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.

Based on the evidence, serving the subpoenas through Baldwin was done for purpose of putting Schultz, Curley, and Paterno in the position of defaulting to the former Justice as their legal representative.   As their legal counsel, Baldwin would then be in a position to work with government officials to undermine them.

It almost went according to plan, except that Paterno decided to retain his own attorney.  According to former PSU President Graham Spanier, Baldwin was furious at the move by Paterno.

Regardless, Baldwin took extraordinary steps to ensure that the administrators and the former legendary coach wouldn't compare notes and get their stories straight before heading to the grand jury.

Driving Miss Daisy

Former PSU public relations flack, Lanny Davis told Pulitzer prize winner Sara Ganim that Baldwin rode along with Curley and Schultz to the grand jury and that the Sandusky matter wasn't discussed on the drive to Harrisburg.

The story isn't completely true -- and there's more to the story.

The fact was that Baldwin insisted that Curley, Schultz, and Paterno not to discuss the Sandusky case and to ensure that didn't happen, she informed the three men that they had to drive separately to the grand jury and meet her there. 

Curley objected and told Baldwin that he and Paterno were driving in the same vehicle.  Baldwin okayed Curley's plan and then rode with the two men to ensure the case wasn't discussed.

 Schultz drove a separate vehicle and the group met up at a shopping center outside Harrisburg.   After that, they convoyed over to the grand jury, located at Strawberry Square in the downtown area.

Baldwin's underhandedness came to fruition when the men gave conflicting accounts at their pre-grand jury interviews.

Baldwin Opinion at 40 (my emphasis added) :

Discrepancies between the testimonies of Curley, Schultz and Spanier materialized before any of the three testified before the grand jury, evidencing actual conflicts of interest. As noted herein, prior to the grand jury testimony of Curley and Schultz on January 12, 2011, both witnesses were interviewed, accompanied by Respondent, by an OAG investigator. The notes of these interviews reveal important
differences in their recollection of events and, critically, they reveal a divergence from what Respondent reported that these individuals told her when she met with them to determine whether she had a conflict of interest in representing them along with Penn State.

Baldwin Opinion at 42 (my emphasis added):

The substantial risk of disqualifying conflicts that should have been apparent from the outset of the service of grand jury subpoenas on the Individual Clients became actual conflicts at least as early as the OAG interviews preceding the grand jury testimony. Respondent failed to take any actions in response to this information, resulting in multiple violations of Rule 1.7. After their interviews and prior to their grand jury testimony, Respondent should have advised Curley and Schultz that she could not represent either of them and obtained a continuance until independent counsel could be obtained by them. She also could not subsequently represent Spanier because Schultz’s recollection of events linked him (and Penn State) to knowledge of the 1998 incident, which Spanier consistently (including in his grand jury testimony) denied.

The PA Supreme Court opined that Baldwin's actions were merely incompetent, but the additional evidence shows it was dishonesty and deception.

Subpoena 1179

The Supreme Court opinion also revealed that Curley, Schultz, Paterno, and Spanier were not named in Subpoena 1179.   Only the University was directed to procure documents related to Sandusky's inappropriate conduct with young boys on campus.

Subpoena 1179 required PSU to provide (my emphasis added):

 "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"

Baldwin never mentioned Subpoena 1179 to the PSU administrators and that's why none of them agreed on the year of the infamous shower incident at their interviews preceding the grand jury.

While Schultz got the year right at his pre-grand jury interview, Curley stated the incident occurred in 2000.   Paterno recalled the incident occurred a year or two after Sandusky retired (i.e., 1999, 2000) but didn't give an exact date.

Baldwin, in October 2012, testified that she alerted Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to the details of the subpoena and had them search for documents.

Baldwin Opinion at 45-47 (my emphasis added) :

Baldwin:   Well, everybody was told that they - that any people who worked under them, they had to notify any people who worked under them to also preserve everything and find out if there
was any Sandusky -related materials so that we could turn them over to the Office of Attorney General. That was done with Mr. Curly [sic]. That was done with Mr. Schultz and with Graham Spanier.  I remember a conversation with Graham about his emails, and he was telling me about how many emails he had because the IT people would have to go in and get those e-mails.

Fina:  Did there come a point when you had these conversations one-on-one with these individuals or were there times when some or all of them were together and you had these conversations with him, if you recollect?

Baldwin:  I know that I had the one-on-one. There may have been times when they were all together that I have these conversations, but I really don't remember one of those times.

Fina: Again, staying with Mr. Curley, did he get back to you at any point and tell you whether or not he had evidence or materials that would be responsive to the Subpoena 1179?

Baldwin:  Right. Yes.

Fina: What did he say?

Baldwin:  No, he didn't have any materials.

