Sunday, August 16

PA Govt & Baldwin Conspired from the Start

The PA Supreme Court's opinion in the Baldwin disciplinary case and other evidence show that PA govt officials and Baldwin were undermining PSU officials from the start

Ray Blehar
August 16, 2020, 10:56 AM EDT

A thorough review of recent PA Supreme Court opinions regarding disciplinary actions against former Office of Attorney General (OAG) prosecutor Frank Fina and former Penn State University (PSU) General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin, combined with other evidence, reveals that Baldwin, former Supervisory Grand Jury Judge Barry Feudale,  Fina, and other former OAG officials were working to undermine PSU officials from the start.

The ODC v. Baldwin opinion revealed that former PSU administrators and legendary coach Joe Paterno were subpoenaed as private citizens -- not representatives of the University.   At the time of the subpoena, Gary Schultz was retired from the University.

As such, there was no legitimate reason for the subpoenas to be routed to Baldwin -- especially Schultz's.

There was an illegitimate one, however.

Wednesday, August 5

Lawyer Rebuts Baldwin's Racism Allegations

Lawyer dismantled Baldwin's argument by using her own record as a Supreme Court Justice 

Ray Blehar
August 5, 2020, 2:25 PM

Attorney Shohin Vance,  a former law clerk for PA Supreme Court Justice Thomas G. Saylor, rebutted former PSU General Counsel's Cynthia Baldwin's claim that Saylor and the PA Supreme Court punished her only because of a purported "racial agenda" when she sat as a Justice.

Racial claims unsupported by Baldwin's record
After being reprimanded by the court for her "incompetence" in representing former PSU officials Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier, Baldwin went on the offensive by attacking Saylor and the PA Supreme Court. 

She amazingly claimed that Justice Saylor -- who recused himself from ruling on her case -- had a grudge against her because of a purported "racial agenda."   She doubled down on the allegation in a KDKA interview, inferring that entire court was racist.

Vance, in an op-ed for the Legal Intelligencer, destroyed Baldwin's argument by showing that Baldwin's record didn't reflect a "racial agenda" and that Saylor's had over 3 times more dissenting opinions than Baldwin when they served on the court.