David Jones opined that the Pro-Paterno forces who contributed to the Sports Illustrated story on PSU medical staff changes are looking out for their own self interest. He couldn't be more wrong.
By
Ray Blehar
David Jones, in his May 15 column, opined that Pro-Paterno forces are simply out for themselves and are upset that they are no longer in positions of power.
However, Jones does not provide a single example of a person who is "clawing" to get back anything remotely related to a position of power at PSU.
Spanier? No.
Curley? No.
Schultz? No.
Bradley? No.
Sherburne? No.
JayPa? No.
The only person who has made any public pronouncement about being wronged and deserving something more from PSU is Mike McQueary. And it is clear from his lawsuit that he is only out for himself. McQueary is not exactly part of the "Pro-Paterno" camp, so who are these loyalists clawing for power?
A small skirmish over the medical staffing is hardly a representative example of what the divisiveness at PSU is about.
So, David Jones, it's time to put up or shut up.
Name names. Who wants their power back?
If anyone is "clawing" to retain power, it's the incompetent members of the PSU BOT who totally screwed the pooch in November 2011 and continue to do so.
However, the most important part of this story is that Jones has fallen for the false narrative that the so-called Penn State "Leadership" (i.e., Erickson and the BOT) is all about moving the University "forward" from this devastating scandal brought upon it by rogue administrators and an out of control football program.
The facts of the case are the opposite, but Jones and most others in the media don't have an ounce of common sense to see them as they are.
The yarn spun by Louis Freeh about PSU covering for Sandusky's crimes to "avoid the consequences of bad publicity" doesn't hold water. Penn State, who faced the worst on slaught of bad publicity due to their lack of any response to false charges, has not collapsed.
On the other hand, The Second Mile, who had the most incentive to cover up Sandusky's crimes, and could not weather a storm of bad publicity, is in ruins. And it is in ruins, even though the PA Office of Attorney General did it's level best to protect it.
In addition, the PA DPW and CYS have been largely unscathed by the scandal. These organizations had the opportunity to roll up Sandusky in 1998, but have gotten little or no criticism in the press for their colossal failures.
The so-called "Pro-Paterno" people understand that the evidence against PSU and the football program doesn't hold water. And they also understand that the false narrative blaming Sandusky's crimes on a few administrators and coaches is a diversion that deflects the public's attention from the serious problems regarding child protection in Pennsylvania.
In response to a "spin-off" article on the Jones fallacy, I posted this comment:
On one side, are the so-called "Pro-Paterno" people, who have uncovered more facts about the Sandusky child abuse case than did Louis Freeh. This group understands that the Freeh Report was a whitewash on several levels, but most importantly, the Freeh Report keeps the children of Pennsylvania in harm's way by not calling out the failures of the state's child protective services. The so-called "Pro-Paterno" group will not rest until the children of Pennsylvania are getting the protection they deserve and that the truth is exposed about the roles of The Second Mile, the PSU Board, the PA DPW, and Centre County CYS in enabling Sandusky's abuse of children.
On the other side are a handful of trustees, the media, and the public who are pushing a false narrative about what happened and who are, in effect, enabling the continued abuse of children in Pennsylvania.
This is not about football. And it's not about Joe Paterno. It's about protecting kids.
The folks who are telling everyone to "move forward" are leaving the children behind.
<end comment>
David Jones is among those who are leaving the children behind.
The SECOND MILE SANDUSKY SCANDAL
Friday, May 17
Tuesday, May 14
"Missing" documents from the Schultz file would exonerate PSU (Part 1)
The acknowledgement of the Schultz file and the publication of some of its contents was a risky move by Freeh. This information not only outed DPW and CYS for their failures in 1998, but provided confirmation that the file contained more than was revealed to the public.
by
Ray Blehar
Any analyst can assess what is present, but seasoned analysts are able to consider evidence that is not present to deliver an assessment.
For many years, I examined companies who were pursuing award winning levels of quality. More often than not, what was missing from discussions in the board room to what was missing on the factory floor provided indicators of the level of quality the company had achieved.
End Note 304: Schultz confidential file note (5-1-12). Schultz contacts Harmon to inquire about the 1998 file on 2/12/2001. If this request was simply for the 1998 file, why wasn't it included? What other information did it contain? Perhaps Schultz informed Harmon of the situation before asking about 1998. That would be entirely logical - and result in a perjury charge for Harmon.
End Note 303: Schultz confidential file note (5-1-12). Note memorializing Schultz's internet search for the chair of The Second Mile on 2/12/2001. If Schultz searched for the Board members on 2/12/2001, why did he make a note asking "who's the chair?" on 2/25/2001?
End Note 318: Control Number 00681288. Schultz e-mail to Spanier and Curley stating plan to meet with Curley on Sunday, February 25, 2001. Freeh stated that all three men met on that Sunday. This e-mail indicates the original plan was for Schultz and Curley to meet.
End Note 319: Control Number 00681288. Spanier acknowledged the February 25, 2001 meeting. Note that Spanier sent no "acknowledgements" to the 1998 e-mails, which was unusual for Spanier who was known to answer e-mail until the early hours of the morning.
Exhibit 5C, dated 2/12/2001, also appears to be a note from that Schultz has written to himself, memorializing his conversation with Curley regarding follow-up that should be taken. This note was likely written late in the evening of 2/12/2001 -- after Harmon indicated the police file from 1998 was available for review at 4:57PM. This note would not contain the advice of Wendell Courtney, who stated that he was not aware of the 1998 incident.
