Shari Copenhaver: Theft by deception

Did Louis Freeh's investigation cross the line into a criminal act?

by

Shari Copenhaver

Louis Freeh (Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan) charged the Pennsylvania State University $6.5 Million to perform “an independent, full and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegations of sexual abuse ...”  FSS was engaged to serve as independent, external legal counsel “to the Task Force” to perform this investigation.

Others have already stated with specificity the many, erroneous statements, conclusions and “findings” contained in FSS’s report.  In fact, those who have disclosed those facts have done so with far more clarity and truthfulness than anything Freeh produced.  Additional untruthful tidbits from Freeh’s fiction are revealed regularly.

The bottom line is that we now know that the report submitted by Louis Freeh was speculative, at best.  The question is whether or not the errors contained in Freeh’s report were put there with a direct intent to deceive.

Pursuant to the terms of the Engagement Letter, FSS’s findings were to include “i) failures that occurred in the reporting process.”  Why, then, did Freeh omit from his investigation those processes used in 1998 by Dept of Public Welfare, Children & Youth Svcs, University Police, District Attorney’s offices, State College Police and all other agencies involved in the 1998 investigation of Sandusky?  The Scope of Engagement contains no language limiting the investigation of the failures that occurred in the reporting process to failures by Penn State. 

18 Pa.C.S. §3922 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines Theft By Deception as follows:

Notably, FSS’s results were to be provided in a written report to the Task Force “and other parties as so directed by the Task Force.”  However, that didn't happen.

When Freeh held his press conference covered by media outlets from all over the world, it appears that he was “directed” to do so by the Task Force.  And it appears the Freeh was also directed by the Task Force to share information with the NCAA.  

Was that very loud disclosure by Freeh intentional?

We know that Freeh obtained property to the tune of at least $6.5 million from Penn State.  Did Freeh “create or reinforce a false impression” by withholding some email communications and releasing select others?  

Did Freeh prevent anyone from “acquiring information which would affect his judgment” when he refused to interview any of the key persons he specifically named as being at fault? 

Did he “fail to correct a false impression which he previously created or reinforced” by failing to put out additional errata sheets when additional information was uncovered by others which clearly contradicts the allegations contained in the initial report?

Freeh’s report has been refuted by additional evidence which was omitted from his report.  Numerous professionals, including experts in the field of child sexual victimization, have also opposed the findings contained in Freeh’s report specifically because those findings are unsupported by the evidence. 

The nagging question is whether or not the falsehoods contained in the report prepared by Louis Freeh of Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan were merely “unintentional error” or “deception by design”.  If it was deceit, then does that deception rise to the level of a crime?  

Certainly, The Pennsylvania State University did not receive a report valued at anywhere near $6.5 million!

Ordering information:  http://www.paternoplaques.com/purchase.html

Candlelight Tribute to Joe Paterno Planned for Homecoming Game

Please join Penn State alumni, friends, and fans immediately after the Homecoming game to honor Joe Paterno's legacy. 

We will be holding a candlelight vigil with a few memorial activities, and we hope this becomes an annual tradition.

We will be meeting at the place where his statue stood until it was needlessly removed. 

Additional Details:
Please bring a battery-operated votive or tealight candle. These are available at any craft store - or pretty much anywhere that sells candles - and will fit in your pocket. 

Do not light (activate) them until instructed to do so. Some additional candles will be available but it would be best to plan ahead.  The candles will be arranged for a special memorial before we leave, so they may burn through the night.

You are welcome to either wear tribute-type clothing or bring memorabilia or signage. 

This is a public event, so feel free to invite everyone who may wish to participate. 

It is time to right this wrong and restore our image. 

FOR THE GLORY

Ordering information:  http://www.paternoplaques.com/purchase.html

My LTE of The Collegian....we'll see if they print it....

Subject: March4Truth Co-Organizer Responds To Another False Narrative

I read the Collegian editorial, "Vocal Alumni Minority Are Impeding Progress," with great interest, considering that I co-organized the March4Truth and have spent over a year investigating the facts of the Sandusky case.  As an analyst and investigator with 28 years experience, who has investigated international incidents of considerable importance, I can assure the Penn State student body that finding the "truth" of the Sandusky matter is in all of our best interests.

I was a bit taken aback by the statements made by UPUA President Katelyn Mullen and the author who believe that the "alumni antics reflect negatively on current students" and that the "actions of a vocal minority are defining us as a school."  Ironically, this is clearly a case of misplaced blame on the "vocal" alumni and it is quite similar to the scenario of the blame for Sandusky's crimes being placed on Penn State. 

In other words, another false narrative.

The reason that Penn State has been defined as a school that enabled child sexual abuse is because the PSU Board of Trustees failed to defend our University against false allegations of failing to report Sandusky's crimes.  Morevoer, the Board's failure to refute the Freeh Report caused the NCAA to levy sanctions and penalties that, to the public at large, defined Penn State as a school of child abuse enablers.

