Tuesday, June 6

Boccabella is Part of the Corruption

Judge John Boccabella joined Laura Ditka, Patrick Schulte, and the rest PACORN to continue the false narratives of the case against PSU officials

Ray Blehar

For the last five and a half years, the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) has been publicly smeared by corrupt officials of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG), their local media lap dogs, the courts, Louis Freeh, and others for enabling the crimes of Jerry Sandusky.  

Readers of this blog have come to recognize this group of smear merchants as the Pennsylvania Corruption Network (PACORN).   The truth, laws, evidence, and the welfare of the citizenry -- including PA's helpless children -- are of little concern to this group, who only is out to protect themselves.

At Friday’s sentencing, Judge John Boccabella revealed his PACORN credentials when he began spouting many of the nonsensical false narratives of the case that scapegoated PSU for the failures of The Second Mile (TSM) and of Pennsylvania’s child protection to stop Sandusky from accessing children.  

“Why Mr. Sandusky was allowed to continue to the Penn State facilities is beyond me.”

The facilities as an enabler ruse first appeared in the November 5, 2011 press release by the PA OAG, became part of the Freeh Report, and continued through the trial of Spanier.  From the AG’s press release:

“Kelly said that rather than reporting the matter to law enforcement, Curley and Schultz agreed that Sandusky would be told he could not bring any Second Mile children into the football building. That message was also reportedly related to Dr. John Raykovitz at the Second Mile (Past Executive Director and Executive Vice-President and currently the President and CEO of the Second Mile).
"Despite this so-called 'ban,' which was reviewed and approved by University President Graham Spanier without any further inquiry on his part, there was no effective change in Sandusky's status with the school and no limits on his access to the campus," Kelly said. "Sandusky's 'emeritus' position, alleged negotiated as part of his 1999 retirement, provided him with an office in the Lasch Football Building; unlimited access to all football facilities, including the locker room; access to all recreational facilities; a parking pass; a university Internet account; listing in the faculty directory and numerous other privileges – he had remained a regular presence on campus."
Of course, what Linda Kelly failed to mention – and that OAG prosecutors apparently overlooked – was that the presentment failed to establish any evidence or allegations of crimes on campus after February 2001 .  

The so-called “ban” of Sandusky actually worked -- as far as stopping his crimes on campus.

At some point, OAG officials realized they had a big hole in their story of PSU officials causing immense suffering of victims by letting Sandusky roam the campus.    

Needing a crime on campus after February 2001, Fina and others, like Victim 5's attorney, Tom Kline, apparently collaborated to narrow the six year window (1996 -2002)  of possible dates of Victim 5’s down to August 2001.

But there’s more to the story.

On May 8, 2012, Frank Fina and Joseph McGettigan filed a motion to amend the first Bill of Particulars because that “authenticated findings” of the Sandusky investigation revealed the date of the McQueary incident to be February 9, 2001. 

The judge granted the motion and Fina went on to change not only the particulars of the Victim 2 incident, but also the details relating to Victim 5 (above), Victim 3 (putting his crimes into 2001) and Victim 9 (putting his crimes before 2009).  
Those changes added another victim after the February 2001 incident on the PSU campus and stopped the crimes against Victim 9 before Sandusky was “indicated” for child abuse.    The latter change took TSM,  PA Child Protective Services, former AG Corbett, and the PA state police off the hook for endangering the welfare of children.  
Chief Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka’s sentencing memorandum, like the other documents, continued to pile-on with the facilities ruse.

Ditka's statement about parents is emblematic of the OAG's complete disregard of Sandusky's modus operandi.

None of the parents of Sandusky’s victims were sending them to PSU for a campus visit where Sandusky laid in wait to launch an attack. The parents and/or caretakers of the victims were releasing the children to Jerry Sandusky, who was representing TSM -- not PSU. 

Even though former AG Kelly's press November 2011 release, the testimony from the Sandusky trial, and McGettigan's post trial comments calling TSM a "victim factory," Ditka ignored all that when it came to unknown Victim 2 from the February 2001 incident.