Next: What's missing from 1998 (Part 2)
by
Ray Blehar
Any analyst can assess what is present, but seasoned analysts are able to consider evidence that is not present to deliver an assessment.
For many years, I examined companies who were pursuing award winning levels of quality. More often than not, what was missing from discussions in the board room to what was missing on the factory floor provided indicators of the level of quality the company had achieved.
Similarly, in the analysis of evidence during investigations, often missing evidence, such as a missing page from a phone log, a missing expense report, or other missing information often provided valuable insights to discover fraud or malfeasance.
And so it is with the Sandusky Scandal.
From the first Patriot News report about the grand jury to the November 2011 grand jury presentment, to the Freeh Report, to the Sandusky trial, and to the Cleland ruling on the Sandusky appeal, missing information has been some of the most telling "evidence" in the scandal.
As I noted in my last blogpost, there are "chain of custody" issues with the delivery of the Schultz file to the OAG and it is certain that some of the documents in the Schultz file were not made public.
One additional piece of missing information is an interview with police Chief Tom Harmon. Given that Harmon and Schultz were not interviewed, their exchanges were either memorialized by e-mail or by handwritten notes of Schultz. These discussions occurred in 1998 and 2001.Confirmed "Missing" Schultz Documents - 2001
The first set of documents that are "missing" were referenced in the Freeh Report, but not included as exhibits.End Note 304: Schultz confidential file note (5-1-12). Schultz contacts Harmon to inquire about the 1998 file on 2/12/2001. If this request was simply for the 1998 file, why wasn't it included? What other information did it contain? Perhaps Schultz informed Harmon of the situation before asking about 1998. That would be entirely logical - and result in a perjury charge for Harmon.
End Note 303: Schultz confidential file note (5-1-12). Note memorializing Schultz's internet search for the chair of The Second Mile on 2/12/2001. If Schultz searched for the Board members on 2/12/2001, why did he make a note asking "who's the chair?" on 2/25/2001?
End Note 318: Control Number 00681288. Schultz e-mail to Spanier and Curley stating plan to meet with Curley on Sunday, February 25, 2001. Freeh stated that all three men met on that Sunday. This e-mail indicates the original plan was for Schultz and Curley to meet.
End Note 319: Control Number 00681288. Spanier acknowledged the February 25, 2001 meeting. Note that Spanier sent no "acknowledgements" to the 1998 e-mails, which was unusual for Spanier who was known to answer e-mail until the early hours of the morning.
About the e-mail evidence and the 2004 system switch over
E-mail evidence obtained regarding 1998 and 2001 was definitely in digital form. This was confirmed by comparing the time/date stamps of e-mails printed from PSU systems, which are on Eastern Time, to the e-mail evidence in the Commonwealth's Answer to Defendent's Motion To Sever, which are on Greenwich Mean Time. Also in keeping with the theme of missing information, the Commonwealth did not include Freeh Report Exhibit 2B - which document and computer forensic experts deemed suspicious - as evidence supporting the charges against Curley and Schultz.
Schultz's Behavior
One of the most important notes in the Schultz file is Exhibit 5E, dated 2/25/01, which is a handwitten note stating: "3) Tell Chair* of Board of Second Mile. 2) Report to Dept of Welfare. 1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Building. *who's the chair?" (Shown below)
The significance of this note is that it is an indication of Schultz's behavior. More to the point, it is a note that Schultz has written to himself, memorializing the recommendations/agreements reached by he and Curley. Interestingly, the next day, Schultz types essentially the same information in an e-mail to Curley, then retained the 2/25/2001 note in his file. If he had typed the information into an e-mail, why didn't Schultz throw the other note away? Schulltz also kept the results of an internet search and a request he made to Harmon in which he got an e-mail reply. The retention of these files indicates Schultz may have been a "pack rat" of sorts and thus would have held onto most everything he wrote about the incident.
Exhibit 5C, dated 2/12/2001, also appears to be a note from that Schultz has written to himself, memorializing his conversation with Curley regarding follow-up that should be taken. This note was likely written late in the evening of 2/12/2001 -- after Harmon indicated the police file from 1998 was available for review at 4:57PM. This note would not contain the advice of Wendell Courtney, who stated that he was not aware of the 1998 incident.
Exhibits 2H and 2I are extensive notes (4 pages for each telephone conversation) that Schultz had with Harmon during the first two days the 1998 incident.
These notes establish that Schultz was a habitual note taker, who documented discussions from telephone and face-to-face meetings and held onto records involving police matters.
Suspected Missing "Schultz" Documents
Given Schultz's propensity for taking and retaining notes, one could conclude there are some very important notes missing from the Schultz file. To wit:
1. No handwritten notes or e-mail messages memorializing the Sunday, 2/11/2001 meeting with Paterno and Curley held at Paterno's home. It is difficult to imagine that neither Gary Schultz nor Tim Curley took notes of the discussion with Paterno.
2. No handwritten notes or e-mail messages memorialzing the meeting with Mike McQueary and Tim Curley on or about 2/19/2001. Between Curley and/or Schultz, someone undoubtedly documented what was said at the meeting with McQueary.