Fina:  And your conversations with these three gentlemen; Schultz, Spanier, and Curley, were specific correct? They involved emails, paper files, any information --

Baldwin:   Anything that could – any document – documents that they had whether they be electronic or non[-]electronic.

Fina:  Is it fair to say they assured you they would go through their e-mails and talk to their staff and find anything that was responsive?

Baldwin:  They said they would check and get back to me.

An affidavit filed by Schultz stated that Baldwin told him not to look for notes or documents that might refresh his memory.  However, Schultz recalled that he conducted a search of his emails for the year 2002 based on his discussion with Baldwin.

Given that the year was wrong, and that the critical emails had been archived by the IT department, Schultz didn't find anything on his computer.

The record of evidence shows that no emails or documents related to the case were ever procured from Spanier and Curley.   Only emails and documents preserved by Schultz -- who was retired at the time of Subpoena 1179 and didn't have access to his emails or records --  were recovered.

The truth is that Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were falsely charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

The court's opinion (at 60) supports that fact (my emphasis added):

"These administrators had no control over any responsive documents, which include the contents of the “secret file” found in Schultz’s former office and the trove of incriminating emails on Penn State’s computer servers."

Baldwin's fraudulent testimony was the only evidence used to charge Curley, Schultz, and Spanier with conspiracy to obstruct justice related to Subpoena 1179. 

The conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges were eventually dismissed due to Baldwin's and Fina's misconduct.

The 1998 Police Report

The OAG purportedly obtained the 1998 University Park Police report (regarding an incident involving Sandusky and a young boy in the locker room showers) on January 3, 2011.

Baldwin allegedly obtained a copy the very next day on January 4, 2011.  The former Judge failed to inform Curley, Schultz, and Paterno about it prior to their grand jury appearances on January 12th and also never provided a copy of it to Spanier.

Here is Baldwin's grand jury testimony about the 1998 police report (my emphasis added).

Fina: Okay. And let's talk about that. You got the report from the 1998 investigation, I believe, in January of 2011, correct?

Baldwin:  Urn-hum. That is correct.

Fina:  And that copy of the report that you had, was it copied and given to Spanier or disbursed to Spanier, Schultz, Curley or tell us about that?

Baldwin: No. It was not disbursed because we had certain considerations because of various laws that there are and because of that, our office got the copy; but it was not disseminated even though Graham was aware that I had gotten a copy of the report.

Fina:  Okay. Did he ever ask to – to read it or come to your office as far as you know and read it?

Baldwin:  No, he did not.

The idea that Baldwin informed Spanier of the 1998 police report and that Spanier didn't ask to read it or be briefed about is simply not credible.

The 1998 report was filed under Administrative Information and was never part of a crime report.  It was not subject to the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) and could have been provided to PSU officials.

Baldwin's "legal" decision not to disburse the report was nonsense.

The evidence points to Baldwin not distributing the report because she was helping Fina and the OAG set perjury traps for the PSU administrators.   Curley and Schultz were both charged with perjury for misstatements related to the 1998 incident in November 2011.   Spanier would be charged one year later.

Those charges were dismissed in 2016 due to Baldwin's and Fina's misconduct.

Swearing In

At the swearing in of Curley and Schultz on January 12, 2011,  Baldwin gave a non-answer when she was asked who she represented.

Fina:   "Judge, we're here on Notice 29. We have some witnesses to be sworn, Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz."

Feudale:  "Represented by?"

Baldwin:  "My name is Cynthia Baldwin, general counsel for Pennsylvania State University."

Feudale:  "Will you be providing representation for both of those identified witnesses?"

Baldwin: "[Schultz] is retired but was employed by the university and [Curley] is still an employee."

Feudale, who was presiding over the case, didn't ask for clarification nor did OAG prosecutors Fina and Jonelle Eshbach.  Later, Curley and Schultz were sworn in and both stated that Baldwin was their attorney.

When asked about the representation mix up later, PSU PR flack Lanny Davis explained that Baldwin did "not remember hearing those answers."

Baldwin's and the rest of the cabal continued their deception on April 13, 2011 in what may be one of the most egregious acts of misconduct in this entire saga.

Prior to Spanier's swearing in, then Supervisory Grand Jury Judge Barry Feudale asked Baldwin who she represented.  The exchange follows:

Feudale:  "...Cindy, just for the record, who do you represent?

Baldwin:  "The university."

Feudale:   "The university solely?"

Baldwin:   "Yes, I represent the university solely?

Moments later, in the presence of Baldwin, Fina, and then Deputy AG Jonelle Eshbach, Feudale swore in Spanier to include advising him on his rights to an attorney. 

Immediately following that exchange, Fina asked Feudale for permission that his investigators be present for Spanier's testimony.  Baldwin did not ask permission to be present in the grand jury room nor did Feudale give her permission to be present. 

