Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Josh Gross


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Lowkick


Liver Kick


Fightsport Asia


Caged In


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


Fightlinker


Fightnomics


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Infinite MMA


MMA Convert


Fightline


Fight Medicine


CompuBox


CompuStrike


MMA Frenzy


Ult MMA


Fighters


Kevin Iole


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


MMA Chronicle


David Williams


Audio Corner


Oddscast


Tapout Radio


Sherdog Radio


Joe Ferraro


The Fightworks Podcast


Eddie Goldman


Pro MMA Radio


MMA Torch


Video Corner


Fight Hub


The Fight Nerd


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

Site Meter

« | Home | »

What UFC didn’t tell the public about Jeremy Stephens (who knew what?)

By Zach Arnold | October 24, 2012

Print Friendly and PDF

When Dana White made his public plea about trying to get Jeremy Stephens out of a Minnesota jail cell for extradition to Iowa, it was one of the more bizarre scenes in the history of White’s tenure with the UFC. He was fighting on behalf of a guy who was not even fighting on the main card of an FX show, a show that drew lousy ratings. He was also sticking up for a guy in Stephens who used the n-word when trash talking Floyd Mayweather on Twitter in the past.

Judge Moisan in Polk County, Iowa signed off on an Order of Protection on October 12th against Jeremy Stephens, ordering him to stay away from Shane & Jennifer Schreck on the following grounds:

On the basis of the complaint or affidavit(s) submitted to the court at the time of the defendant’s appearance, the court finds there is probable cause that the Defendant committed the offense of WILLFUL INJURY (SHANE SCHRECK0; ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY INJURY (JENNIFER SCHRECK) and believes that the presence of the defendant in the alleged victim’s residence poses a threat to the safety of the alleged victim, persons residing with the alleged victim, or members of the alleged victim’s immediate family.

The State of Iowa also went after Stephens for an increase in his bond. Read carefully and you will see why they were playing hardball with Dana:

1. The defendant was charged by complaint with Willful Injury and Serious Assault on October 20, 2011. Bond was set at $20,000 cash and $1,000 cash, respectively, pending the service of the arrest warrant.

2. The Des Moines Police Department has been notified that the defendant has been arrested on the warrant in the above-captioned case in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

3. The defendant is a professional mixed martial artist who travels the country to participate in mixed martial arts competitions.

4. The undersigned was contacted by attorney Matt Boles several months ago about the above-captioned case, which would indicate that the defendant is aware of the warrant. The defendant has not turned himself in on these charges prior to being arrested in Minneapolis.

5. Considering the nature of the charges, the defendant’s inclinations towards travel, and the length of time since the underlying incident occurred, the State requests that the bond be increased to protect the public and to insure the defendant’s presence at future court hearings.

So, now we know why Dana and company went silent about Stephens’ predicament a few days after making a fool out of himself at the FX show in Minneapolis.

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 22 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

22 Responses to “What UFC didn’t tell the public about Jeremy Stephens (who knew what?)”

  1. edub says:

    “So, now we know why Dana and company went silent about Stephens’ predicament a few days after making a fool out of himself at the FX show in Minneapolis.”

    No, we knew why he went silent about it a few days after right away. Stephens was not longer able to be a part of that event so Dana had no inclination to get him free anymore.

    Nothing knew was said here. Especially, nothing that would entail continually raising a bond on a person repeatedly so that he wouldn’t be released.

    “The undersigned was contacted by attorney Matt Boles several months ago about the above-captioned case, which would indicate that the defendant is aware of the warrant. The defendant has not turned himself in on these charges prior to being arrested in Minneapolis.”

    This has been refuted directly by Stephens, and his attorney. So unless proof comes out (which this is most certainly not), then its a case of he said/she said.

    • BD says:

      So … you’re saying the judge is lying and Stephens’ attorney is not?

      • edub says:

        No, I’m saying the judge making an official statement on the matter and a document posted on the subject (by the state) does not provide proof. It just provides their position. Which has been refuted by the party in question.

        In other words, this isn’t some smoking gun which is what its made out to be.

        • The Judge says:

          Yeah, I was kind of wondering where the smoking gun was, as I was reading it myself. Is there anything non-standard about this case? Guy says he didn’t know about the warrant. Investigators say otherwise.

    • Rollo the Cat says:

      Strange how some people are so willing to except the government’s version of events when it fits their purposes.

  2. Jam says:

    “Trael”?

    Where did you copy and paste your information from, Zach? I can’t imagine an official state/government document missing such an obvious typo.

    Ed. — I didn’t copy and paste. I typed out the document. Sorry for the typo. Missed the ‘v’ in travel. Fixed.

  3. Chris says:

    Dana White publicly making a fool out of himself? I don’t believe it!

  4. Ryan says:

    Iowa keeps written records about when people are contacted about warrants and things like that. When that attorney was served notice of the warrant, a document was signed that states he’s received the warrant. Stephens most likely knew about the warrant, and didn’t realize that MN does criminal background checks on fighters when they apply for licenses.

    • BD says:

      I’ve found the Iowa courts site, but it only gives you summaries, not full documents. Unless you register, which is tempting.

      I can safely conclude I don’t want to ride in Stephens’ car.

  5. Ken says:

    Your article doesn’t make sense Zach.

    Who exactly is “the undersigned”? Is it the judge? Is it an attorney? Is it Dana White?