3. No handwritten notes or email messages memorializing instructions/advice provided by then PSU Legal Counsel, Wendell Courtney, on 2/11/2001. Exhibit 5A, a timesheet from McQuaide-Blasko, indicates that Courtney twice conferenced with Gary Schultz about the 2001 incident. It is difficult to believe that Courtney did not provide written instructions for Schultz or that Schultz did not write down any advice provided by Courtney.
4. No handwritten notes or email messages memorializing actions taken as a result of the discussion with Courtney on 2/11/2001. It is interesting that both Schultz and Courtney recalled that the local CYS was contacted about this incident, but no notes memorializing the contact have been made public by Freeh or the former-OAG officials. However, Agent Anthony Sassano "slipped up" (for the sixth or seventh time) and testified that DPW had a record of a report of the 2002 (sic) incident (Preliminary Perjury Hearing page 170 - below).
Who Made the 2001 Report?
Considering that Curley, Schultz, and Spanier did not contact DPW, this leaves two probable alternatives for how the report was made:
1) CYS officials, who were contacted by PSU, filed the report with ChildLine/DPW - and the report was never expunged per the rules on unfounded reports.
2) Police chief Harmon filed the report with either CYS or DPW after being informed of the incident by Schultz and the report was not expunged per the rules on unfounded reports.
In either case, there is no doubt, someone from PSU contacted someone at either CYS and/or DPW about the 2001 incident.
The record at DPW did not materialize without someone calling it in.
There is also little doubt that the public has yet to find out the original contents of the Schultz file.
There is also little doubt that the public has yet to find out the original contents of the Schultz file.
Next: What's missing from 1998 (Part 2)
Friday, May 10
Robert Bannon: Comments at BOT Meeting of 3 May 2013
Prepared Statement of Robert
Bannon before Pennsylvania State University’s Board of Trustees
May 3, 2013
My name is Robert Bannon. I am a Penn State World
Campus student as well as Co-Chairman of the Jason Bannon Foundation whose sole
purpose is to raise funds and award scholarships to graduating seniors of
Rancocas Valley Regional High School who plan on attending Penn State
University. I am not your typical Penn State student, despite meeting my wife
at a Penn State campus. I have never attended a class in a traditional Penn
State classroom. Nevertheless, I have a love for this institution beyond words
probably due to my brother.
You see, 20 years ago my brother was shot in the
back of the head by another student and died. He was never able to attend Penn
State and play Penn State football - a life long ambition of his so much so
that his was buried wearing a Penn State jersey. It would be a mistake to think I am the least
bit motivated by football. With the exception of a Blue and White game, I have
never seen a football game from inside Beaver Stadium. I just can't bring
myself to do it - too much emotional baggage I'm guessing.
I've also had the unique perspective of looking at
the events of the past 18 months as both a dedicated member of the Penn State
community as well as a victim of childhood molestation.
In November 2011, I sent each of the Penn State
Trustees a letter regarding my unique dual perspective stressing the importance
of objectivity. With the exception of a
letter I received on behalf of President Erickson and his wife, I received no
response. I said that I often received
well-intentioned advice to simply "put it behind me". As a sexual
abuse survivor, I can’t begin to tell you how bad that advice was. I pray you
now recognize that as well; however, it appears you have not.
Just as a physician cannot treat a patient without
exams, x-rays and, at times, invasive procedures, you cannot fix a problem by a
simple desire to bet better and MOVE ON. Sometimes you have to get your hands
dirty. All of you need to get your hands dirty.
Your actions remind me of an experience I had as a
child. My sister gave me a haircut and
my mother, well intentioned, tried to fix it.
With each cut of the scissors she only made it worse. She realized her
limitations and took me to a professional to fix the problem.
Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come for you to
realize your limitations, MOVE ON and let professionals fix the problem just as
my mother did many years ago.
I constantly have to remind myself the Board of
Trustees is made up of educated people but your actions continue to give me
pause.
In March of this year, State Auditor General Eugene
DePasquale said before the State Senate's Committee on Government that it would
be a "big mistake" to allow Penn State University's Board of Trustees
to reform itself. Minutes later and just
after the prepared statement by Trustee Broadhurst, the very first question by
the Chairman of the Committee dealt with proposed recommendations not yet
approved by the Board of Trustees. He
asked Trustee Broadhurst if individual members would be able to vote for some
recommendations and not others. After a
vague response by Trustee Broadhurst, Trustee Masser interrupted, "Let me
clarify - As Chair of the Board, my plan is to vote on each recommendation one
by one by the full Board".
The Board continues to demonstrate its ineptitude.
The highest arbiter of dispute in our country, the Supreme Court, provides
dissenting opinion; dissent is healthy. Disfavor with this Board has created
grassroots reform groups. If you approve
the so-called "Lubrano Rule", or worse yet use it, ranks in those reform
groups will grow exponentially.
Comments from Trustees seem to know no bounds.
Trustee Frasier's infamous "People who look like you" comment was
made significantly worse when he added, "Yea, I said it." His affirmation of his racist and degrading comment
only demonstrated it was knowing and not, as he later described in his apology,
in the proverbial heat of the moment.
Trustee and Vice-Chair Stephanie Nolan Deviney is
both a Trustee and a candidate for re-election to the Board. Deviney's re-election Facebook page is
littered with examples of her patronizing the very people to whom she is asking
for votes. Virtually every question is ignored and of the ones answered, the
responses from Trustee Deviney are mostly condescending. She refuses to answer even the most
substantive and respectful questions.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, your failure to
resign is unfortunate; running for re-election or accepting another term is
repugnant. To quote Trustee Frasier,
"Yea, I said it."
