Tuesday, October 22

Fina's Transgressions Are Worse Than ODC Knows

The Supreme Court will decide if Fina will lose his law license for misleading the court about his grand jury questioning of Cynthia Baldwin, but his transgressions were far worse than the current case being brought by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel


by
Ray Blehar
October 22, 2019, 5:55 PM EDT

According to one of the Penn State University (PSU) alums who filed an ethics complaint, former Office of Attorney General (OAG)  prosecutor Frank Fina's disciplinary case will be heard during the November 18-22 Pennsylvania (PA)) Supreme Court term.   Fina's legal team filed their brief on October 9th, while the Office of Disciplinary Counsel's brief  is due later this month on October 29th.

The scope of the hearing is limited to Fina's misleading of the court  regarding his improper questioning of former Penn State University (PSU) General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin.   However, Fina's transgressions far exceeded violating the attorney-client privilege issues.



Fina's transgressions are far worse than violating privilege with Baldwin























One of the most likely reasons that Baldwin went before the grand jury in October 2012 was to avoid being charged with obstruction of justice for failing to answer subpoenas during the Sandusky investigation.   To save her own backside, she dishonestly shifted the blame for her stonewalling to former PSU officials Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier.

This was all fine with Fina, who needed to put more leverage on Curley and Schultz in order to try to get them to flip on Spanier.  At the same time, the OAG would finally be able to carry out former Governor Tom Corbett's wishes and humiliate Spanier.

At Baldwin's grand jury appearance, Fina wasted little time in asking her about the discussions she had with Curley and Schultz for the grand jury (at 18).


Near the end of her testimony, Fina inquires one more time about the subpoena requests for information that Baldwin (allegedly) provided to Curley, Schultz, and Spanier prior to their grand jury appearances.  In her answer, Baldwin truthfully stated that she would redact or cull (not "call" as transcribed incorrectly below) redact the subpoenas before she provided them to the various departments.   Apparently, this was in an effort to maintain confidentiality regarding the subject on the investigation



 Then she immediately followed that up with two lies -- and Fina knew she was lying.



Lie #1:  Subpoenas were not provided to Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.

Schultz and Spanier confirmed that they never saw the subpoena in question.  Sources close to Curley stated he was never provided with a copy.

Subpoena 1179 stated:

"to acquire and disclose to the Grand Jury:  Any and all records pertaining to the Sandusky incidents reported to occur on or about March 2002 and any other information concerning Jerry Sandusky in inappropriate contact with underage males on and off University property.  Response shall include any and all correspondence directed to or regarding Jerry Sandusky"

Fina questioned Curley and Schultz at the grand jury, therefore he knew that neither of them could have seen Subpoena 1179 because neither of them knew the correct year of the shower incident.  Curley thought it occurred in 2000, while Schultz, at one point, said it occurred after 2003.


Lie #2:  Information was obtained from Curley, Schultz, and Spanier's offices
According to the OAG's records of the case, not a shred of evidence was obtained from the President's office or from Curley's office.  Schultz, who was retired from PSU in December 2010,  did not have access to his office at the time he was subpoenaed. 

If there was a failure to obtain evidence from Schultz's office, that failure belonged to Baldwin -- and Fina knew that too.   In December 2011, he wrote a letter to Baldwin admonishing her for failing to comply with subpoenas. 

The bottom line is that Fina knew that Baldwin was not telling the truth and that she was framing Curley, Schultz, and Spanier for her own failures. 

His conduct at the October 2012 grand jury was not only unethical, but could be considered criminal.

6 comments:

  1. Justice delayed is still justice. Thank you, Ray, for tracking all this, still.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well done Ray, as always. I hope Fina is finito.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ray, Do you know if the ethics complaint detailed these other infractions by Fina? If not, why not since they are so obvious?

    I certainly agree that Schultz would have had any duty to respond to the subpoena, even if Baldwin showed it to him, since he was not a PSU employee at the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      Thanks for your comments.

      I don't believe anyone has made a complaint about Fina's possible subornation of perjury from Baldwin. I am quite certain that Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz all know that Balwin lied to the grand jury, but because they were all "convicted" of a crime they have little standing before the court. Meanwhile, Baldwin is still highly regarded as a former Supreme Court Justice.

      I would urge any PA resident who reads this blog to file additional ethics complaints against Fina for the above transgressions.

      In addition, it is pretty obvious he changed the crime scene in the janitor incident (during the Sandusky trial) once he realized that if Petrosky could only see feet, then the same had to apply to Calhoun.

      He also exceeded his mandate from the court when he amended the Bills of Particulars in the Sandusky case. He received permission to change the date in the McQueary/shower incident but then went on to change several other dates.

      Delete
  4. Wow! this is Amazing! Do you know your hidden name meaning ? Click here to find your hidden name meaning

    ReplyDelete