Ditka bailed out TSM by suggesting that Victim 2 could have been from a PSU football camp (not held in February -- ever) or from some other community activity of Sandusky's.

When the time came time for Ditka to actually produce a victim/witness who would testify to being molested on campus after 2001, she had just one to offer  -- John Doe.

In yet another pushing of the ethical envelope, the OAG witness list included a "John Doe" witness who allegedly required extreme measures of security and protection.   It is more likely that the OAG wanted to keep "Doe's" identity a secret so the the defense would be unable prepare for the "mystery" witness.

The reality was that "John Doe" was Victim 5 and anyone who desired to know his name could look it up in the Sandusky trial transcripts.   

But why just one victim --  and why was it Victim 5?

Victims 1 and 9, who were victimized between 2004 and 2009, were not victimized on the PSU campus.  

Victim 3, despite Fina’s change to the dates of the crimes, testified that he was being victimized by Sandusky at the time he was an active coach and shortly afterwards (i.e., 1999 and 2000).  Victim 3 was not victimized after February 2001.

That left Victim 5, who apparently was willing to change his story to fit the OAG's narrative.

Victim 5 told the grand jury his encounter with Sandusky occurred in 1998 and that he did not understand the significance of Sandusky's erection when he observed it.  That was a credible scenario for a 10 year-old boy.  

At the Sandusky trial in June 2012, he testified the incident occurred in August 2001 when he was 13 years old.  It is possible, but highly unlikely, that a 13 year-old wouldn't know what an erection was.  Also, at the trial, Victim 5 added he was certain about the date because the incident happened before 9-11.

In his abbreviated testimony at the Spanier trial, he was sure it was 2002 because he recalled it happened after 9-11.  The erection issue simply doesn't hold water for a 14 year-old boy, especially in the age of the internet.

The date was/is a very material issue for this case and it appears his testimony was perjurious.

In addition, prosecutor Patrick Schulte would seemingly have suborned perjury based on his questioning of Victim 5.

Undoubtedly, Schulte (and Ditka) knew the Victim 5’s allegations of being sexually assaulted by Sandusky resulted in a not guilty verdict.  

The trial verdicts for Victim 5 (Counts 24-27) and 6 (Counts 28-31) from the Sandusky trial are shown below. 

Both Victim 5 and 6 testified it was the first time they were alone with Sandusky in the PSU shower room.   Victim 6 testified he and Sandusky worked out and that afterward there was playful activity in the shower— but no indecent touching occurred.  The jury correctly determined not guilty on Count 28: Indecent Assault.   

Conversely, Victim 5 testified that Sandusky took him to work out at the Lasch building and they worked out, and then took a sauna.  In the sauna, Sandusky indecently exposed himself.  Next, they went to the showers where Sandusky forcefully took his hand and forced him to touch his (Sandusky’s) penis. 

His testimony was unlike any of the other victims at the trial. 

Victim 4 testified Sandusky didn’t indecently touch him until they had showered together approximately 15 times.  Victim 4 also testified that nothing indecent ever happened in the sauna.   Victims 3 and 7 also showered with Sandusky and did not testify to any indecent touching/fondling or even attempted fondling in the shower facilities. 

Given what the jury heard from ALL the other victims who showered with Sandusky, the jury found Victim 5 to be NOT CREDIBLE of being indecently touched and it found Sandusky not guilty for Count 24: Indecent Assault.

In summary,  prosecutors ignored the Sandusky trial testimony and verdicts of victims and suborned perjury from Victim 5 to make their case of endangerment against Spanier.

The Sandusky trial was one of the most publicized sex abuse cases in American history.  While the public may not have been familiar with all of the details, it strains credulity that Judge Boccabella wasn’t familiar with the verdicts.   Especially since he was presiding over a trial concerning the Sandusky victims.

Boccabella let the charade about John Doe/Victim 5 play out dramatically in his courtroom and in his chambers.