The "vocal" alumni had nothing to do with either of those ill-fated decisions.  In fact, we opposed them.

Most students are too young to remember when the NCAA gave Southern Methodist University the death penalty in 1987, however, it was a black mark that has hung on SMU ever since.  A few years ago, ESPN made a movie about the scandal called "Pony Excess."  As I write this, another movie starring Al Pacino as Joe Paterno will document the Sandusky scandal's false narrative and be shown to millions of people.

The NCAA sanctions on PSU will result in a similar black mark that will hang on this University for the next 30 to 50 years, if not the rest of our lives.

Unless, the truth is revealed.

The PSU BOT wants us all to "move forward" in the best interests of the University.  They say look to the future -- but only because they don't want to be held accountable for the damage they have inflicted on Penn State.  

When you are asked about the Sandusky case in a job interview, it is because the BOT accepted guilt for the scandal - not because the alumni are expressing dismay in the school's leadership.  Almost none of the publicity about the scandal to date has anything to do with the "vocal" alumni and everything to do with the failure of the Board to defend PSU and its administrators. The fact of the matter is that future media coverage of the Sandusky scandal is inevitable because of the pending court cases of PSU officials - again, not a result of the "vocal" alumni, but of the BOT, who threw these men "under the bus."  

So, the concept of "moving forward" to avoid publicity about the scandal is not only flawed logically, but practically.

Next, if you believe you were the only people affected by the scandal because you were on PSU's campus, you are quite wrong about that.  Talk to alumni who were denied promotions or not hired because of it.  Talk to alumni whose cars and homes were vandalized because they displayed PSU's "colors."  Talk to alumni who have had to answer the similar questions, as you have during job interviews, about the scandal.  I would submit that our experiences were possibly worse than yours, considering we are surrounded by graduates of other schools while the population you exist in is rather homogenous.  Your community was supportive and had empathy, while the majority of our communities were not.

Another area where we may differ is in how we reacted to the scandal and the allegations levied on PSU that resulted in such destruction.  And perhaps that is a matter of life experience.

The most important thing I can ask of you, to perhaps understand why the alumni protested to demand the truth and "due process," is that you "walk a mile in another man's shoes."

Imagine if you returned to your dormitory or apartment to find a phone message or e-mail waiting for you.   The message simply tells you to call an individual at a certain phone number.  You dial the number and, after confirming your identity, the person on the other end of the line says: "You are no longer a student at Penn State University."   You are told you were expelled because of allegations of academic fraud that have not yet been proven.  The professor who made the allegations is highly respected by the Administration, thus no examination of the evidence is performed.  Your guilt is simply based on the professor's allegations.  You are not given an opportunity to speak in your own defense nor is there any process for redress.

Two weeks after that, you receive a letter informing you to return your student ID card and other property that PSU determines you owe the Unversity.  This letter formalizes your expulsion and it is made public that you were expelled for academic fraud.  The public now knows you were expelled for academic fraud, thus you must be a "flawed" individual.  Some in the public refer to your "flaw" as "tragic."

What would you do?  Move on?  Put Penn State behind you, even though the record will show that you're a cheater and have a flawed character?

Apparently, you would.  That's what you're telling the alumni to do.

But here's the rub.  This is not about one person.  It's about 600,000 people who get called "pedophile enablers" and will continue to bear that label until the record is corrected.

This is where we "vocal" alumni are coming from.  We understand that a school that we love was unjustly maligned, just as good men's reputations were damaged or ruined without due process.

The "vocal" alumni know that revealing the truth about the Sandusky Scandal is the ONLY thing that will remove the black mark put on our school and on all of us.  Moving forward is not the answer.

I would welcome the opportunity to engage the students in dialogue about the facts of the scandal in the near future.

For the glory,

Ray Blehar, Honors Graduate,

Penn State Smeal MBA, Class of 2008

Ordering information:  http://www.paternoplaques.com/purchase.html

In case you missed it, 9/20 CDT Ad for March4Truth

Dear Penn State Alumni, Students, Staff, and Friends

  JOIN OUR PEACEFUL MARCH4TRUTH.COM TODAY @ 3:30PM, BOT MTG, 

OUTSIDE THE PENN STATER...   

WHY?  BECAUSE THE TRUTH MATTERS.

In November 2011, when the one sided, prosecutorial document, known as a grand jury presentment was released, it not only was used to indict Jerry Sandusky, but PSU as well.  Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley was put on administrative leave, head football coach Joe Paterno was terminated, and University President Graham Spanier was put in the position of having to resign because the Board of Trustees (BOT) was unwilling to support him. These three men were relieved of their duties without due process.  Moreover, the BOT had no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of these individuals.

