4 years and still no trial in sight for psu administrators

[snap infraction]

lets see who can follow:

1. in nov 2011  sandusky arrested, tim curley, gary schultz indicted on various charges related to covering up his crimes.  graham spanier would be indicted a year later on the same charges.  

2.  evidence used against the three include testimony from psu council cynthia baldwin, who claimed to represent both the university and the three administrators at the same during the grand jury hearing.  the administrators are claiming they either lacked representation or their representation violated attorney client privilege.  trial judge disagreed and said baldwin could represent both. it took him 2.5 years to conclude this.  and the administrators are now appealing to the highest courts in hopes of overturning this decision.    there is no timetable as to when the superior court will decide.  and any decision can be appealed to the state supreme court, who could also take their time.  

3.  kathleen kane becomes first democrat elected to attorney generals office in 2012 since the 1950's, mostly due to her pandering to psu fans that she wanted to review how the sandusky case was handled by the state.  this appealed to many who thought politics may have played a role corbetts decision to wait so long to finally arrest sandusky.   

4.  kane hires a special prosecutor to investigate, but finds nothing criminally wrong and no political motive with how case was handled.  however, during the investigation, kane discovers that employees of the PA attorney generals office under gov corbett was routinely exchanging porn/racist/misogynistic e-mails with each other on state computers/servers.  kane then outed those involved with the e-mails, including frank fina who was the lead state prosecutor against sandusky (and many other high profile PA criminal cases).  

5. frank fina wrote the scathing psu grand jury presentment that was leaked to the media (the source of this leak is currently being pursued by sandusky's new legal team) that implicated psu officials and paterno.  although, he later said on national tv to armen keteyian that he found no wrong doing by paterno in his investigation.  

6.  frank fina was not happy him and his friends were embarrassed.  and went to a county judge to complain that newspaper reporters went to him with secret classified grand jury information about another case.  the court soon tracked the leak back to kane's office.  kane was subsequently charged and had her law license suspended and is battling back against pressure for her to resign.  

7.  the mutual destruction of PA's top lawyers are not over.  kane is threatening to release more e-mails which some speculate will implicate that fina and grand jury judge barry fuedale were illegally communicating with each other about certain cases with fuedales private e-mail address.  

8.  meanwhile, today, sandusky is appealing his conviction claiming his layers were ineffective and that it was unfair that c/s/s were unable to testify. 

as much of a clusterfuck this all is, it's only going to get worse in the next few years.  i'm certain the feds are going to get involved as the state does not seem like it's capable of keeping its judicial branch in order.  

[lz2112]

Sounds like a mini Game of Thrones going on up there.

[snap infraction]

Oct 29, 2015 11:11:25 GMT -5 lz2112 said:

Sounds like a mini Game of Thrones going on up there.

the mind boggling part is that it took the spanier/shultz/curley 2.5 years to make a simple conclusion that baldwins testimony was ok to be used.  why would he need so much time to decide this?  

[oujour76]

Oct 29, 2015 11:05:53 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

lets see who can follow:

1. in nov 2011  sandusky arrested, tim curley, gary schultz indicted on various charges related to covering up his crimes.  graham spanier would be indicted a year later on the same charges.  

2.  evidence used against the three include testimony from psu council cynthia baldwin, who claimed to represent both the university and the three administrators at the same during the grand jury hearing.  the administrators are claiming they either lacked representation or their representation violated attorney client privilege.  trial judge disagreed and said baldwin could represent both. it took him 2.5 years to conclude this.  and the administrators are now appealing to the highest courts in hopes of overturning this decision.    there is no timetable as to when the superior court will decide.  and any decision can be appealed to the state supreme court, who could also take their time.  

3.  kathleen kane becomes first democrat elected to attorney generals office in 2012 since the 1950's, mostly due to her pandering to psu fans that she wanted to review how the sandusky case was handled by the state.  this appealed to many who thought politics may have played a role corbetts decision to wait so long to finally arrest sandusky.   