At the sentencing, he also pushed the false narrative that Mike McQueary provided sufficient details that would have caused everyone to immediately realize Sandusky was a threat to children and that a call to the authorities was a no brainer.

Paterno “could have made that phone call without so much as getting his hands dirty. Why he didn’t is beyond me.”

Boccabella was “appalled that the common sense to make a phone call or make a report didn’t occur.”

First, McQueary testified on numerous occasions that he didn’t provide specific details to Joe Paterno.  For Boccabella to make an extrajudicial statement about Paterno is, in a word, disgraceful.

Even Curley and Schultz, who pleaded to EWOC, continued to hold to their original grand jury testimony that McQueary did not describe the incident as sexual or criminal. 

Four witnesses (i.e., Courtney, Curley, Schultz, and Dranov) testified that they were not told of anything explicit.   Mike McQueary testified that he believed he got the message across (or at least tried to) of a sexual incident.  Mike's father seemingly was the only person who could translate Mike's message into the proper context -- but it wasn't enough for him to call the police or child wefare -- or even advise his son to do so.

Judge Boccabella's statement that a call to the authorities was common sense was not  supported by the evidence in this case -- especially because a similar incident in 1998 involving two boys showering with Sandusky was fully investigated and found to be benign.

It’s hard to believe Curley “didn’t remember every detail of the most serious mistake you ever made.” 

In keeping with the practice of having a biased view of the case, Judge Boccabella referred to Tim Curley’s decision to inform The Second Mile (over child welfare agents) as “the most serious mistake you ever made.” 

The first instance of bias in that passage was that Curley should have a memory of details of a fleeting event from some sixteen years ago.   According to research on memory, details of traumatic or life changing events are remembered in detail.

But for Tim Curley, the 2001 incident was not a traumatic event for him or, as the evidence shows, NO ONE else involved.

Obviously, if the child in the shower had suffered the trauma alleged by Ditka, he would have certainly remembered being in the shower and seeing McQueary that night (as McQueary testified).   However, NO ONE has come forward with a version of being a child in the shower who was subject to being molested, heard the by-product “slapping sounds” of molestation, and then saw McQueary.

That kind of discrepancy would be hard for any reasonable person to get past, but we're not dealing with reasonable people in this case (i.e. Fina, McGettigan, Beemer, Ditka, Schulte, Schulte, Freeh, etc.).

Next, Curley could have hardly considered his decision to be the “biggest mistake of his life” at the time because his plan included telling the Executive Director of the charity -- who had far more knowledge and training on the issue at hand than he did. 

In other words, Curley believed TSM would take appropriate action.

And that brings us to the key evidence of Boccabella’s membership in PACORN.

Where's Jack?

According to numerous press reports, Boccabella admonished Paterno, Dranov, and Mike McQueary – along with the three PSU administrators –for not reporting Sandusky in 2001.

Dr. Jack Raykovitz wasn't criticized at all.

Given all the bluster blown about regarding the duty to protect children by every citizen and the laws being passed to increase penalties for the failure to report suspected child abuse, it is beyond the pale for Judge Boccabella to not mention Raykovitz’s lack of concern and inaction when told the founder and face of his charity showered alone with children on multiple occasions.

Of course, Ditka went even further to excuse the charity's inaction.

Curley testified (pages 392 and 393) that he informed Raykovitz not only about 2001 but of the 1998 incident as well.

Ditka’s sentencing memorandum claimed that Curley did not tell Raykovitz about 1998.  However -- unlike the allegations in her memorandum -- there is corroboration for Curley’s testimony of informing TSM. 

From Sandusky’s prison interview with John Ziegler in 2013:

John: But the Second Mile was informed in 2001 of ’98, as well?
Jerry: Right. I believe. Yeah, I’m sure, yeah, I’m sure. Yeah. 

John: So you’re sure that Tim told The Second Mile in 2001 about both the 2001
McQueary episode and the {Victim 6} episode?
Jerry: Right. And I talked to The Second Mile about ’98 and 2001 (in 2001).