Thursday, May 9
Meet Our Newest BOT Member, Kathleen Casey
If you love PSU's "idea" of openess, transparency, and operating with ethics and integrity, then you'll love Kathleen Casey
At the February 28 Senate Appropriations Committee meeting, Senator
Yudichak drilled
Rodney Erickson, PSU President,
regarding the Freeh Report and if PSU
was subject to the Open Records law. Former Auditor General Jack Wagner
recommended all state related universities (Penn State, Temple, Lincoln, and
Pitt) be held accountable under the Right to Know Law, and currently they are
exempt from scrutiny that the state – owned universities must face.
By Vickie
Fleisher-Gann
On Wednesday,
May 8, the PennStater magazine announced the Pennsylvania Senate confirmed Gov.
Tom Corbett’s nomination of Kathleen
Casey to the Penn State Board of Trustees to replace the seat vacated by Michael
DiBerardinis on June 30,
2012 . Casey was initially
nominated in October 2012 but the Senate did not act on the nomination so
Corbett renominated her in February this year.
Casey is the former US Securities and Exchange commissioner, appointed by President George W. Bush in August 2006. She completed her 5-year term in 2011. She received a J.D. from George Mason University School of Law in 1993, a B.A. in International Politics from PSU in 1988, and was staff director and counsel to the the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee of the U.S. Senate.
Currently,
she works as a Senior Advisor for Patomak Global Partners, which provides
consulting on regulatory affairs, risk management, and compliance in
Washington, DC. “Kathy’s financial background, oversight experience, and international
perspective will make her an asset to Penn State’s (b)oard of (t)rustees,’’ Corbett
said. “I am proud to nominate someone of her caliber.’’
Let's explore that international perspective for a moment....
In June 2009, during her term of the SEC commissioner, Kathleen Casey began to travel the world, going to Israel, Japan, Switzerland, and France within a month. Travel records secured by JunketSleuth.com, through the federal Freedom of Information Act, showed she submitted $36.00 in questionable hotel charges for a single day for soda, cashews, and almonds, a telephone call from Japan for $64.00, a two night hotel stay in Switzerland that included a phone call for $213.00, and a one night stay in France included $308.00 room charge, $272.00 in meal charges, and $36.00 for mini bar charges. In November 2009, she paid $491 for a room at The Michelangelo in New York. Thirteen days later, she was back in New York
I don’t know about you, but I do NOT have a good feeling that our latest PSU Trustee will have the University’s best interest at heart.
Currently, the University is throwing money around like it’s been grown on trees, and I’d like to know where PSU is hiding this “Rainy Day Fund” that Rodney Erickson revealed to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
A former SEC official seems to be a good pick if your goal is to obfuscate the financial dealings of the Board.
Oversight?
Last summer and fall, former Auditor General Jack Wagner did a review of the Penn State By-Laws and recommended a number of changes to governance due to the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. Current Auditor General DePasquale supported the changes, which included:
-- Reduce the number of voting members on the Board from 32 to 21;
-- Establish a voting quorum of a majority of members, rather than 13 as it is now;
-- Remove the University President from the Board as a voting member; and,
-- Make the Governor an ex-officio non-voting member.
On March 18,
2013, Keith Masser, chairman of the Board of Trustees, James Broadhurst,
Chairman, PSU Governance and
Long-Range Planning Committee, Trustee Ira Lubert, Trustee Anthony Lubrano,
Robert Horst, former PSU Trustee,
and Auditor General Eugene DePasquale conducted a public hearing on governance
reform for Penn State Trustees. Also in
attendance were Chairman Lloyd Smucker (R-Lancaster), Minority Chairman Matthew
Smith (D-Allegheny) and Senators Michael Brubaker (R-Lancaster), Jake Corman
(R-Centre), Andrew Dinniman (R-Chester), Michael Folmer (R-Lebanon), and Sen.
John Yudichak (D-Luzerne).
Several
issues were discussed:
--if the size of the board contributed to the powers being
delegated to the president of the university;
--critical faults of the Freeh
Report, and;
-- if the special investigative committee was unique and beyond the
normal committees established by the Board.
Keith Masser explained that the Board agreed that an investigation of
the university was needed, and the Board leadership at that time formulated a
task force to lead the effort in selecting the law firm and the criteria under
which the law firm operated. Ira Lubert added that the Board approved the
special committee, and noted that firm acted independently of the Board and the
members of the select committee in gathering the facts.
Auditor General DePasquale expected Penn State to have reform
recommendations created by their May 3 BOT meeting in State College, PA.
Despite the Auditor General's recommendations, the Pennsylvania Senate approved Governor Corbett’s nomination of
Kathleen Casey NOW instead of
WAITING until the General Assembly addressed board governance.
The million dollar question is: why would we add another trustee to the board when reforms have stated the size of the board needs to be decreased?
Yudichak Responds
This did not sit well with Senator Yudichak and it shouldn't sit well with PSU alumni.
Yudichak states, “the board has
taken baby steps to revamp the structure of the board governance but they fall
short of the reforms necessary to improve transparency and effectiveness of
board governance.”
Tom Corbett
knows PSU needs governance reform,
yet he succeeds in filling a seat on the PSU
BOT?
He must think PSU alumni are a bunch of
bumpkins to think we wouldn't know what was
going on with this nomination.
