<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesfan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ladyknightsfan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And you would happen to be the son of the LL president at the time (so go ahead and defend daddy) and there was no lawsuit - it was a point that needed to be proven - and it was - that little league is for all kids that want to play and they cannot be banned just because they play travel ball....Coeburn Little League tried to ban Hannah because she was participating on a travel team, they tried to make her choose one team or the other....It was taken to court to prove the point that you cannot ban a "kid" from Little League for playing on another team, and after the point was proven, Coeburn Little League had to eat crow! And another added point - daddy is not the president anymore, nor is anyone left on the board from that era in time and there is another travel team in Coeburn and those kids no longer play little league!</div></div>

You still never got the point...no one was ever "banned" from playing LL because they were on a travel team. They were banned because their parents declared them an injury scratch for LL games, and then went to play ASA games full-time. So that's on the parents' hands, and still is.

And show me one judgement where CLL had to eat crow.

And as for that president no longer being president--it was by his own choice--not because he was voted out.

Get your story straight instead of tossing out half-truths that conveniently support your half-arsed argument. </div></div>

I thought you said it was a lawsuit and that they sued the little league. </div></div>

They did...but the lawyer dropped the ball on some paperwork and the lawsuit never came to fruition. Ask ladyknightsfan about that.