4.  kane hires a special prosecutor to investigate, but finds nothing criminally wrong and no political motive with how case was handled.  however, during the investigation, kane discovers that employees of the PA attorney generals office under gov corbett was routinely exchanging porn/racist/misogynistic e-mails with each other on state computers/servers.  kane then outed those involved with the e-mails, including frank fina who was the lead state prosecutor against sandusky (and many other high profile PA criminal cases).  

5. frank fina wrote the scathing psu grand jury presentment that was leaked to the media (the source of this leak is currently being pursued by sandusky's new legal team) that implicated psu officials and paterno.  although, he later said on national tv to armen keteyian that he found no wrong doing by paterno in his investigation.  

6.  frank fina was not happy him and his friends were embarrassed.  and went to a county judge to complain that newspaper reporters went to him with secret classified grand jury information about another case.  the court soon tracked the leak back to kane's office.  kane was subsequently charged and had her law license suspended and is battling back against pressure for her to resign.  

7.  the mutual destruction of PA's top lawyers are not over.  kane is threatening to release more e-mails which some speculate will implicate that fina and grand jury judge barry fuedale were illegally communicating with each other about certain cases with fuedales private e-mail address.  

8.  meanwhile, today, sandusky is appealing his conviction claiming his layers were ineffective and that it was unfair that c/s/s were unable to testify. 

as much of a clusterfuck this all is, it's only going to get worse in the next few years.  i'm certain the feds are going to get involved as the state does not seem like it's capable of keeping its judicial branch in order.  

Cluster f-word does not begin to describe that situation. What a mess.

[oujour76]

Oct 29, 2015 11:14:23 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Oct 29, 2015 11:11:25 GMT -5 lz2112 said:

Sounds like a mini Game of Thrones going on up there.

the mind boggling part is that it took the spanier/shultz/curley 2.5 years to make a simple conclusion that baldwins testimony was ok to be used.  why would he need so much time to decide this?  

Took them 30 years to find Sandusky. So, I guess 2.5 years is progress.

[mscott59]

Oct 29, 2015 11:33:07 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Oct 29, 2015 11:14:23 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

the mind boggling part is that it took the spanier/shultz/curley 2.5 years to make a simple conclusion that baldwins testimony was ok to be used.  why would he need so much time to decide this?  

Took them 30 years to find Sandusky. So, I guess 2.5 years is progress.

lmao. nice. using the sandusky scale, that's phenomenal progress. the first question i have, i guess, is why. were kane, fina, et al, all just trying to capitalize career-wise on the entire affair, or is there something more? what curley, schultz and spanier are arguing, at least it appears to me, is a no-lose legal game; either she wasn't our lawyer when she said she was, or she was our lawyer and sucked at it. i'm amazed an appeals court would allow their attorneys to argue both of those issues, instead of choosing one. maybe that's why it took so long.

[snap infraction]

Oct 29, 2015 12:53:21 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Oct 29, 2015 11:33:07 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Took them 30 years to find Sandusky. So, I guess 2.5 years is progress.

lmao. nice. using the sandusky scale, that's phenomenal progress. the first question i have, i guess, is why. were kane, fina, et al, all just trying to capitalize career-wise on the entire affair, or is there something more? what curley, schultz and spanier are arguing, at least it appears to me, is a no-lose legal game; either she wasn't our lawyer when she said she was, or she was our lawyer and sucked at it. i'm amazed an appeals court would allow their attorneys to argue both of those issues, instead of choosing one. maybe that's why it took so long.

i think initially, c/s/s claimed to the original trial judge that she either represented them and violated acp or she didn't represent them therefore, therefore they had no representation.  the trial judge, after thinking long and hard about it for 2.5 years, decided that baldwin could in fact represent both the school and the three administrators, therefore there is no issue with her testimony.  c/s/s appealed this decision to the superior court, who like the original trial judge, is taking their time in their decision to uphold or overturn the original decision.

the cynic in me believe the original trial judge waited as long as he did to keep c/s/s out of the limelight b/c of the high profile nature of the case knowing that prosecutors would eventually drop charges (b/c they failed to flip one of the 3 against each other).  the even more cynical side of me believes a decision to drop charges hasn't been made yet b/c sandusky hasn't exhausted his final appeals yet, and they want to keep c/s/s sidelined from testifying in case sandusky wins some appeals.   