This tells me that Corbett and the PSU BOT has a sense of “We’ll do whatever the heck we want and will not have to suffer any consequences.”
It's clear they just don't get it.
As Senator Yudichak stated, "Only the full acceptance of the necessary governance reform will move Penn State University forward, and I urge the Board of Trustees to recognize the will of its alumni base and embrace meaningful reform."
John Ziegler: On WHVL's For The Record
"Controversial" documentary film maker, John Ziegler, did two segments for WHVL's For The Record. With John, it's always "must see TV."
FTR John Ziegler, Part 1
FTR John Ziegler, Part 2
FTR John Ziegler, Part 1
FTR John Ziegler, Part 2
Monday, May 6
Cynthia Baldwin: World's Worst Lawyer, Liar, or Both?
The 1998 University Park Police Report is another piece of evidence that reveals Baldwin is the world's worst lawyer or lied about Subpoena 1179 -- or both.
Information about the Schultz file didn't become public knowledge until 12 June 2012. In addition, there are "chain of custody" issues with the Schultz file. I will expand on the Schultz file in an upcoming post.
By
Ray Blehar
According to the Freeh Report, page 83, the Pennsylvania State Police retrieved the 1998 University Park police report of investigation on 3 January 2011. One day later, on 4 January 2011, Cynthia Baldwin requested a copy of the report and reviewed it.
The next day Gary Schultz visited Baldwin's office to discuss his subpoena to appear before the grand jury. It was at this meeting that Schultz informed Baldwin of the existence of his file on Sandusky.
Considering that Baldwin had been served with Subpoena 1179 in December 2010 and asked to provide all documents and e-mails related to Sandusky's inappropriate contact with minor males, her inaction in retrieving the file could be considered obstruction of justice.
Clearly, Cynthia Baldwin understood her responsibilities to answer subpoenas. She served on the bench in Allegheny County for 16 years. Moreover, on July 19, 2010, while Baldwin was legal counsel, PSU revised Policy AD49, which contains language stating:
All legal documents including subpoenas are to be referred to or routed through The Office of General Counsel. The Office has the prerogative to send them to other parties after receipt. The Office of General Counsel shall establish all procedures for handling and addressing legal documents.
According the the Freeh Report, Baldwin told the Special Investigative Counsel (SIC) that she did not investigate the Sandusky matter or search for e-mails in the system.
Based on that statement, one might conclude that Baldwin is the world's worst lawyer or she's lying or both.
The evidence reveals it is very likely to be both.
The Timeline of Events
3 Jan 2011 -- State police obtained 1998 police report
4 Jan 2011 -- Cynthia Baldwin obtained copy of police report
5 Jan 2011 -- Baldwin and Schultz met to discuss his subpoeana to appear. Schultz informed Baldwin of his Sandusky file.
Unspecified Jan 2011 -- Baldwin allegedly met with PSU officials to discuss Subpoena 1179
12 Jan 2011 -- Curley, accompanied by Baldwin, testified that he had no knowledge of 1998 incident
12 Jan 2011 -- Schultz, accompanied by Baldwin, testified that he was unaware of the 94 page police report
22 March 2011 -- Spanier interviewed by police. Denied knowledge of the 1998 incident.
13 April 2011 -- Baldwin provided thumb drive of Spanier's e-mails dating back to 2004 to the grand jury
13 April 2011 -- Spanier testified to no knowledge of 1998 incident.
12 May 2011 -- Baldwin briefs BOT about grand jury, 2002 (sic), and 1998 incidents
March 2012 -- Freeh "discovers" Schultz's file
Baldwin's Inconsistencies
Did not investigate Sandusky matter: Upon learning that the state police had obtained the 1998 police report, Baldwin obtained a copy for her review the very next day. Apparently, that isn't "investigating" the Sandusky matter in Baldwin's mind.
Alleged meetings with PSU officials regarding Subpoena 1179. It is evident from the testimony of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier that then-PSU General Counsel Baldwin did not inform them about the 1998 police report and/or the Schultz file prior to their testimony. My previous blog on 1179 revealed that Curley and Schultz did not know the date of the shower incident -- providing evidence that discussions/meetings about Subpoena 1179 were unlikely.
Other evidence that supports Baldwin never discussed the details of Subpoena 1179 include:
1) Courtney's e-mail exchange with Schultz regarding an incident that took place "circa eight years ago" which would set the date as 2003; and,
2) Spanier's interview with the police on 22 March 2011, when he stated the incident occurred between 2000 and 2002 (see p. 26 of Conspiracy of Silence presentment).
1) Courtney's e-mail exchange with Schultz regarding an incident that took place "circa eight years ago" which would set the date as 2003; and,
2) Spanier's interview with the police on 22 March 2011, when he stated the incident occurred between 2000 and 2002 (see p. 26 of Conspiracy of Silence presentment).
Representing PSU, not PSU officials: Baldwin, through Lanny Davis, claimed that "she did not hear" Curley or Schultz state that she was representing them as legal counsel at the grand jury. Additionally, Davis said, "she (Baldwin) would not feel it appropriate to speak up and correct it" out of deference to the grand jury process. Davis' statements are nonsense. Judge Feudale's ruling on Baldwin's representation of PSU and not PSU officials was at best, confusing, as he stated he erred in not asking Baldwin more questions regarding who she was representing. Feudale also incredibly gave Baldwin a pass for not knowing how to handle subpoenas. Baldwin may have gotten a pass from Feudale, but she won't fare so well when she has to argue her lack of knowledge of subpoenas to a jury.