At that point, everyone in the room (except for Spanier) knew or should have known that Baldwin's presence was in violation of the grand jury statute

But what happened next was even worse.

Feudale asked Spanier if he had legal representation.  The exchange follows:

Feudale:  "Sir, could you give us your name for the record, please?"

Spanier:   "Graham Spanier."

Feudale:  "Sir, you're represented by counsel today?
Spanier:   "Yes."

Feudale:   "Could you just identify counsel."

Spanier:  "Cynthia Baldwin, sitting behind me."

The corrupt cabal knew that Spanier actually had no legal representation and they allowed him testify under the impression that he was being represented by Baldwin.

While this evidence is overwhelming that Baldwin and government officials worked together to undermine Curley, Schultz, and Spanier from the very beginning, the clincher came in 2015.

Feudale Emails Erase All Doubt

In October 2015, news hit the street that former AG Kathleen Kane's review of the Sandusky investigation uncovered emails belonging to Feudale.   Those emails exposed his bias for Corbett and the prosecution, his bias against PSU officials and his willingness to flaunt grand jury secrecy rules in order to prosecute Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.

He defends Corbett and the indefensible slow pace of the Sandusky investigation:

"The story is not as Kane asserts that the Sandusky case was slow walked by Corbett, Fina, or even impliedly by me.  There are many factual and logical reasons for such, both of record, and yet to be disclosed.  I don't think Kane or Prof Moulton want to hear such.  No prosecutor or grand jury judge is perfect.  Again, the "slow walk" is PATENT POLITICAL BULLSHIT..."

His July 2013 email to Philadephia Inquirer reporters revealed his bias against PSU officials and that he had leaked information (my emphasis added).

"...when I started to hear comments from people (who seemed in the know) that the Spanier/Curley/Schultz cases may not be prosecuted, the price (silence) was too high."

Here are Fuedale's opinions on disgraced former prosecutor Frank Fina, Eshbach, and the police an investigators (some of whom were dismissed over exchanging pornographic emails).  He also mentions his leaks of information (my emphasis added).

"Fina (who in my mind is a great man of courage and perserverance), Eshbach, and many agents and state police witnessed the pain and shame in the faces of many kids who at times (with reluctance) testified about the "horrors" committed upon them.  I will not join such a "conspiracy of silence."  You cannot put a price on your integrity.  if what I characterize ast he (sic) Sandusky el (sic) al cases are abandoned, it will be a travesty of justice unlike anything I have experienced in my professional career."

The irony in the previous passage is simply overwhelming.

Feudale, Fina, and Baldwin displayed just how little integrity they possessed and the result was a travesty of justice that started in late 2010 and is still going on today.

Coming soon:  Baldwin Couldn't Keep Her Lies Straight


  1. We have known this for at least 8 years. A child of 12 knows this. My cat knew this. Being that the leaked diary of a dirty ex-cop implicated multiple people in the commission of multiple felonies, I would opine that this is now a case of extortion and fraud. I would love to see the headline "Mark Emmert, NCAA, and rogue ex cops led by a former FBI director conspire to extort millions from PSU". If this wasn't extortion, I don't know what is.

    1. Gregory,
      Thank you for the comment.

      When you say "we," I assume you mean readers of this blog.

      However, most people in the public believe that Spanier, et al, were involved in a cover up and that Louis Freeh's Report was/is gospel.

      I disagree that this was a case of extortion by the NCAA. Erickson and the corrupt inner circle of the PSU BOT didn't mind saddling the PSU Athletic Department with $60 million in fines and then making an internal loan to the AD that will net them $43 million over 30 years.

      The bottom line is that Corbett, Fina, Freeh, and others all dumped this mess on Paterno and Penn State to deflect attention away from The Second Mile and its Board members (who should have faced EWOC charges).

    2. Ray, you did a great job AGAIN! I'm curious about how you think the coverup of Cynthia Baldwin's DUI Death Resulting, and her daughter's DUI Death Resulting, incidents play into this? If I remember correctly, I believe Crystal's, her daughter, charges sort of disappeared after being transferred to Erie County (for some unknown reason). I concluded at that time that the charges against Crystal disappeared in exchange for Cindy's cooperation in framing Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, and in defaming Paterno. Cindy's own DUI Death Resulting accident happened later. If I believed she had a conscience, I would have thought her guilt led her to drive drunk. I know I'd have to drink myself into a stuper just to live with myself if I had done what she did. Do you have any conclusions about this? I know Cindy signed a proffer letter, so they had some criminal charges against her. I just don't know if it relates to that DUI incident or some other incident(s). My heart breaks for the families of those DUI accident victims, too. I don't know how any of these people can live with themselves!