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.

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" e-mail evidence

May 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).

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 13, 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.  And if she had the IT department get Spanier's e-mails, then it is highly likely they obtained the Schultz e-mails in the same search.

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 incident (see below).  The latter charge could only originate from the OAG having possession of the handwritten notes in the Schultz file which detailed the information from the May 4 and 5 police interviews.  E-mail evidence did not provide any details of the 1998 investigation.  Therefore, the OAG had to possess 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 (when Schultz alerted Baldwin to the existence of  his Sandusky file).

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?

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.


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.


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.


  1. More great information. Hope Kathleen Kane is on the same trail

  2. Thanks Ray. I learn a lot from your posts. I am always impressed and grateful that you put so much time and effort into ferreting out facts that others have either overlooked or did not understand the significance of. Your clear explanations are invaluable.

  3. Ray: Do you copy Ms. Kane's office on your work? I'm afraid that the only people paying attention to it are those of us who already agree with you.

    As always, your investigative work is fantastic.

    1. Thanks for the kind words. I sent my last blog on Baldwin to Kane's office. I will probably send this one as well. I will send them Report 3 when I'm done with it. Most of my contacts in law enforcement are feds/former feds (DOJ/FBI/Secret Service). They can get my information where it needs to go.


      Maybe you should forward this analysis of Baldwin on to Kane's office now. Apparently decisions will be made this week regarding GJ testimony and Schultz/ Curley. It seems that the GJ judge has conflicted interests here regarding Baldwin's GJ presence and roles in the entire Sandusky case.

  4. Great work, Ray, as usual. For my better understanding, where does it say that Baldwin received 1998 report on 4th Jan 2011? In Freeh report?

    1. It's on page 83 of the Freeh Report, apparently coming from her interview with them.

  5. I thought haven’t read such distinctive material anywhere else on-line.elder law attorney northern virginia