must be professionally and morally qualified to perform their duties. Accusations of rape and other sex crimes against any SafeSport investigator are especially concerning given SafeSport’s mandate to protect athletes from similar abuse. Charges of that nature seriously call into question the quality of SafeSport’s vetting processes of its own officials.
In May 2019, Mr. Krasley was serving as a police detective in Allentown, Pennsylvania, when he allegedly stole $5,500 from a crime suspect. Theft in this context also constitutes the crime of tampering with evidence. SafeSport hired him around 2021 to investigate allegations of
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. MJ-31102-CR-0000486-2024 (Nov 15, 2024), https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/MdjDocketSheet?docketNumber=MJ-31102-CR-0000486-2024&dnh=3lto4Jsv31F8axMQIsd%2FRA%3D%3D
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jason Michael Krasley, No. MJ-31103-CR-0000010-2025 (Jan. 10, 2025), https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/MdjDocketSheet?docketNumber=MJ-31103-CR-0000010-2025&dnh=azUf5wu6OkgBZJrTEn5%2FWA%3D%3D. 3 When SafeSport receives a report of abuse or misconduct in sport, establishes proper jurisdiction, and subsequently determines that a formal investigation is appropriate, its investigators conduct interviews of claimants and respondents as well as gather evidence for the case. They then compile the evidence in a formal investigation report, which they share with a committee of reviewers, including their supervisor and the legal team. See Response and Resolution Process Overview, at 1 (July 2024), U.S. CTR. FOR SAFESPORT, https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/07/SafeSport-Process-Factsheet.pdf. 4 DA: Former Allentown police officer charged with stealing money from drug suspect, WFMZ 69 NEWS (Nov. 15, 2024), https://www.wfmz.com/news/area/lehighvalley/da-former-allentown-police-officer-charged-with-stealingmoney-from-drug-suspect/article_f3ec0208-a367-11ef-b073-db61de6426e0.html.
Current litigation or investigations against Safsport as of 2/5/2025
January 2025
Here is an account of a reporting athlete to Safesport and what she endured for 2 years in an unresolved Safesport case.
A gymnast working extra hours at a gym was sexually assaulted by a highly respected coach and gymnastics official in 2018.
The assaulted individual contacted the police and filed a report with Safesport in 2018. The police could not find details beyond what he said she said.
Safesport having the report on their desk for 1 ½ years never contacted the reporting sexually assaulted athlete after the first call. The assaulted athlete grew frustrated by having to see her assailant at the gym and horrified at the no action by the gymnastics NGB contacted an attorney to seek action where Safesport had taken no action to protect her or other athletes.
It takes immense courage to file the
Safesport report and continue with her gymnastic training while the accused coach continues training and coaching as if nothing had occurred. Gathering her courage again and thinking what if her assailant is assaulting other athletes, she and the attorney set out to get some answers or movement from Safesport. The attorney and the assaulted individual saw general sports news regarding Safesport articles on cases that reached back decades, yet no investigator was available to a current case and current threat in sports!
Finally in 2020 some movement. A Safesport investigator was assigned to the 2018 Safesport report.
How can Safesport in good conscious investigate decades-old cases while current reports of sexual predators are being ignored in current sports?
Who decides where Safesport distributes funding and their focus?
Did Congress intend with the amendment of the Ted Stevens Act creating The Center for Safesport to have the center focus to be retrospective or prospective cases?
September 2024
Case 3:24-cv-00030-RSB-JCH Document 45 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 59 Pageid#:527
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division
Thomas Navarro, James Giorgio, and Nina Shaffer,
Plaintiffs,
v.
United States Center of SafeSport, United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, and United
States Equestrian Federation, Inc.,
Defendants
https://athletesequityresourcecenter.com/s/Filed-Final-Brief-in-Opposition-to-MTD.pdf
August 2024
Thank you very much for your donations and your dedicated interest in the mission of Athletes Equity Resource Center.