In the ensuing eight months, the BOT did nothing to defend PSU.  Instead, it worked with the NCAA and the firm of Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan to cover for its own mistakes and place blame on PSU’s “football culture.”  When Louis Freeh provided his (now discredited) report on July 12, 2012, the trustees praised his work and used it to again condemn PSU.

‘Today’s comprehensive report is sad and sobering in that it concludes that at the moment of truth, people in positions of authority and responsibility did not put the welfare of children first.  The Board of Trustees, as the group that has paramount accountability for overseeing and ensuring the proper functioning and governance of the University, accepts full responsibility for the failures that occurred.’

This raises the question: How do these Trustees, who ‘accept full responsibility for the failures that occurred’ and who accepted bearing ultimate responsibility for Sandusky’s crimes, still retain their positions and duties on the Penn State Board?  

The Board terminated Paterno and Spanier because they lost ‘confidence in their ability to lead.’  Since the Board admitted they failed in their oversight and governance, why are they still leading and running this University?  Many of the Penn State stakeholders, that is, the faculty, alumni, students, and supporters, have virtually zero confidence in the Board’s ability to lead.  Therefore, based on the Board’s yardstick, all of the seats of the November 9, 2011 Trustees should be revoked.

The BOT, as an entity, wrongfully placed the blame for Sandusky’s crimes on PSU.   This dishonest act has enabled the continued abuse of Pennsylvania’s children by not focusing the attention of the scandal where it belongs – on PA’s child protection system.  President Erickson and the BOT have stated that PSU will become a national leader in the prevention of child abuse. However, by these individuals refusing to acknowledge the problems within PA’s child protection system that not only enabled Sandusky's crimes, but continues to enable crimes today, the notion of PSU being a national leader is a farce.   If you refuse to provide leadership in your "home" state, how can you lead the nation?

Instead, they are paying out tens of millions of dollars in settlements in an attempt to make the public believe the Sandusky scandal has been resolved.  Fortunately, the TRUTH cannot be hidden by the underhanded maneuvers of the Board because they can’t control the legal system.

As the investigative and judicial processes unfold, the TRUTH is being revealed – and it looks nothing like the grand jury presentment or the Freeh Report that have been blindly accepted and promoted by the Trustees, the media and the general public.  To wit:

• Former Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina claimed in a recent interview on 60 Minutes Sports that he found NO evidence that Joe Paterno conspired to cover up Sandusky’s crimes.
• To date, it has yet to be proven that Penn State, as an institution, is legitimately culpable for any of the crimes of Jerry Sandusky.  Several allegations made against PSU officials have already been disproven.
• Aaron Fisher (Victim 1) reached a settlement despite having publicly stated that he did NOT blame Penn State, but instead blamed Central Mountain High School.
• Sandusky’s adopted son Matt, who came forward during the trial, reached a settlement even though his statements regarding when the abuse ended are contradictory and the abuse, of which PSU was never informed, occurred before 1997.
• The 1998 allegations (Victim 6) were fully investigated by local law enforcement and child welfare authorities and determined to be “unfounded” by the Department of Public Welfare.  This was a colossal failure of PA’s abysmal child protection system. 
• Through four different proceedings, the state’s key witness, Mike McQueary, who was deemed “extremely credible,” has yet to tell a consistent story about what happened in February 2001 regarding Victim 2.
• The allegations concerning Victim 2 were reported by Penn State to The Second Mile, Sandusky’s employer, and, based on sworn testimony and other evidence, possibly reported to Centre County Children and Youth Services by Penn State. 
• Jack Raykovitz, Director of The Second Mile and mandated reporter, did not report the 2001 incident to authorities.
• The crime witnessed by the janitor involving Victim 8 has been disproven, based on physical and temporal (time) evidence.  The eye-witness janitor was not a PSU employee at the time of the incident and could not have witnessed the crime.
• During the investigation of Sandusky, the Office of Attorney General learned of the 1998 incident by June of 2009, yet did not follow up on that lead until November or December of 2010.  Had the investigation been conducted properly, Sandusky could have been arrested by the summer of 2009. 
• Louis Freeh did NOT discover Gary Schultz’s “secret” files, as he claimed.  Both Schultz and Kimberly Belcher turned over the files to the Office of Attorney General.  The existence of the files was well known – they were not “secret.”  Nor did Freeh “make independent discovery” of the e-mail evidence in the case in March 2012.  According to OAG computer forensics expert Braden Cook, the PSU IT Department (John Corro) turned over the files in March 2011.

• Sandusky’s one-on-one access to children, not access to facilities, was the critical enabler of his crimes.  That access was provided by The Second Mile – NOT Penn State.

Based on the above facts, it is quite evident that the entire narrative about this scandal is false. The Board of Trustees breached its fiduciary duties by accepting guilt before any legal basis for Penn State’s culpability was established.  The Board should acknowledge former prosecutor Frank Fina’s claim that Joe Paterno was NOT part of a cover-up and apologize for its unwarranted firing of Paterno.