[mscott59]

Oct 29, 2015 13:21:42 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Oct 29, 2015 12:53:21 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

lmao. nice. using the sandusky scale, that's phenomenal progress. the first question i have, i guess, is why. were kane, fina, et al, all just trying to capitalize career-wise on the entire affair, or is there something more? what curley, schultz and spanier are arguing, at least it appears to me, is a no-lose legal game; either she wasn't our lawyer when she said she was, or she was our lawyer and sucked at it. i'm amazed an appeals court would allow their attorneys to argue both of those issues, instead of choosing one. maybe that's why it took so long.

i think initially, c/s/s claimed to the original trial judge that she either represented them and violated acp or she didn't represent them therefore, therefore they had no representation.  the trial judge, after thinking long and hard about it for 2.5 years, decided that baldwin could in fact represent both the school and the three administrators, therefore there is no issue with her testimony.  c/s/s appealed this decision to the superior court, who like the original trial judge, is taking their time in their decision to uphold or overturn the original decision.

the cynic in me believe the original trial judge waited as long as he did to keep c/s/s out of the limelight b/c of the high profile nature of the case knowing that prosecutors would eventually drop charges (b/c they failed to flip one of the 3 against each other).  the even more cynical side of me believes a decision to drop charges hasn't been made yet b/c sandusky hasn't exhausted his final appeals yet, and they want to keep c/s/s sidelined from testifying in case sandusky wins some appeals.   

i think harry raised from the outset that paterno retained his own lawyer early when this arose; c/s/s all went thru the psu attorney, because they were seen as reps of a single entity, their employer, at that point. to hold the attorney responsible for their own poor choice of not being represented individually imho is basically nothing but a legal shell game. ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

[oujour76]

Oct 29, 2015 12:53:21 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Oct 29, 2015 11:33:07 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Took them 30 years to find Sandusky. So, I guess 2.5 years is progress.

lmao. nice. using the sandusky scale, that's phenomenal progress. the first question i have, i guess, is why. were kane, fina, et al, all just trying to capitalize career-wise on the entire affair, or is there something more? what curley, schultz and spanier are arguing, at least it appears to me, is a no-lose legal game; either she wasn't our lawyer when she said she was, or she was our lawyer and sucked at it. i'm amazed an appeals court would allow their attorneys to argue both of those issues, instead of choosing one. maybe that's why it took so long.

The cynic in me says when there are huge numbers of billable hours at stake, with clients willing to pay, attorneys get very creative in their arguments.

[oujour76]

Oct 29, 2015 13:41:17 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

i think harry raised from the outset that paterno retained his own lawyer early when this arose; c/s/s all went thru the psu attorney, because they were seen as reps of a single entity, their employer, at that point. to hold the attorney responsible for their own poor choice of not being represented individually imho is basically nothing but a legal shell game. ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
[/quote]

Yep. Old doddering, out of touch Joe was the only one smart enough to know that corporate attorneys represent the institution first and you second. A distant second. Spanier, Schultz and Curley thought they were part of the team and the team was part of them. They thought wrong.

[mscott59]

Oct 29, 2015 15:04:09 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Oct 29, 2015 13:41:17 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

i think harry raised from the outset that paterno retained his own lawyer early when this arose; c/s/s all went thru the psu attorney, because they were seen as reps of a single entity, their employer, at that point. to hold the attorney responsible for their own poor choice of not being represented individually imho is basically nothing but a legal shell game. ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Yep. Old doddering, out of touch Joe was the only one smart enough to know that corporate attorneys represent the institution first and you second. A distant second. Spanier, Schultz and Curley thought they were part of the team and the team was part of them. They thought wrong.
[/quote]


isn't that amazing, even in his mental state that late in life, that joe still knew what was going on?

