4 years and still no trial in sight for psu administrators

[snap infraction]

Oct 29, 2015 16:16:40 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

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

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.

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.
[/quote]

paterno had a lot of advisors.  it wasn't like he was making these decisions alone.  it was like that with his coaching too...he didn't truly coach the team in his final years...he advised from a press box writing hand written notes to an assistant to relay to on the field coaches.  i truly believe he didn't' understand the scope of what was going on on or off the field the last few years.  

[mscott59]

Oct 30, 2015 8:38:56 GMT -5 snap infraction 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.

 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?  

i will agree with you there... the ethics of those involved in this entire affair have been very questionable. but let me turn this question on you... or any of us; one of the first questions, if not the first, i'd be asking my attorney is, are you representing me individually, or me as an agent of psu? no way in hell i'd be waiting until i was in front of a grand jury for that question to be answered, clearly, to my satisfaction. you would think him being someone w/3 degrees, the president of a major university, who is involved in legal-related matters and decisions on a daily basis, would know that. don't you?

[oujour76]

Oct 30, 2015 8:38:56 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

 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?  

The time for Spanier to pick a different attorney was long before the Sandusky grand jury proceeding. What is unethical on the part of Baldwin? What do you think she should have clarified? And to whom? A grand jury isn't a trial and unless it's very different in PA, attorneys don't even speak during the proceedings. In many states, attorneys aren't even in the same room. Spanier was a witness, not the subject of the hearing...if he said she was his attorney, why would anybody question that?

[oujour76]

Oct 30, 2015 8:44:10 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

paterno had a lot of advisors.  it wasn't like he was making these decisions alone.  it was like that with his coaching too...he didn't truly coach the team in his final years...he advised from a press box writing hand written notes to an assistant to relay to on the field coaches.  i truly believe he didn't' understand the scope of what was going on on or off the field the last few years.  

Good for him if he had people protecting him. But, we will have to disagree whether he knew what was going on around him. I think he knew full well. No grass ever grew under his feet imo.

[oujour76]

Oct 30, 2015 9:03:01 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

i will agree with you there... the ethics of those involved in this entire affair have been very questionable. but let me turn this question on you... or any of us; one of the first questions, if not the first, i'd be asking my attorney is, are you representing me individually, or me as an agent of psu? no way in hell i'd be waiting until i was in front of a grand jury for that question to be answered, clearly, to my satisfaction. you would think him being someone w/3 degrees, the president of a major university, who is involved in legal-related matters and decisions on a daily basis, would know that. don't you?

Well, yeah...I mean, it's not like this stuff was happening in a vacuum.

[snap infraction]

Oct 30, 2015 9:03:01 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Oct 30, 2015 8:38:56 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

 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?  

i will agree with you there... the ethics of those involved in this entire affair have been very questionable. but let me turn this question on you... or any of us; one of the first questions, if not the first, i'd be asking my attorney is, are you representing me individually, or me as an agent of psu? no way in hell i'd be waiting until i was in front of a grand jury for that question to be answered, clearly, to my satisfaction. you would think him being someone w/3 degrees, the president of a major university, who is involved in legal-related matters and decisions on a daily basis, would know that. don't you?

of course.  it is likely spanier is trying to get off on a technicality.  but it is also likely the state has a weak case against him and desperately went for an shady approach that backfired.  i think they were hoping they'd get either schultz or curley to flip against spanier and if they couldn't, baldwin's evidence would be a backup.  that's why it took them a year to file charges against spanier.    the case against spanier is essentially mcqueary said he saw something sexual, this was backed up by a guy who is currently dead therefore mcqueary's account can't really be verified.   so the state threatens baldwin with obstruction charges unless she flips.  baldwin was aware of the 2001 and 1998 investigation too so she could have easily been charged.  

also a big fact i forgot to mention...baldwin reached out to paterno to represent him and paterno decline.  why would baldwin be so interested in seeking out paterno?  

[snap infraction]

Oct 30, 2015 9:20:42 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Oct 30, 2015 8:38:56 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

 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?  

The time for Spanier to pick a different attorney was long before the Sandusky grand jury proceeding. What is unethical on the part of Baldwin? What do you think she should have clarified? And to whom? A grand jury isn't a trial and unless it's very different in PA, attorneys don't even speak during the proceedings. In many states, attorneys aren't even in the same room. Spanier was a witness, not the subject of the hearing...if he said she was his attorney, why would anybody question that?

Baldwin sat behind spanier when the presiding judge asked him if he had representation.  He said yes and pointed to Baldwin.  Baldwin did not object.  Only your representation is allowed to be in the court room during grand jury testimony in PA.  A good lawyer would not have represented Spanier citing the conflict in representing him as an individual and the school.  Not saying Spanier is 100% not a fought, he likely had a huge ego and didnt believe she'd flip on him.  

[oujour76]

Oct 30, 2015 9:54:24 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Baldwin sat behind spanier when the presiding judge asked him if he had representation.  He said yes and pointed to Baldwin.  Baldwin did not object.  Only your representation is allowed to be in the court room during grand jury testimony in PA.  A good lawyer would not have represented Spanier citing the conflict in representing him as an individual and the school.  Not saying Spanier is 100% not a fought, he likely had a huge ego and didnt believe she'd flip on him.  