The Trustees revoked the duties of three honorable Penn State employees who collectively worked 120 years for the University, yet the same rules and criteria for termination somehow do not apply to them.  How ironic is that?  Clearly, Penn State has a culture problem.  This problem, however, is not with the football program but with the members of the Board of Trustees.

This is a fight for the heart and soul of Penn State and we will not move forward without the TRUTH.  JOIN OUR MARCH!

For The Glory,

Eileen Morgan – PSU, Aerospace Eng., Class of 1990 (http://emf.intherough.net/pennstate.htm)
Ray Blehar – PSU, Smeal MBA, Class of 2008 (http://notpsu.blogspot.com/ )

Ordering information:  http://www.paternoplaques.com/purchase.html

PENN STATERS FOR RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP REACTS TO NCAA SANCTION REDUCTION

SEPTEMBER, 24, 2013 Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship (PS4RS) is pleased that the NCAA, at the behest of Senator George Mitchell, has revisited the unprecedented and improper sanctions that it levied on Penn State in July 2012.

“Perhaps recognizing the enormity of its error and the recently filed lawsuit in Centre County Pennsylvania, particularly in light of the thorough debunking of the Freeh Report, the NCAA has taken the first step toward repairing some of the damage that it and Penn State’s leadership have inflicted upon Penn State,” said PS4RS spokesperson Maribeth Roman Schmidt.

While PS4RS does not agree that Penn State ever required an Athletic Integrity Monitor, nor that the football program is in any way responsible for Jerry Sandusky's crimes, the members of PS4RS are grateful that Senator Mitchell recommended this reduction in sanctions. We are extremely happy for the student-athletes who will be afforded the opportunity of a great Penn State education.

Rob Tribeck, Chair of the PS4RS Legal Task Force, who met with representatives of Senator Mitchell’s team in May 2013 on behalf of PS4RS, expressed additional gratitude. “Senator Mitchell has recognized the need for a reduction, if not elimination, of these outrageous sanctions. This action today, while not completely eliminating the sanctions, is a significant step forward to recognizing that the sole basis of the sanctions was the Freeh Report’s wholly unsupported conclusions regarding Coach Paterno and the football program.” Tribeck continued, “The Freeh Report has been completely discredited by each and every qualified person to review it, including representatives of the Pennsylvania Attorney General and the lead prosecutor of Jerry Sandusky. This action today confirms what many have believed since July 2012: the Freeh Report’s conclusions were grossly flawed and improperly attributed responsibility to Coach Paterno and the football program.”

PS4RS remains committed to providing any additional support to Senator Mitchell or the NCAA in connection with its further review of these sanctions. To put this matter to rest, once and for all, the NCAA must rescind all sanctions and retract the offensive statements made about the Penn State culture.

Ordering information:  http://www.paternoplaques.com/purchase.html

NCAA Half Measure on Sanctions Falls Short

The NCAA's decision to roll back some of the sanctions as a result of "progress" with the Freeh Report's recommendations on Athletics is yet another smokescreen by Emmert and the BOT.

By
Ray Blehar

While I welcome the decision by the NCAA to restore some of the scholarship to the football program, it's reasoning for doing so is nothing less than farcical.

As most Penn Staters - and college football fans in general - know, Penn State had a sterling reputation for its ability to perform at high levels on the field and in the classroom.  All this done with not a single NCAA violation.   

In  the years prior to the Sandusky Scandal, Penn State's 89 percent graduation rate and 85 percent Graduation Success Rate were tops among all teams in the Associated Press' final 2009 Top 25 poll, according to NCAA data. The Nittany Lions' GSR and four-year federal graduation rate were second only to Northwestern among Big Ten Conference teams, according to the NCAA's 2010 graduation report.

For the late Coach Paterno's career, the Nittany Lions have counted 16 National Football Foundation Scholar-Athletes, 37 first-team Capital One/CoSIDA All-Americans® (47 overall) and 18 NCAA Postgraduate Scholarship winners. 

And in 2010, NCAA President Mark Emmert, called Joe Paterno “the definitive role model of what it means to be a college coach.” 

PSU needed the Athletic Integrity Agreement like a fish needed a bicycle.

However, less than one year later, Mark Emmert would levy unprecedented sanctions on PSU, based on some obscure rules buried in the NCAA By-Laws which were buttressed by slim evidence provided  in the now discredited Freeh Report.

Today's decision to reduce the NCAA Sanctions is little more than a Hail Mary pass by Emmert and the BOT with the hopes of appeasing their opponents who they incorrectly accused of being part of a non-existent "football culture" at PSU.   

The opposition is not going away.  Not until all the wrongs are righted -- more on that later.

But what of this fallacious reasoning for the reduction of the NCAA Sanctions?

NCAA and Penn State's Revised Consent Decree

The revised Consent Decree, below, states that the NCAA has reduced the sanctions because of the compliance and efforts toward implementation of the....Athletics Integrity Agreement.




