Listed below are updates regarding AERC’s work over the past year. More details can be found on the AERC website at AthletesEquityResourceCenter.com
• AAA Arbitration Ruling
Summary: Back in 2015-2016, national governing board (NGB) USEF saw the conflict regarding suspending their members without a hearing. At that point in time, they should have asked the declaratory judgment question presently being presented for clarification in 2024. USOPC, USEF, and IOC all have said that they have no jurisdiction to resolve this problem (question). So, after exhausting all administrative remedies over the past five years, the AAA ruling paved the way for the federal court complaint to be filed in Virginia.
• Western District of Virginia Federal Court Complaint
Summary: Members of the NGB USEF were injured by the NGB when they were suspended from their sport before a hearing. That lack of due process in the SafeSport resolution process is the question to be resolved by the federal court.
In addition, there are constitutional questions: Congress created the Center for Safe Sport and gave it far-reaching authority, yet SafeSport is not a federal agency; it is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity.
An appeal process does not currently exist for an individual caught up in a SafeSport case. Furthermore, handling evidence — as well as what is considered to be evidence — in SafeSport cases also is in question in the federal court complaint.
To reach the federal court stage has taken five years. Thanks to your contributions, AERC and AES have been able to pay the court-related procedural fees necessary to achieve placing documents in court records. The subsequent AAA arbitration then paved the way for the declaratory judgment question to be filed in the case submitted to the Western District of Virginia Federal Court.
A press release with more information is expected from the attorneys this month (August). That press release will be sent to you and also available on the AERC web site.
• Public Meeting
AERC and AES held a public meeting in Wellington, FL, in February of 2024. Seventy-five people attended the meeting in person along with a limited number of attendees via Zoom. attendance. This was the first such this meeting to reach and include the West Coast.
• Looking Ahead to 2025
AERC and AES will continue to hold an in-person meeting in Wellington in February or March 2025 and will expand availability through Zoom. The Board of Directors for both nonprofit organizations, along with those who have contributed to either or both nonprofits, will continue to be invited to attend that meeting in person or via Zoom. As AERC’s audience grows, so will our communications outreach. Invitations and a notification for the Zoom call will be sent early in 2025.
In the meantime, updates will be posted on our websites:
AthletsEquityResourceCenter.com
Please feel free to contact me at any time.
Sincerely, Diane Carney
President AERC
Current Federal litigation Pending vs SafeSport
Walker v. SafeSport, Fed Dist. Ct. NJ, No. 2:24-cv-05650 Gymnastics
Strine v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct. S. Dist. FL, No. 9:24-CV-80733, Equestrian
Navarro, et. Al. v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct., W. Dist. VA., No. 3:2024cv00030, Equestrian
Doe v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct. W. Dist. WA, No. 3:2023cv06067, Swimming
Sanderson v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct. CO, No. 1:2021cv01771, Shooting
French v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct. CO, No. 1:2024cv02138,
Bennani v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct, CO No. 1:2023cv03160, Equestrian
Moore v. SafeSport, Fed. Dist. Ct, E. Dist. MI, No. 1:2023cv11681
At least three other cases are about to be filed in federal district courts in Colorado and Texas.
Current State litigation Pending vs SafeSport
USA Swimming v. SafeSport, Co. Dist. Ct., No. 24 CV 30728, Swimming
FEDERAL COMPLAINT
Case 3:24-cv-00030-RSB-JCH Document 1 Filed 04/28/24 Page 1 of 39 Pageid#:1
In the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia
Charlottesville Division
Thomas Navarro, James Giorgio, and Nina Shaffer,
Plaintiffs,
v.
United States Center of SafeSport, United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, and United States Equestrian Federation, Inc.,
Defendants,
https://athletesequityresourcecenter.com/s/Federal-Case-with-case.pdf
PRESS RELEASE
American Arbitration Association, Commercial Arbitration Tribunal, Final Decision
Case Number: 10-20-0015-8031
James Giorgio, Estate of Robert Gage, Mitchell Steege; Eduardo Zavala Sanchez; Dylan Harries, Thomas Navarro; Thomas Serio, Claimants,
v.