Judge Boccabella conveniently sided with Ditka and believed that Curley’s testimony about telling Raykovitz about the 1998 incident was a lie (or a false memory) – even though Curley was supposed to remember every detail of the “biggest mistake he made in his life.”

The comments from Boccabella during the sentencing reveals that he is part of PACORN and has joined in to give TSM a complete pass.

The question that remains is what was going on at TSM that causes so many "public servants" to propagate falsehoods, twist the laws, monkey with evidence, and apparently suborn perjury to keep charity officials from seeing their day in court?


  1. Is the transcript of the Spanier trial available online somewhere (i.e., where you referenced pages 392 and 393 for Curley's testimony, unless that was a different proceeding)? I've seen several references to it over the past couple weeks, but I can't find the transcript itself (though maybe it's on this site somewhere and I'm just missing it). Thanks!

    1. That might be the original grand jury transcript.

    2. The Spanier trial transcripts can be purchased from the Dauphin County court reporter.

    3. Ray, the excerpt of Curley's testimony above was from the Spanier trial then, correct? Any chance you may post any of the rest of the transcript (at least Curley's and Schultz's testimony; from what I gather, the rest of the testimony from the trial was largely rehashed from previous proceedings)?

  2. The reason Sandusky was not convicted of indecent assault was because the actions did not meet the definition of indecent assault, which is:

    "§ 3126. Indecent assault.

    (a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent contact with the complainant, causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the person or intentionally causes the complainant to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine or feces for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant and:

    (1) the person does so without the complainant's consent;

    (2) the person does so by forcible compulsion;

    (3) the person does so by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution;

    (4) the complainant is unconscious or the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the indecent contact is occurring;

    (5) the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance;

    (6) the complainant suffers from a mental disability which renders the complainant incapable of consent;

    (7) the complainant is less than 13 years of age; or

    (8) the complainant is less than 16 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other."


    The prosecution had to prove that Sandusky was aroused or that he was doing to arouse the victim, which was difficult. It is more that the actions did not constitute "indecent assault." The charge, "unlawful contact with a minor," is somewhat easier to prove, and is a felony.

    I'd like to see a full transcript as well. Thanks.

    1. JJ,
      Thanks for your comment.

      As I wrote above, Victim 5 testified to Sandusky's arousal -- but was not believed by the jury (because none of the other Victim's alleged indecent contact in the shower during their initial encounter).

      Dr. Alycia Chambers report (see link on right of page) stated that grooming involved gradual phases of physical contact, consistent with the trial testimony of the victims.

      The unlawful contact convictions came as a result of Judge Cleland's instructions to the jury that they could consider Sandusky's course of conduct with other victims in determining sexual intent.

    2. The Chambers Report was not admissible in 1998, nor in 2012. You will note that it was never introduced in Sandusky's trial.

      Neither was the Seasock Report.

      The prosecution basically has to show that the mindset of the perpetrator was arousal,

      Unlawful Contact, a felony, includes more things than arousal. I would note that, in regard to Victim 6, this was the same result.

      It is basically a slight difference in how the statutes are written.

    3. The Chambers Report was not admitted because it would have reflected badly on CYS, DPW, the DA and police and their botching of the 1998 Sandusky investigation. It was not even needed because they had victim 6 to testify.

      Grooming is often described in the scholarly literature on child abuse. The prosecution presented grooming as Sandusky's MO. Victim 5 didn't fit the MO the prosecution presented at the Sandusky trial.

  3. When I read of Judge Bocabella's criticisms of a dead Paterno, I thought of Dicken's line by Mr. Bumble in 'Oliver Twist':

    "The law is an arse - a idiot."

    Several quotes by PACORN folks you mention were known lies. Sandusky's emeritus office was not in the Lasch Football Building. The emeritus letter from Curley (Freeh Exhibit 3H) specified that his office was to be East Area Locker Room Complex.