What is truly amazing about the "progress" that PSU made since last August is that it's ability to meet the Freeh Report recommendations for Athletics, on which the AIA is based, required them to do very little.

While the AIA is about a dozen pages long and filled with a lot of language, the bottom line is that addresses a dozen (12) recommendations in the Freeh Report that were mostly unnecessary and unsupported by evidence.  And when you read how PSU addressed the recommendations on the PSU Progress Web-site, released in July 2013,  you will see what an "outlaw" program PSU must have been to take such drastic changes (sarcasm).

A brief summary of the  recommendations and commentary follows.

5. Athletics
5.1  Recommendation:  Intercollegiate Athletics Organization Structure:  Revise structure to define lines of authority and responsibility.   Action:  Changes made to number of senior members responsible for football operations, compliance and human resources.  

Comment:  As usual, in the aftermath of a crisis or scandal, recommend redrawing the organization chart.  Consulting 101.

5.2  Recommendation:  Athletic Facilities Access:  Evaluate security protocols for athletic, recreational, and camp facilities.  Action:  PSU originated Policy AD 72 regarding facilities access and improved video surveillance/card access procedures.

Comment:  Sandusky committed no crimes on PSU's campus after 2001 and the majority of his crimes occurred off campus.  No crimes were ever reported as occurring at a PSU sports camp.  There was little need for this recommendation.

5.3  Recommendation:  Intercollegiate Athletics National Searches:  Conduct national searches for key positions including head coaches and Associate Athletic Directors and above.  Action:  PSU crafted policy HR-101 to require national searches and national searches are underway for the baseball, softball, and swimming/diving programs.

Comment:  Recommendation should be implemented retro-actively back to 11-9-11 and a national search for a qualified Athletic Director should commence immediately.  Oh, and we need to find a new fencing coach.

5.4 Recommendation:  Academic Support for Athletes.  Action: Already fully implemented in June 2012 (in other words, no action taken because none was needed).

Comment:  Recommendation was unnecessary as evidenced by PSU's already outstanding academic record for its athletes.


5.5 Recommendation:  Athletic Compliance:  Hire additional compliance staff.  Action:  Two positions added and an upgrade of an existing positon.

Comment:  Not needed.

5.5.1 Recommendation: Benchmark Athletics Compliance:  Benchmark peer institutions.  Action: PSU completed benchmarking with Big Ten schools and is considering hiring an additional compliance staff member.

Comment:  PSU's only peer in the Big Ten is Northwestern.  Most other conference schools have had NCAA violations, including Michigan (NCAA Final Four banners removed from Crisler Arena) and  Ohio State (on probation, 2010 wins vacated). Prior to 2011, eight Big Ten schools had been hit with major violations since 2000.  This recommendation was/is ludicrous.

5.5.2 Recommendation:  Compliance Reporting Relationship.  Establish and effective reporting relationship with the University Compliance Officer.   Action:  Associate AD for Compliance and Athletic Integrity Officer will report to the Director of University Ethics and Compliance.

Comment:  Sounds good in theory, however, a legitimate conflict of interest policy is the key to an effective Ethics program.  PSU doesn't have the former, thus it cannot accomplish the latter.

5.5.3 Recommendation:  Intercollegiate Athletics Compliance Registration.  Realign to ensure the AD staff members is overseen by the Athletics Compliance Officer.  Action:  Some new duties assigned to compliance staff.

Comment:  Nothing to see here.

5.5.4 Recommendation:  Compliance Education.  Ensure personnel have knowledge of NCAA, Big Ten, and University rules.  Action:  Compliance staff conducted training and will emphasize following rules in employee performance evaluations.

Comment:  Quite a novel recommendation.  Employees should follow rules.  Remember, PSU paid $8M dollars for this nonsense.


5.6: Recommendation: Compliance Training. 

E

nsure that Athletic Department employees
comply with University-wide training mandates.

Comment:  The Freeh Report did not cite any specific instances in which athletic department employees alone were not complying with training mandates.  Freeh's report cited University wide lack of compliance.


5.6.1: Recommendation: Track Compliance: Training 

Provide and track initial and on-going training for 

athletic staff in matters of leadership, ethics, the 

Penn State Principles and standards of conduct, 

abuse awareness, and reporting misconduct 

pursuant to the Clery Act and University policy.

Comment:  Same as above. This recommendation/correction applies to PSU as a whole, based on the evidence presented in the Freeh Report.


5.6.2: Recommendation: Management Training 

Opportunities 

Include Athletic Department employees in 

management training programs provided to other 

University managers.

Comment:  There was no evidence in the Freeh Report that indicated Athletic Department employees weren't already participating in management training offered by the University.