    Because “the undersigned” was contacted by an attorney it means someone else specifically Jeremy must have know about it? Not a direct cause and effect there. At best an assumption. Like I ASSUME since I was contacted by Jeremy’s attorney(not stated that Matt Boles is authorized to act in Jeremy’s behalf) that Jeremy must know because this attorney who contacted me(the undersigned) knew. Circular logic at best.

    And what the hell does the “protection order” have to do with your title “what the UFC didn’t tell the public”? Are you ASSuming that the UFC knew about the protection order? Who’s to say even Jeremy knew about the protection order?

    Wow my fifth grader has better reasoning skills than the person who wrote this article.

    • Zheroen says:

      “Like I ASSUME since I was contacted by Jeremy’s attorney(not stated that Matt Boles is authorized to act in Jeremy’s behalf) that Jeremy must know because this attorney who contacted me(the undersigned) knew. Circular logic at best.”

      Ever heard of “power of attorney”?

      “Wow my fifth grader has better reasoning skills than the person who wrote this article.”

      He also probably has better reading comprehension than you.

      • The Judge says:

        As far as I understand the term “power of attorney” does not mean that any attorney you hire is authorized to do any and all action on your behalf. Not every attorney has “power of attorney”–what’s more “power of attorney” does not mean “you can do what you want in my name”, it is usually spelled out in the form.
        While Ken’s tone might have been a bit confrontational, he cited specific examples of what he found to be wrong with the article–your response listed one and made a major error. I would guess the fifth grader has you beat on reading comprehension, reasoning and understanding of legal terms.

      • edub says:

        “power of attorney”

        As The Judge spoke about, power of attorney does not just apply to every attorney you hire. His attorney most likely does not have “power of attorney”.

    • Zach Arnold says:

      The undersigned is the Assistant Polk County Attorney, Celene Gogerty, and submitted by John P. Sarcone to the court on her behalf.

      The protection order text was posted because it was issued on 10/12, which is after Stephens was arrested and it gave more details regarding what he’s facing in Iowa court down the line.

    • The Gaijin says:

      Are you serious?

      1.) The undersigned is obviously the judge. READ the article – it’s obviously an excerpt from a protection order (which would be signed by the Judge (the undersigned).

      Read here: “Judge Moisan in Polk County, Iowa signed off on an Order of Protection on October 12th against Jeremy Stephens,” you can’t fail that hard can you?

      2.) “Because “the undersigned” was contacted by an attorney it means someone else specifically Jeremy must have know about it?”

      Uhh…YES, Stephens would have most certainly known about it. Obviously a random lawyer would not be permitted to contact the court on his behalf. If you knew anything about law or the legal process, you would know that in order for the attorney to contact the court (ostensibly on Stephens behalf) Stephens would have had to retain the lawyer and the lawyer would need to show/state he was retained to act for Stephens either (a) on that particular matter or (b) as his representative on all legal matters under a standing retainer. Either way, by law, Stephens would have been deemed to have known or ought to have known at that point. And let’s be frank, Stephens is not a trust-fund kid or weathly individual with family lawyer/rep at his side, so clearly by standard logic one would reasonably take the view that he retained a lawyer on this matter.

      Whatever way you cut it, Stephens clearly knew about all of this.

      3.) The public was told this was a nothing case and that Stephens is a “good kid”. Obviously they didn’t tell anyone about all of the stuff that’s come out since then about this meathead and all of the alleged thuggish sh*t he did. Also, the title asks the question of “who knew what” so that would imply that the UFC may not have even known about the extent of things or the protective order.

      Regardless, learn to read and reason and you won’t sound liek a total ignoramous.

      • The Judge says:

        “The undersigned is obviously the judge. READ the article – it’s obviously an excerpt from a protection order (which would be signed by the Judge (the undersigned).”

        Except it’s obviously not: “The undersigned is the Assistant Polk County Attorney, Celene Gogerty”—Zach says this above. Also, reading over the excerpt to, it is very obviously an explanation of why the bail bond was raised, something that has nothing to do with the protection order (though both were issued over the same subject matter). This is the D.A’s. argument to the Judge, saying let’s raise the bond.

        2) Any attorney (or anybody for that matter) can contact the court. This is how I would phrase paragraph 4 of the statement if what you think happened took place and this is also what paragraph 4 very specifically does NOT say took place:
        The undersigned was contacted by attorney Matt Boles, who was retained by Mr. Stephens, in regard to the subject matter. At the time, Mr. Boles was informed of a warrant having been issued for his arrest and advised that, should Mr. Stephens not turn himself in, the State of Iowa (here my legal phrasing fails me) will attempt to arrest Mr Stephens outside of Iowa blah blah blah and that a failure to turn himself in on these charges will lead to active persecution and a raise in bail bond.

        On subject matter 3—there is no new evidence in the article to support that any of the charges were true. There is a protection order. There is a mention as to what the actual charges are: Willful Injury and Serous Assault. But there is no reason for us to take the government’s word over Stephens as to the charges being true, any more than there is a reason for us to take Stephens’s word over the government. I prefer the latter, since the individual is always weaker than the state. Innocent until prefer guilty. But either way, I see no smoking gun here.

  6. [...] we last visited the story regarding Jeremy Stephens getting arrested in Minneapolis, there was a debate as to what UFC knew at the time and how much the public was told about his [...]

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image