Not searching for e-mails: On April 11, 2011, at the grand jury, Baldwin provided the court with a thumb drive containing Spanier's e-mails dating back to 2004. This directly contradicts her statement to the SIC that she didn't investigate the Sandusky matter or search for e-mails.
As a result of her negligence, Curley and Spanier were both charged with perjury for testifying to their lack of knowledge of prior (1998) inappropriate conduct between Sandusky and a young boy.
The Schultz file: In the case of the Schultz file, Baldwin appeared to lack curiosity about it even though the grand jury Subpoena 1179 requested all documents related to Sandusky's conduct on or off campus with minor males. Are we really to believe that Baldwin, after being informed about a Sandusky file in Schultz's old office, and under subpoena to provide documents, would not have acted in a similar manner as she did with the police report (and obtained the Schultz file)? As you will see below, it is quite possible that Baldwin did, in fact, obtain the file expeditiously and provide it to the OAG prior to their questioning of Schultz.
Schultz was charged with perjury for not knowing the details of the 1998 police report, and most importantly, for not recalling that he asked for a copy of the 1998 police report when responding to the 2001 incident (see below). The latter charge could only originate from the OAG having possession of the Schultz file at a time earlier than 30 March 2012 (the date of the answer to the perjury particulars) and, possibly, as early as 5 January 2011.
Information about the Schultz file didn't become public knowledge until 12 June 2012. In addition, there are "chain of custody" issues with the Schultz file. I will expand on the Schultz file in an upcoming post.
Key Testimony Regarding 1998 - Tim Curley
At the grand jury, the following exchange demonstrated that Cynthia Baldwin did not share the 1998 police report (in her possession) with Tim Curley prior to his grand jury testimony.
Q: Since this has come to light, you you become aware of other allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky on University property or elsewhere?
A: Other than what was mentioned this morning?
Q: Specifically, a 1998 report, did you know anything about that in 2002?
A: No.
Q. But the 1998 incident was never brought to your attention?
A: No
Had Baldwin done her job as Curley's attorney, she would have informed him of the 1998 report (which she possessed) and refreshed his memory of the incident prior to him testifying at the grand jury.
As pointed out on this blog, Curley received just two e-mails over the course of the 37 day investigation of Sandusky. Curley was never told of the nature of the investigation, thus it would strain the limits of memory for Curley to recall the 1998 investigation as one involving inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky. Unauthenticated e-mail evidence used in the Freeh Report to demonstrate that Curley had knowledge of the 1998 investigation in 1998 and in 2001 should be dismissed until the original e-mails can be obtained from Penn State for review.
Key Testimony regarding 1998 - Gary Schultz
At the grand jury, the following exchange demonstrated that Ms. Baldwin did not share the 1998 police report (in her possession) with Gary Schultz prior to his grand jury testimony.
Q: Are you practically certain that there was a police investigation in 1998?
A: Well, I know the police were involved, but my recollection is that it was decided that the child protection agency would be the better entity to conduct the investigation.
Q: You thought that the university police would not have kept any kind of record of that investigation?
Q: Are you practically certain that there was a police investigation in 1998?
A: Well, I know the police were involved, but my recollection is that it was decided that the child protection agency would be the better entity to conduct the investigation.
Q: You thought that the university police would not have kept any kind of record of that investigation?
A: That there was -- yeah, I think they would have a record that a complaint was received and that it was turned over. But I wouldn't have assumed that they would have a report from the other agency.
Q: You wouldn't assume that the police keep reports of all their investigations that they have conducted?
A: They didn't conduct it. The other agency did was my understanding. So, yeah, I believe they have reports of investigations they have done, but this I thought was turned over to the other agency.
Q: You knew the university police were involved in the 1998 investigation, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But you didn't attempt or find out whether they had anything that would substantiate or cause you to come to some conclusions regarding the 2002 incident and whether or not it might have actually occurred? That didn't occur to you, to check into the 1998 incident more firmer?
A: No.
Again, Baldwin possessed the 1998 police file on January 4, 2011, yet appeared to choose not to inform Schultz about its existence, thus Schultz was charged with perjury for his statements relating to his knowledge of the report (among other charges). At a minimum, Baldwin failed to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.2, Comment 7 for not fully representing Schultz's interest as her client.
More Inconsistencies
The PA OAG's Conspiracy of Silence charges of obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy against Spanier, Curley,and Schultz are based, in part, upon their lack of knowledge of the 1998 police investigation/police file and their failure to turn over documents related to Grand Jury Subpoena 1179 - including the Schultz file.
In Spanier's case, the Conspiracy of Silence presentment weaves a tale of Spanier being fully apprised of the 1998 incident by Baldwin, then twice lying about it to the police and the grand jury. But the most interesting aspect of the OAG's story is the recounting of Baldwin's briefing to the BOT on May 12, 2011.
According to the former-OAG officials, Baldwin informed the BOT about the grand jury process and was then dismissed from the meeting by Spanier (see page 28). She left so quickly that she had to send someone back into the room to retrieve her purse (I'm guessing there was a janitor nearby that did the fetching!!). The OAG's presentment stated that Baldwin had fully briefed Spanier about 1998 and the 2002 (sic) incident and he was to brief the Board, but failed to follow through. Spanier's negligence left the BOT unprepared for what hit them in November 2011.