    Raykovitz testified before Bocabella that Curley told him, and he discussed with Sandusky, that Sandusky was not to bring Second Mile boys on campus, not just into the football building.

    Raykovitz testified before Boccabella that Sandusky volunteered to him that the boy in 2001 was a Second Mile boy.

    1. Tim, Curley testified that he never told Raykovitz that Sandusky had any physical contract with anyone. Raykovitz said the same thing.

      I cannot see any reason why Curley would lie to protect Raykovitz.

      (We'll have wait for the transcript, but Curley may have told Raykovitz that it had been investigated.)

    2. JJ,
      Curley informed Raykovitz that Sandusky had been observed in a shower with a young male and that it made someone (McQueary) uncomfortable.

      He informed Raykovitz that they spoke with Jerry about the incident, but did not use the word "investigate" to the best of his recollection.

      Curley testified that he "passed information on" but that it was nothing of a sexual nature. Curley's grand jury testimony is almost exactly the same.

      Curley told Raykovitz they banned Sandusky from using the showers with Second Mile kids because this was the second instance that occurred and that it was inappropriate.

      The standards for reporting suspected abuse are very different for an athletic director that they are for a licensed psychologist who happens to be the executive director of a children's charity.

      It is clear from the transcripts that Raykovitz was not the least bit interested in learning any details about the 2001 incident.

    3. Tim,
      Thanks for your comments.

      You are correct that Raykovitz testified that Sandusky told him it was a Second Mile child -- which makes Ditka's assertions even more preposterous.

      The lies of PACORN are many and could fill volumes.

    4. JJ - I never said Curley would lie to protect Raykovitz. I think Curley told the truth.

      I do think Raykovitz lied in his testimony at the Spanier trial to protect himself. He contradicted himself by saying Sandusky dealt only with groups of children, then revealed that Sandusky told him he worked out and showered alone with a Second Mile boy in 2001.

      If Spanier's attorney had been on the ball, he would have asked if Sandusky told Rayovitz the Second Mile boy's name and if not, why Raykovitz didn't ask for it.

      Raykovitz revealing that he knew Sandusky worked out and showered alone with Second Mile boys when he was not supposed to meant Raykovitz condoned it. A boy alone with an adult volunteer male has not been a sound practice for a long time.

      Someone posted a copy of the Raykovitz testimony transcript here:


      I don't know why the Dauphin County courthouse has not posted the Spanier trial transcripts online. Maybe they are making too much money selling copies. They have over 100 other Spanier case documents online dating back to 2013.


    5. Ray, as have been pointed out (possibly by you), and older in a shower with a younger child is not unusual.

      Curley told Raykovitz that Sandusky was in the shower with a child. Curley did not say that Sandusky was:

      1. Alone with a child in the shower.

      2. In the shower late at night.

      3. Having any physical contact with the child (which Schultz testified McQueary had said).

      Somebody, according to the Raykovitz/Curely account, was uncomfortable with that. That is not reportable.

      Look at Paterno, for instance. He was "uncomfortable" with Sandusky bringing "guests" into the facilities. That was for liability issues, and Paterno showed foresight there, but doesn't imply that Paterno thought this with was because Sandusky might be molesting anybody.

    6. JJ - Sandusky confirmed to Raykovitz he was alone with the boy in the shower in 2001 and that it was a Second Mile boy.

      It should have been a big red flag for Raykovitz when Penn State banned Sandusky from bringing boys onto campus in 2001. He just ignored it other than telling Sandusky to wear a swimsuit when showering with boys.

      According to Raykovitz's testimony, Sandusky was only involved with groups of boys so that should have been another red flag that Sandusky was alone with a Second Mile boy.

      Raykovitz testified that child sex abuse was on his mind at the time because of child sex abuse scandals in the Boy Scouts and Catholic Church. A good question that Sandusky's lawyer never asked was what preventative steps was Raykovitz taking in 2001 to assure child abuse did not occur to his Second Mile boys.