Conclusion

It's evident that most of the recommendations regarding improvements to PSU's Academic Integrity were not needed and the only one that most people agree was needed is a national search for a new Athletic Director, which of course, PSU is not considering.  Also, rumor has it that PSU is looking to extend Director of Athletic "Affairs," Dave Joyner's tenure by seven years.  The bottom line is that PSU did next to nothing to "fix" the non-existent integrity issues in the athletic department and the BOT and Emmert are patting themselves on the back for this nonsense.

Recommendations

This half measure by the NCAA (and the BOT) is, as BOT member Anthony Lubrano put it, a "baby step" in righting the wrongs that were an outgrowth of the BOT's mishandling of the Sandusky Scandal.

PSU alumni, students, fans, and supporters should not be satisfied until the NCAA:
1)  Rescinds all of the sanctions (scholarships and wins fully restored).
2)  Refunds the money PSU paid in fines.
3)  Refunds the money wasted by PSU to hire and pay George Mitchell/DLA Piper.

In addition the remaining 11/9/11 PSU BOT members, including Erickson, must:
1)  Issue apologies to the Paterno family, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz.
2)  Resign

The Pennsylvania Legislature must:
1)  Reorganize the BOT and install interim trustees and a new President.
2)  Continue to press reforms in Pennsylvania's Child Protection system.

We are not moving forward until the full truth is known, the NCAA sanctions are removed, PSU is properly governed, and Pennsylvania's children get the protection they deserve.

NCAA Restores Scholarships

In a rare move toward the right direction the NCAA has restored some of the scholarships lost to PSU in the Freeh for All Fact Freeh Fiction debacle.

ESPN on the Scholarship Restoration 

NCAA Slowly Restores Scholarships Video

ACTION: Certified Letter Campaign to PSU President Rodney Erickson

The first action in our continuous March4Truth is a certified letter campaign to PSU President Rodney Erickson asking for his resignation and the resignations of the 11-9-11 Board of Trustees.

It is extremely IMPORTANT to:

1. Send the letter via certified mail.

2. Request the return receipt service.

3. MAKE AN IMPACT!

Instructions of sending a certified letter are here (video) and/or here (written instructions).

Taking these steps ensures that the letters will not simply be thrown in the trash, but at least some degree of handling has to take place.  

A sample letter is below.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Name

Your Address

Your City, State, Zip Code

Your Telephone

Your e-mail

Date

President’s Office

The Pennsylvania State University
201 Old Main
University Park, PA 16802

Dear President Erickson,

I am writing you today to ask for your resignation as President of the Pennsylvania State University and for the resignations of the November 9, 2011 Board of Trustees members.

On November 9, 2011 the Board of Trustees removed then-President Graham Spanier and head football coach, Joseph V. Paterno from their positions with not so much as talking to either man about their knowledge or actions in the Sandusky case.  The Board simply accepted many of the now disproven allegations written in the November 2011 Grand Jury Presentment as facts and essentially put PSU in the position of being viewed as guilty in the eyes of the public.  This action caused irreparable damage to the University’s reputation, as well as great financial harm.  In short, the Board breached its fiduciary responsibilities with it actions.

In April 2012, the BOT made an official statement that Spanier and Paterno were relieved from their duties for a failure of leadership.

On July 12, 2012 when the Freeh Report was released,  Board member Kenneth Frazier said:

Today’s comprehensive report is sad and sobering in that it concludes that at the moment of truth, people in positions of authority and responsibility did not put the welfare of children first.  The Board of Trustees, as the group that has paramount accountability for overseeing and ensuring the proper functioning and governance of the University, accepts full responsibility for the failures that occurred.

The statement above, made by Kenneth Frazier, was the antithesis of leadership.  The BOT accepted responsibility but they did not take accountability.  In other words, they were not then, nor have they ever been answerable for their actions that did so much damage to Penn State.

It is time for the Board to be called to account and answer for their actions.  And the only answer is to step aside – resign – and let competent individuals take over.

Respectfully,

Handwritten signature

Typed Name

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's SHOW Erickson and the BOT that we aren't going away and we will MAKE AN IMPACT.

Ray Blehar on Kevin Slaten Discussing Evidence Used for NCAA Sanctions

Go here:  http://talkstl.com/Podcasts/kevinslaten/KSPodcast091713.mp3

I start at 31:50

Topics Covered:
Former DOJ officials says sharing of evidence between OAG and Freeh may have violated grand jury secrecy rules and could result in contempt of court charges against prosecutors.

Discusses flow of the Schultz file from OAG to Freeh in May 2012.

Discusses flow of the emails from OAG to Freeh and that Freeh didn't find anything in his investigation.

The short "expiration date" of the Freeh Report.

Sandusky appeal won't be decided for 6-7 months.

NCAA's evidence was obtained through a criminal proceeding, not by Freeh or their own investigation.  Just like Miami (Fla) case.

The arguments on standing in the NCAA lawsuit filed by the Paterno.

The janitor case and how the hearsay testimony should not have been admitted.