REALLY???
Cynthia Baldwin's sworn affidavit of January 16, 2012, explicitly stated that SHE briefed the Board about the 1998 investigation and that Spanier, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz testified about the 2002 incident (see Freeh Exhibit 6A). Once again, the former-OAG has been caught lying about the facts of the case. Did they exaggerate the testimony of Cynthia Baldwin, just as they did with Mike McQueary? Or did Baldwin, herself, lie about what she talked about at the BOT meeting?
No doubt, someone is not telling the truth.
Moreover, a similar review of the testimony and evidence related to Subpoena 1179 would reveal that Baldwin provided no details of the information request to Spanier, Schultz, Curley, Paterno, and/or Wendell Courtney. None of these men had an inkling to the exact date of the incident for which the information was sought.
When you get down to it, it is clear that Baldwin was not representing the interests of Penn State, Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, or Timothy Curley during the time she was paid approximately $300,000 per year as general counsel.
Baldwin was representing the PSU Board of Trustees personal or private interests, and not Penn State's or its employees.
She should be disbarred and put behind bars for her role in the Sandusky Scandal.
In Spanier's case, the Conspiracy of Silence presentment weaves a tale of Spanier being fully apprised of the 1998 incident by Baldwin, then twice lying about it to the police and the grand jury. But the most interesting aspect of the OAG's story is the recounting of Baldwin's briefing to the BOT on May 12, 2011.
According to the former-OAG officials, Baldwin informed the BOT about the grand jury process and was then dismissed from the meeting by Spanier (see page 28). She left so quickly that she had to send someone back into the room to retrieve her purse (I'm guessing there was a janitor nearby that did the fetching!!). The OAG's presentment stated that Baldwin had fully briefed Spanier about 1998 and the 2002 (sic) incident and he was to brief the Board, but failed to follow through. Spanier's negligence left the BOT unprepared for what hit them in November 2011.
REALLY???
Cynthia Baldwin's sworn affidavit of January 16, 2012, explicitly stated that SHE briefed the Board about the 1998 investigation and that Spanier, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz testified about the 2002 incident (see Freeh Exhibit 6A). Once again, the former-OAG has been caught lying about the facts of the case. Did they exaggerate the testimony of Cynthia Baldwin, just as they did with Mike McQueary? Or did Baldwin, herself, lie about what she talked about at the BOT meeting?
No doubt, someone is not telling the truth.
Conclusions
Any legitimate review of testimony and evidence in this case would conclude that Baldwin failed to inform the PSU officials about the 1998 police report prior to their testimony at the grand jury. It defies explanation how a lawyer who was representing PSU and officials in their role as PSU officers, would fail to inform them about evidence relevant to the case.Moreover, a similar review of the testimony and evidence related to Subpoena 1179 would reveal that Baldwin provided no details of the information request to Spanier, Schultz, Curley, Paterno, and/or Wendell Courtney. None of these men had an inkling to the exact date of the incident for which the information was sought.
When you get down to it, it is clear that Baldwin was not representing the interests of Penn State, Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, or Timothy Curley during the time she was paid approximately $300,000 per year as general counsel.
Baldwin was representing the PSU Board of Trustees personal or private interests, and not Penn State's or its employees.
She should be disbarred and put behind bars for her role in the Sandusky Scandal.
Sunday, May 5
Franco Harris: "We will never give up."
Franco Harris and others tell it like it is during the open comment session of the May 3, 2013 PSU BOT meeting.
Recap of Speakers
1. Robert Bannon: Robert spoke of his unique perspective as a survivor of child molestation and as a Penn Stater. Mr. Bannon shared his perspectives on the Sandusky scandal by writing letters to all of the November 2011 BOT members -- none of whom had the decency to respond. Mr. Bannon called their failure to resign from the BOT "unfortunate" and their desire to seek re-election "repugnant."
2. Bill Cluck: Bill reminded the BOT/Keith Masser of his promise to vote on each of the recommendations of Auditor General Eugene DePasquale - then held a single vote on all measures. Bill also chastised the BOT for their lack of openness and transparency regarding the conflict of interest rules. Cluck finished by recommending that a new Creamery ice cream be named after Paula Ammerman - Trustee Fudge.
3. Vincent Crespi: Professor Crespi chastised the BOT for their lack of concern for the residents of the State College borough by accelerating the vote on the natural gas pipeline in November 2011 to eliminate the opportunity for the public to be informed. Crespi noted that the pipeline project has now been delayed due to public dissent over it and alleged violations of the State College Borough's home rule that specifically outlawed pipelines in the borough.
4. Gordon De Jong: The distinguished emeritus professor remarked that academics should always be the focus and Penn State and that PSU should strive to be the Stanford of public institutions.
5. Janet Engeman: Ms. Engeman also spoke to the lack of information and lack of transparency provided by PSU regarding the construction of the natural gas pipeline.
6. Franco Harris: Franco remarked that the PSU General Counsel has chosen to defend against a lawsuit alleging responsibility for sexual abuse suffered by Victim 6 in 1998 but yet chose not to defend against those allegations with regard to the NCAA sanctions. Harris chastised the BOT for their lack of leadership during the Sandusky crisis and for letting BOT vice-chair cram decisions down their throats. He offered that they might want a drink of "kool aid" (ref. to John Surma) to wash it down. Franco ended by telling the BOT that the alumni will never give up.