It was Spanier's call, not hers, and that decision was made long before the grand jury hearing. Why would she object during the hearing itself? Not sure what you mean by Baldwin flipping on him?

[oujour76]

Oct 30, 2015 9:48:46 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

also a big fact i forgot to mention...baldwin reached out to paterno to represent him and paterno decline.  why would baldwin be so interested in seeking out paterno?  

Why? Containment and a united front. It's easier to get your message out there if all parties are on the same train. Not so easy when not everyone is on board. It may be legal for a corporate attorney to serve two masters, but Paterno knew which master would come first if/when push came to shove. By retaining his own counsel, Paterno did the smart thing. He saw the mine fields and acted in his own self interest. Which is exactly what he should have done in a criminal case.

[mscott59]

Oct 30, 2015 10:25:27 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Oct 30, 2015 9:54:24 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Baldwin sat behind spanier when the presiding judge asked him if he had representation.  He said yes and pointed to Baldwin.  Baldwin did not object.  Only your representation is allowed to be in the court room during grand jury testimony in PA.  A good lawyer would not have represented Spanier citing the conflict in representing him as an individual and the school.  Not saying Spanier is 100% not a fought, he likely had a huge ego and didnt believe she'd flip on him.  

It was Spanier's call, not hers, and that decision was made long before the grand jury hearing. Why would she object during the hearing itself? Not sure what you mean by Baldwin flipping on him?

spanier screwed up the most basic element of having legal representation, and it sure does look like he's appealing to the system for a back door.

[snap infraction]

Oct 30, 2015 10:25:27 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Oct 30, 2015 9:54:24 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Baldwin sat behind spanier when the presiding judge asked him if he had representation.  He said yes and pointed to Baldwin.  Baldwin did not object.  Only your representation is allowed to be in the court room during grand jury testimony in PA.  A good lawyer would not have represented Spanier citing the conflict in representing him as an individual and the school.  Not saying Spanier is 100% not a fought, he likely had a huge ego and didnt believe she'd flip on him.  

It was Spanier's call, not hers, and that decision was made long before the grand jury hearing. Why would she object during the hearing itself? Not sure what you mean by Baldwin flipping on him?

then if she was representing him, how did she not violate acp? how does a lawyer represent a client but then testify against them?  

when i said flipping, i meant she went from his lawyer to a states witness testifying against him.  it is my belief that she knew as much as spanier about sandusky, but copped a deal to avoid charges, or at least she was threatened.   

[snap infraction]

Oct 30, 2015 10:34:52 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Oct 30, 2015 9:48:46 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

also a big fact i forgot to mention...baldwin reached out to paterno to represent him and paterno decline.  why would baldwin be so interested in seeking out paterno?  

Why? Containment and a united front. It's easier to get your message out there if all parties are on the same train. Not so easy when not everyone is on board. It may be legal for a corporate attorney to serve two masters, but Paterno knew which master would come first if/when push came to shove. By retaining his own counsel, Paterno did the smart thing. He saw the mine fields and acted in his own self interest. Which is exactly what he should have done in a criminal case.

so baldwin, armed with all this knowledge of a cover up by c/s/s is seeking out paterno to keep him under wraps too?  seems like a lovely person & lawyer.  she didn't blow the whistle on things until her ass was on the line so her ethics should be questioned.  

[mscott59]

Oct 30, 2015 12:52:01 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Oct 30, 2015 10:34:52 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Why? Containment and a united front. It's easier to get your message out there if all parties are on the same train. Not so easy when not everyone is on board. It may be legal for a corporate attorney to serve two masters, but Paterno knew which master would come first if/when push came to shove. By retaining his own counsel, Paterno did the smart thing. He saw the mine fields and acted in his own self interest. Which is exactly what he should have done in a criminal case.

so baldwin, armed with all this knowledge of a cover up by c/s/s is seeking out paterno to keep him under wraps too?  seems like a lovely person & lawyer.  she didn't blow the whistle on things until her ass was on the line so her ethics should be questioned.  

are you now sensing a theme in this saga, re ethics? sure does look like a lot of people, and i mean a lot of people, had plenty of priorities stacked up ahead of those children.

[oujour76]

Oct 30, 2015 11:56:06 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

spanier screwed up the most basic element of having legal representation, and it sure does look like he's appealing to the system for a back door.[/quote]

Looks like that to me as well. Maybe there is more to it that we don't know, but from what we do know, it looks like he screwed himself.

[oujour76]

Oct 30, 2015 12:45:25 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

then if she was representing him, how did she not violate acp? how does a lawyer represent a client but then testify against them?  

when i said flipping, i meant she went from his lawyer to a states witness testifying against him.  it is my belief that she knew as much as spanier about sandusky, but copped a deal to avoid charges, or at least she was threatened.   [/quote]

I imagine it's because Penn State was the client, and Spanier was only an agent of Penn State. Penn State can waive privilege, Spanier has no say in the matter. He may now claim that he was unaware of that, but that seems to ring a little hollow in my book. If he didn't seek out a second opinion, that's on him...because had he done so any lawyer would have told him where he stood on the totem pole.