Pending Federal and AG investigations.

March4Truth: Why Penn Staters Will NOT Move Forward Without the TRUTH

March4Truth and for the glory of Old State!

By

Ray Blehar

For more than six decades, the Penn State fans would rise as one on fall Saturdays and cheer not just for a football team, but for something that extended far beyond the end lines of the football field.  

When we chanted, “We Are…Penn State,” it was not about football, but about an idea – a belief.  A belief in doing things the right way and believing in something that was bigger than any one of us. 

For more than six decades, we were PENN STATE and we were unified with our pride in a school we referred to as Dear Old State.  

But that is no longer the case.  Dear Old State does not exist except in the words of the alma mater.  Instead, a bastardized version of Penn State has taken it place.

While we are still PENN STATE, and some resemblance of Dear Old State rises when we go inside the stadium to cheer on Bill O’Brien’s Nittany Lions, that feeling ends shortly after the final whistle blows.   

And that whistle, ending that feeling, is merely the echo of a pre-mature whistle that was blown by the Penn State University (PSU) Board of Trustees (BOT) on November 9, 2011.  

On November 4, 2011, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) released a one sided, prosecutorial document, known as a grand jury presentment that was an indictment of not just Jerry Sandusky, but of PSU.   And in the face of adversity, the PSU BOT didn’t fight to the end, like those teams we watched for so many decades.  Instead, they surrendered. 

The lawyers on the BOT – especially one who famously defended Merck in the Vioxx case -- didn’t even bother to check the relevant laws in the presentment.  They accepted the presentment’s lies as facts and they allowed the University to be unfairly smeared by the press.  

On November 9, 2011, the BOT, led by John Surma, succumbed to media pressure and removed legendary coach Joe Paterno and long-time President Graham Spanier from their positions, without either man being allowed to speak in his own defense.  On that day, the BOT declared PSU guilty of all crimes and placed a black mark on the University – that if left to stand – would stain PSU for the next fifty years. 

In the ensuing eight months, the BOT did nothing to defend PSU.  Instead, it worked with the NCAA and the firm of Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan to cover for its own mistakes and place blame on PSU’s “football culture.”  When Louis Freeh provided his (now discredited) report,  the trustees praised his work and used it to again condemn PSU. 

Then they told everyone to “move forward.”

It is clear, the PSU BOT does not understand what it means to say, “We Are…Penn State.”  They either don't know or have forgotten about "Dear Old State" and what that means to Penn Staters.

Penn Staters do not move forward when they know that doing so keeps children in danger.  

Penn Staters do not move forward when innocent people, especially students, are punished for acts for which they were not responsible.  

And Penn Staters will not move forward without knowing the TRUTH.

Please join us for MARCH FOR TRUTH, Friday, September 20th, 330PM at the Penn Stater Hotel.

Details at March4Truth.com

 

EILEEN MORGAN: The PSU BOT: Does it answer to anyone?

by
Eileen Morgan

In November 2011, when the Grand Jury Presentment to indict Jerry Sandusky became public, Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley was put on administrative leave, head football coach Joe Paterno was terminated, and University President Graham Spanier was put in the position of having to resign because the Board of Trustees was unwilling to support him.  These three men were relieved of their duties without due process.  Moreover, the Board had no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of these individuals. 

On July 12, 2012, The Penn State Board of Trustee's Kenneth Frazier issued the following statement (in part) within hours of the release of the Freeh Report.

Today’s comprehensive report is sad and sobering in that it concludes that at the moment of truth, people in positions of authority and responsibility did not put the welfare of children first.  The Board of Trustees, as the group that has paramount accountability for overseeing and ensuring the proper functioning and governance of the University, accepts full responsibility for the failures that occurred.

This raises the question: How do these trustees, who ‘accept full responsibility for the failures that occurred’, still retain their positions and duties on the Penn State Board?  

If they accepted bearing ultimate responsibility for Sandusky’s crimes, then why has there been no change in their status or positions?  

The Board terminated Paterno and Spanier because they lost ‘confidence in Paterno’s and Spanier’s ability to lead.’  Well, the Board has ‘paramount accountability for overseeing and ensuring the proper functioning and governance of the University.’  Since they admit they failed in their oversight and governance, why are they still leading and running this University?  

They have, as an entity, accepted blame for Sandusky’s crimes.  They are paying out tens of millions of dollars under the theory that the University was responsible for Sandusky, even in the years after his retirement.  Many of the Penn State stakeholders, that is, the faculty, alumni, students, and supporters, have virtually zero confidence in the Board’s ability to lead.  Therefore, based on the Board’s yardstick, all of the seats of the November 9, 2011 trustees should be revoked.

In fact, former Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina claimed in a recent interview on 60 Minutes Sports that he found NO evidence that Joe Paterno conspired to cover up Sandusky’s crimes.  Why hasn’t the Board acknowledged this or apologized for their unwarranted firing of Paterno?