7. Paul Ferrera: Ferrera is a soon to be graduate who voiced his displeasure about recent BOT candidates who had nothing in their platforms aimed at the current students, such as improvements of general studies programs, on-line learning, and interdisciplinary majors. Ferrera believes the BOT members are too focused on reforming the Board and pro-Paterno agenda.
Comment: I wish Mr. Ferrera well in the unemployment line. Maybe at that point, he will learn that the November 2011 BOT caused him to earn a degree from Pedophile State University -- and not Penn State. Then, maybe he'll figure out who is looking out for our student's best interest.
8. Jeff Goldsmith: Jeff spoke to reforms needed to the BOT and that the current Board is insular and not representative of the interests of Penn State. It has taken a "circle the wagons" mentality and spent untold sums of money of failed PR efforts.
9. Brian Hand: Brian addressed the rising tuition costs and how they squeeze out students from working class families and that the BOT has not helped by adding exorbitant costs (e.g., the Freeh Report). He noted that that BOT is not fighting for the University.
10. Herb Kunkle: Kunkle, an orthopedic surgeon from Chester County, gave his background with Penn State and that PSU needs to focus on education.
Ed Hintz: Business and Industry BOT representative remarked that he felt it was inappropriate for speakers to single out BOT members by name for decisions made by the Board....then he singled out John Surma, Paul Suhey, and Stephanie Deviney for their service. Uh, okay. His final comment on his accessibility to the speakers was met with derision by a few members of the audience.
Recap of Speakers
1. Robert Bannon: Robert spoke of his unique perspective as a survivor of child molestation and as a Penn Stater. Mr. Bannon shared his perspectives on the Sandusky scandal by writing letters to all of the November 2011 BOT members -- none of whom had the decency to respond. Mr. Bannon called their failure to resign from the BOT "unfortunate" and their desire to seek re-election "repugnant."
2. Bill Cluck: Bill reminded the BOT/Keith Masser of his promise to vote on each of the recommendations of Auditor General Eugene DePasquale - then held a single vote on all measures. Bill also chastised the BOT for their lack of openness and transparency regarding the conflict of interest rules. Cluck finished by recommending that a new Creamery ice cream be named after Paula Ammerman - Trustee Fudge.
3. Vincent Crespi: Professor Crespi chastised the BOT for their lack of concern for the residents of the State College borough by accelerating the vote on the natural gas pipeline in November 2011 to eliminate the opportunity for the public to be informed. Crespi noted that the pipeline project has now been delayed due to public dissent over it and alleged violations of the State College Borough's home rule that specifically outlawed pipelines in the borough.
4. Gordon De Jong: The distinguished emeritus professor remarked that academics should always be the focus and Penn State and that PSU should strive to be the Stanford of public institutions.
5. Janet Engeman: Ms. Engeman also spoke to the lack of information and lack of transparency provided by PSU regarding the construction of the natural gas pipeline.
6. Franco Harris: Franco remarked that the PSU General Counsel has chosen to defend against a lawsuit alleging responsibility for sexual abuse suffered by Victim 6 in 1998 but yet chose not to defend against those allegations with regard to the NCAA sanctions. Harris chastised the BOT for their lack of leadership during the Sandusky crisis and for letting BOT vice-chair cram decisions down their throats. He offered that they might want a drink of "kool aid" (ref. to John Surma) to wash it down. Franco ended by telling the BOT that the alumni will never give up.
7. Paul Ferrera: Ferrera is a soon to be graduate who voiced his displeasure about recent BOT candidates who had nothing in their platforms aimed at the current students, such as improvements of general studies programs, on-line learning, and interdisciplinary majors. Ferrera believes the BOT members are too focused on reforming the Board and pro-Paterno agenda.
Comment: I wish Mr. Ferrera well in the unemployment line. Maybe at that point, he will learn that the November 2011 BOT caused him to earn a degree from Pedophile State University -- and not Penn State. Then, maybe he'll figure out who is looking out for our student's best interest.
8. Jeff Goldsmith: Jeff spoke to reforms needed to the BOT and that the current Board is insular and not representative of the interests of Penn State. It has taken a "circle the wagons" mentality and spent untold sums of money of failed PR efforts.
9. Brian Hand: Brian addressed the rising tuition costs and how they squeeze out students from working class families and that the BOT has not helped by adding exorbitant costs (e.g., the Freeh Report). He noted that that BOT is not fighting for the University.
10. Herb Kunkle: Kunkle, an orthopedic surgeon from Chester County, gave his background with Penn State and that PSU needs to focus on education.
Ed Hintz: Business and Industry BOT representative remarked that he felt it was inappropriate for speakers to single out BOT members by name for decisions made by the Board....then he singled out John Surma, Paul Suhey, and Stephanie Deviney for their service. Uh, okay. His final comment on his accessibility to the speakers was met with derision by a few members of the audience.
Wednesday, May 1
Upon Further Review: This Saturday, May 4 - Bethlehem, PA
Upon Further Review - Northampton Comm College
Saturday, May 4 - 7:00PM - 9:30PM
Hosted by Franco Harris
At
NCC, Lipkin Auditorium, 3835 Green Pond Rd, Bethlehem, PA 18020
Panelists include PS4RS Legal Rep Rob Tribeck and PSU Trustee Anthony Lubrano,
Presentations by Analysts Eileen Morgan and Ray Blehar and Documentary Filmmaker John Ziegler.
The event is free and open to the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