      Posted online Feb 1, 2001, the Boy Scouts have a booklet titled "How to Protect Your Children From Child Abuse:
      A Parent’s Guide."

      It gives statistics that speak to the Sandusky case, such as:

      "Eighty to 90 percent of sexually abused boys are molested by acquaintances who are nonfamily members."

      "Preteen and teenage boys are especially at risk for
      sexual abuse."

      "The 'Three Rs' of Youth Protection

      ● Recognize that anyone could be a child
      molester and be aware of situations that
      could lead to abuse.
      ● Resist advances made by child molesters
      to avoid being abused.
      ● Report any molestation or attempted
      molestation to parents or other trusted

    7. I forgot to include the link to the Boy Scout booklet on preventing child sex abuse discussed in my previous post:

  4. Thanks, Ray! As usually, you hit the nail on the head. I posted this elsewhere last night and stand by my statements:

    This case is a travesty of justice and a complete trampling (if not shredding) of the United States Constitution. The tramplers/shredders are those we pay SIX FIGURES annually to uphold our rights under that document. The prosecutors wanted to send a message to all of us: "KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT!" Boccabella delivered the message (no he is NOT The Honorable -- far from it!). Boccabella is a coward who complied with the instructions he received from the #PaCORN because he isn't man enough to do the right thing. The members of the #PaOAG, likewise, lack the decency to do the right thing. They're all puppets and their strings were pulled, so they promptly complied with their masters' directives. I call that prostitution. I heard about the messages that "We" were all to be on our best behavior pending sentencing. These government officials have been Hell Bent to shut us up and stop us from exposing all this corruption. We dared to ignore them, so they slammed Curley, Schultz and Spanier.

    That tells me that all of our work exposing the corruption that has infested every nook and cranny of our state government is pi$$ing off the very people involved in that corruption. Well guess what?!? We're going to keep exposing the corruption until we take our government back and our US Constitution is repaired!

    I figured Boccabella was corrupt, but didn't have any evidence of it. He proved it himself with his words and actions during that sentencing hearing. If he hates America as much as his actions demonstrate, then maybe he should leave!

    I will not stop calling out these frauds for taking our money and lining their own pockets while shredding the document our forefathers wrote to protect us from these very creeps being exposed! I call a spade, a spade; a creep, a creep; and a crook, a crook. There are many more accurate adjectives to describe these arrogant anti-Americans in PA government. Unfortunately, my post would probably be deleted if I included the appropriate words to properly describe them. I think everyone can name a few, and none of them are positive.

    This is still America and WE THE PEOPLE want to take our country back from these creeps, frauds and crooks. In America, you don't get to punish people for the acts of others. This black robed mafia is pulling out all the stops to shut us up. I think that must mean we've gotten way too close. That makes me very proud.

    I think Boccabella should've been at a judge's conference, and looking in a mirror, when he gave his "message of deterrence" speech. In fact, given Boccabella's position on punishment for the acts of others, perhaps ALL Pennsylvania judges should be removed from the bench. Remember that several of their fellow judges have proven their lack of honor, dignity, respect and common decency by viewing porn on OUR computers, in OUR buildings while receiving UNEARNED wages from OUR tax dollars -- AND THEN LYING ABOUT IT! If we want honor back in PA government, we will need to vote out every last one of them! That's exactly what I intend to do. WE THE PEOPLE have that power. We just need to execute that power with our votes.

    1. Shari,
      Thanks for your comments.

      As we've learned since 2011, there are a lot of corrupt judges and prosecutors in the Keystone State -- and we're not going to stop pointing that out.

      The sentencing of PSU officials to jail does not serve the victims or the Commonwealth's interest. Ditka wrote that the sentence would act as a deterrent for the next person who is contemplating not reporting.

      Apparently, she is unaware of the changes to the laws in PA in 2014 that caused 42,000 reports to ChildLine to go unanswered.

      How many of those calls were legitimate cases of abuse?