United States Equestrian Federation, Respondent
Final Decision
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 10, 2024
ARBITRATION PANEL FINDS THAT SAFESPORT MAY VIOLATE OLYMPIC LAW
In a first-of-its kind case, a panel of three arbitrators has decided that the process used by the US Center for SafeSport (CSS) likely violates the rights of Olympic Movement participants under the Ted Stevens Amateur and Olympic Sports Act. A group of equestrians challenged the process, alleging that the United States Equestrian Federation had violated the Sports Act when it imposed the decisions by the Center. As a result, the equestrians contended that the Federation was no longer eligible to serve as the National Governing Body for Equestrian Sport. Issued on December 27, 2023, the complete written determination is awaiting public posting by the USOPC.
The equestrians were represented by Tamara Tucker of Charlottesville, Virginia, Michael Romm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, and Steve Silvey of Chicago, IL.
Ms. Tucker filed the first non-compliance complaint for lead claimant, James Giorgio, in August 2019. Additional claimants were represented by Mr. Romm. Mr. Silvey joined the case prior to the arbitration trial.
Ms. Tucker explained, “Mr. Giorgio’s first contact with the Center for SafeSport was a letter out of the blue permanently banning him. He did not receive any notice that he was under investigation prior to that. But even when notice is properly given, the process still violates the Sports Act because you only get a hearing after a final sanction is imposed, and then in order to get the hearing, you have to pay close to $6,000.00. That is just wrong.”
Mr. Romm added, “our position was that not only does the Center’s process violate the Sports Act, it violates the IOC Charter and jeopardizes the standing of US athletes to participate in the Olympics. There is no reason for the Center to operate this way when the right of athletes to get a hearing before being declared ineligible has been part of the Olympic Movement for over 50 years.”
The arbitration panel leveled harsh criticism at the USOPC, the USEF, and the Center for SafeSport:
“For nearly ten years, Respondent and the USOPC have failed to take the steps necessary to address the conflict between the due process rights provided by the CSS/SafeSport Code and the PDH right identified in Section 220522(a)(8) and potentially Section 22054l(a)(l)(H)of the Ted Stevens Act. This case only scratched the surface regarding the reasons why Respondent and the USOPC agreed to remove the longstanding right that an accused Olympic participant was afforded a pre-determination hearing (PDH) under Section 220522(a)(8) when the SafeSportsystem was implemented after the Dr. Larry Nasser scandal in women's gymnastics. The limited evidence presented appears to indicate that the USOPC was either directly responsible or complicit in eliminating this predetermination hearing right when the SafeSport system was created. Whether proper or not, the longstanding right that an accused Olympic participant was afforded a pre-determination hearing under Section 220522(a)(8) was eliminated when the SafeSport system was created by the USOPC.”
“The CSS only doubled down on this pre-determination hearing issue in 2018 when it assumed full control and responsibility for all cases involving sexual misconduct or abuse in sport. To add to the problem, CSS also used its exclusive authority to create SafeSport Rules that prevented an accused Olympic participant from legally challenging its adjudication procedure allowing CSS to issue final decisions against an accused Olympic participant before ever providing a· pre-determination hearing.”
“The issue is whether Claimants could prevail in federal court regarding the legal conflict between the rules and procedures of CSS and the SafeSport Code and the conflicting due process protection identified in Section 220522(a)(8) and other sections of the Ted Stevens Act. As discussed in the analysis above, Claimants clearly have a valid procedural due process claim to adjudicate and this Panel agrees that Claimants could prevail when this conflict of law issue is eventually addressed in federal court.”
“The USOPC and CSS efforts to diminish or minimize this right to procedural due process has been set up for a rebuke by a federal court since the passage and implementation of the original version of the SafeSport Code in 2017 … In the meantime, hundreds of accused Olympic participants may continue to be inappropriately deprived of a legal right to a PDH in their cases.” Ms. Tucker and Mr. Romm confirmed that the equestrians intend to pursue this case further in federal court and with the IOC.
Ropes & Gray; Gray Nassar Investigation Paints Damning Picture Of USOC And USA Gymnastics [Update]
https://deadspin.com/ropes-gray-nassar-investigation-paints-damning-pictur-1830994055/