Why doesn’t our University’s governing body have to answer to their stakeholders or some higher power for their decisions?  Isn’t this the exact ‘unchecked power’ that Freeh accused Joe Paterno of having?  

The Board revoked the duties of three honorable Penn State employees who collectively worked for the University 120 years, yet the same rules and criteria for termination somehow do not apply to them.  

How ironic is that?  

Clearly, Penn State has a culture problem.  This culture problem, however, is not with football program, but with the 11-9-11 members of the Board of Trustees.

Testimony of Belcher, Corro, and Cook Provide Basis to Repeal NCAA Sanctions

Similar to the NCAA's case against the University of Miami (Fla.), evidence obtained to sanction PSU was improperly obtained through a criminal investigation, violating NCAA rules. 

By

Ray Blehar

I've read most of the media reports on the latest Paterno legal filing and I'm not at all surprised that the media skipped one of its most significant passages.  The passage is on page 16 and tells you everything you need to know about the rush to injustice by the PSU BOT, Freeh, and the NCAA. 

As the passage states, the NCAA knew  that the Freeh Report would be discredited rather quickly, but what the Paterno legal filing didn't address (as it was outside the scope of justifying legal standing) was the most fatal flaw of the Freeh Report --  which was recently revealed at the Preliminary Hearings of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. 

The Fatal Flaw

The fatal flaw of the Freeh Report and the NCAA Sanctions against Penn State is that the evidence used to condemn PSU officials by Louis Freeh  was obtained through the criminal investigative process (via subpoena) and therefore was off limits (at that point) for use by the NCAA.

Former PSU employee Kimberly Belcher and PSU IT Department employee John Corro both testified that they provided the critical evidence used to sanction PSU - the "secret file" of Schultz and the e-mail evidence, respectively - to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General in response to subpoenas. 

Belcher's and Corro's testimony contradict the statements of "independent" investigator Louis Freeh, who stated that his investigators had "made independent discovery of the e-mail evidence" and that their finding of the Schultz file was a matter of "skill and luck."

During his press conference, Freeh sheepishly alluded that the Schultz file was obtained in conjunction with the Attorney General's investigation.  However, we now know that the Schultz file was first provided to the OAG by Schultz, then a copy of it by Belcher, in April 2012.  All references to the Schultz file in the Freeh Report are marked 5-1-2012,  indicating receipt from the OAG in May.  This proves that Freeh lied about finding the file in conjunction with the OAG.

The bottom line is that the evidence used in the NCAA case against PSU was improperly obtained and should not have been used for the purposes of the NCAA sanctions.  In effect, the PSU case has now become much like the NCAA case against the University of Miami (Fla.), in which the NCAA reported itself for violating its own procedures.

NCAA Missteps 

In January 2013, the NCAA made this statement in its press release about the Miami (Fla.) case (my emphasis added):

The NCAA national office has uncovered an issue of improper conduct within its enforcement program that occurred during the University of Miami investigation. Former NCAA enforcement staff members worked with the criminal defense attorney for Nevin Shapiro to improperly obtain informationfor the purposes of the NCAA investigation through a bankruptcy proceeding that did not involve the NCAA.

As it does not have subpoena power, the NCAA does not have the authority to compel testimony through procedures outside of its enforcement program. Through bankruptcy proceedings, enforcement staff gained information for the investigation that would not have been accessible otherwise."I have been vocal in the past regarding the need for integrity by NCAA member schools, athletics administrators, coaches, and student-athletes," said Association President Mark Emmert. "That same commitment to integrity applies to all of us in the NCAA national office."

Clearly, the OAG investigation and prosecution of Gerald A. (Jerry) Sandusky did not involve the NCAA, thus it was improper for the NCAA to access evidence from an ongoing criminal investigation.  And as e-mails obtained by PSU alumnus, Ryan Bagwell, revealed that the Freeh group was working hand-in-hand with the investigators, who provided them with the access.

Ironically, Kimberly Belcher's refusal to cooperate with Freeh's group in turning over the Schultz file could be one of the more important developments of the case.  Had Belcher turned the files over the Freeh voluntarily, the evidence would not have been tainted.

Similarly, had Freeh's group gone through the process of actually obtaining the e-mail evidence from PSU's systems, instead of having it handed to them by the OAG, it too could have been used "legally" by the NCAA.   In addition,  John Corro and Cook both testified to doing the key word searches to find the information related to the McQueary, Schultz, Curley, Spanier, Paterno, and Sandusky.  Therefore, Freeh's statement of reviewing 3.5 million e-mails and documents to find the critical information is also likely false.

In summary, the phony/sham investigation done by Louis Freeh has done the opposite as it was intended.  Instead of providing the evidence to support the dismissal of PSU officials and to support the NCAA sanctions, it has contaminated it.

And you can smell the stench for miles....it's coming from Indianapolis, New York, and Old Main.