      How many of them were cases of individuals covering their backsides for fear of the Commonwealth prosecuting them?

      We'll never know the answer to those questions, but we do know that the fixes to the system that needed to be made based on the Sandusky case have not been made. That was proven in the Tutko case and other cases where caseworkers were in homes of abused and neglected children and had no idea what they were looking at -- or didn't want to add another case to their case load.

    2. I agree with everything you posted, Ray. I have said repeatedly that under the system in PA, the ONLY way I would report an instance is to go to state or county office and obtain a signature on a copy of a written statement. If they wouldn't sign, I would not bother reporting. Here is PA, we need proof of each and every report due to the may flaws in the system. Jared Tutko paid the price for those flaws and so did Ciara Meyer in Duncannon. The system is responsible for both of those children's deaths. The system is also responsible for each and every Sandusky victim after 1998. Nothing will change until we vote out every politician in Harrisburg and every judge in the Commonwealth.

  5. Here's a way to put these anti-American Zionist Mafia politicians out of business: I'm going to begin claiming a corruption deduction on my taxes. And I will have my accountant provide the Commonwealth with a mathematical equation that estimates the illegal use of my tax dollars for their manufactured guilt and selective prosecution of innocent people such as Kathleen Kane, Graham Spanier, Curley and Schultz.

    How much taxpayer money is used to create and assign guilt to those that are nothing more than political opponents?

    How much money has Louis Freeh's bald-faced lie about Joe Paterno and Penn State cost all of us? I believe that it's in the billions now and rising every day. We all deserve a tax break for being lied to and then stolen from. So it's something we will call a "Corruption Deduction" and it will place the burden on the Commonwealth to dispute the deduction by lying further about where our money actually went. If we all claim the Corruption Deduction, then these traitors like Josh Shapiro and Judge Boccabella that are pissing our money away on their falsehoods will be bogged down trying to prove they aren't lying. Not only that, they will be denied millions from us causing them to be unable to hold these positions of public trust. Will they continue to hang around for maybe $10,000 a year? We have to withhold from them until they are forced out and we can start fresh with real and genuine people serving us once again.

    I don't know about you, but I can deal with more potholes in the road and our already ignored infrastructure can continue to wait while we starve out the corrupt phonies like Governor Wolf, Josh Shapiro, and Risa Vetri Ferman.

    It's going to be an idea that will work if we all do this together. "No Taxation without Sanitation". Clean out the filth from our PA government!

  6. Ray - In the first excerpt of trial transcript, who was testifying and at what trial? The excerpt begins with "Do you have any reason to believe or to be certain that it was a Second Mile child?"

    1. I see that passage on page 10 of the Raykovitz testimony transcript you posted the link to (so it was Jack Raykovitz testifying during the Spanier trial).

    2. Qrflyer63 - you are correct. Raykovitz testifying during the Spanier trial.

  7. That seems like prima facie evidence for perjury by Raykovitz who on cross-examination (page 20) admitted that Sandusky volunteered to him in 2001 that it was a Second Mile child in the shower with him.

    The mainstream media is negligent for not reporting that.

  8. You are correct that Shapiro and his minions suborned perjury from V5. You could probably get dozens of people to testify to the security of the Lasch Building during preseason practice in August. Sandusky, and much less a teenage boy, would not be allowed near the place. No unauthorized personnel. And Joe was ferocious in keeping people away, which irked a few beat reporters.

  9. My cat (who is really good at sniffing out rats) wrote that a child of 12 could figure out that Klein fraudulently had his client change the dates of his story to get a big payout from PSU. If he got soaped up on a Second Mile program (e.g. "Friends"), it would be a Second Mile problem, since they no doubt signed a standard "release of liability and promise to idemnify" agreement that all organizations require for use of their facilities. Given that Shapiro, et al, should have analytical skills superior to a 12 year old, it follows that they knew that Klein and V5 were frauds. But then Shapiro and Bocabella put on a three ring circus with V5's testimony, creating the Boca de Shitka HOAX.