[oujour76]

Oct 29, 2015 15:19:32 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Oct 29, 2015 15:04:09 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

i think harry raised from the outset that paterno retained his own lawyer early when this arose; c/s/s all went thru the psu attorney, because they were seen as reps of a single entity, their employer, at that point. to hold the attorney responsible for their own poor choice of not being represented individually imho is basically nothing but a legal shell game. ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Yep. Old doddering, out of touch Joe was the only one smart enough to know that corporate attorneys represent the institution first and you second. A distant second. Spanier, Schultz and Curley thought they were part of the team and the team was part of them. They thought wrong.

isn't that amazing, even in his mental state that late in life, that joe still knew what was going on? [/quote]

Gee, it's almost as if he was 100% aware of everything going on around him. Imagine that.

[daleko]

Oct 29, 2015 15:19:32 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Oct 29, 2015 15:04:09 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

i think harry raised from the outset that paterno retained his own lawyer early when this arose; c/s/s all went thru the psu attorney, because they were seen as reps of a single entity, their employer, at that point. to hold the attorney responsible for their own poor choice of not being represented individually imho is basically nothing but a legal shell game. ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Yep. Old doddering, out of touch Joe was the only one smart enough to know that corporate attorneys represent the institution first and you second. A distant second. Spanier, Schultz and Curley thought they were part of the team and the team was part of them. They thought wrong.

isn't that amazing, even in his mental state that late in life, that joe still knew what was going on? [/quote]

Yes he did in more than one area. Re the legal implications, I believe his son had a lot to do w that. He understood they f up.

[oujour76]

Oct 29, 2015 16:11:23 GMT -5 daleko said:

Oct 29, 2015 15:19:32 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Yep. Old doddering, out of touch Joe was the only one smart enough to know that corporate attorneys represent the institution first and you second. A distant second. Spanier, Schultz and Curley thought they were part of the team and the team was part of them. They thought wrong.

isn't that amazing, even in his mental state that late in life, that joe still knew what was going on?

Yes he did in more than one area. Re the legal implications, I believe his son had a lot to do w that. He understood they f up. [/quote]

And, he also knew that Penn State, as an institution, would cut him off at the knees without hesitation. Which they did the way they let him go...he had been there 50 years and they fired him over the phone.

[snap infraction]

Oct 29, 2015 13:41:17 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Oct 29, 2015 13:21:42 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

i think initially, c/s/s claimed to the original trial judge that she either represented them and violated acp or she didn't represent them therefore, therefore they had no representation.  the trial judge, after thinking long and hard about it for 2.5 years, decided that baldwin could in fact represent both the school and the three administrators, therefore there is no issue with her testimony.  c/s/s appealed this decision to the superior court, who like the original trial judge, is taking their time in their decision to uphold or overturn the original decision.

the cynic in me believe the original trial judge waited as long as he did to keep c/s/s out of the limelight b/c of the high profile nature of the case knowing that prosecutors would eventually drop charges (b/c they failed to flip one of the 3 against each other).  the even more cynical side of me believes a decision to drop charges hasn't been made yet b/c sandusky hasn't exhausted his final appeals yet, and they want to keep c/s/s sidelined from testifying in case sandusky wins some appeals.   

i think harry raised from the outset that paterno retained his own lawyer early when this arose; c/s/s all went thru the psu attorney, because they were seen as reps of a single entity, their employer, at that point. to hold the attorney responsible for their own poor choice of not being represented individually imho is basically nothing but a legal shell game. ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

 spanier's argument was that when he was asked to identity council and his grand jury hearing, he stated cynthia baldwin and that baldwin did not object at the time.  if she did not object, then she was representing spanier.  if she wasn't representing spanier, or was representing both spanier and the school, shouldn't she have clarified at the time so there was no confusion?  i mean there's an obvious conflict in representing both the school and agents of the school, especially if the agents of the school knew about allegations against sandusky while other didn't.   how is that in anyway ethical?