Thursday, July 30

Analysis: Court Was Wrong. Baldwin Dishonest...AND Incompetent.

The court's determination of Baldwin's mere incompetence was based on an erroneous record of evidence.  An analysis of a more complete and correct record shows that Baldwin was dishonest on many occasions 

By
Ray Blehar
July 30, 2020, 9:59 AM EDT

Had the PA Supreme Court been aware of a more complete and accurate record of evidence, it would have concluded that former PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin was not merely incompetent, but was purposely deceptive and/or dishonest in her representation of PSU officials, her representations to various courts, and in statements to the public.

But the court was not well informed and instead wrote (Opinion at 66):

The Disciplinary Board, having concluded that Respondent poses no danger
to the public or the profession and recognizing that her misconduct here did not reflect
any dishonesty in the practice of law, recommends that this Court neither suspend nor
disbar her. Instead, the Disciplinary Board recommends that this Court discipline Respondent by and through a public censure.


Fina, Baldwin, & others undermined the justice system
If the court had been cognizant of just the few pieces of evidence highlighted in this blog post, it would come to a very different conclusion -- and would have likely suspended her law license for life.

And the same goes for Frank Fina, who got off easy with a license suspension of one year and one day.

This pair of miscreants (along with several others) colluded to undermine the administration of justice in the cases of former PSU officials Graham Spanier, Timothy Curley, and Gary Schultz.

Even without the benefit of a more complete and accurate picture of the evidence,  the PA Supreme Court recognized that Fina wasn't serious about charging Baldwin for her purported lack of compliance with subpoenas and that he was using her testimony to implicate the three former PSU officials.