tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22605107301845072822024-02-04T05:15:46.003-05:00Second Mile Sandusky ScandalBarry Bozemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03484041114078117845noreply@blogger.comBlogger771125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-2910052289078272002022-09-06T20:46:00.005-04:002022-09-07T13:54:06.477-04:00In The Lion's Den: An Informative and Infuriating Read<p></p><i>Review by Ray Blehar</i><br /><p>Graham Spanier's first hand account of the injustices he endured at the hands of the Pennsylvania's corrupt criminal justice system and the dishonesty from former Penn State officials is an informative and infuriating read.</p><p>Spanier takes us on an <i>informative</i> journey of his somewhat tragic upbringing that spans two continents, to his distinguished professional career in academia and an advisor at the highest levels of government, both in the US and abroad, and finally to the unbelievable and <i>infuriating</i> experiences in his attempt to defend himself from overzealous prosecutors hell bent on jailing him for political purposes. </p><p>The prosecutors in his case routinely used the media to convict their targets in the court of public opinion, threatened witnesses with prosecution if they would not condemn the accused, ignored their ethical obligations to the legal community and the public at-large, and engaged in abhorrent behaviors that corrupted the entire criminal justice system in the Keystone State. </p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a>If the corruption in Pennsylvania's legal system wasn't bad enough, Spanier recounts incidents that demonstrated just how little respect for human decency there was in the Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) -- the top law enforcement office in the Commonwealth.<p></p><p>Current AG Josh Shapiro opposed Spanier's pleading to serve his time under house arrest, despite the fact that Spanier was suffering from cancer and been recently diagnosed with a heart ailment that would require surgery. Shapiro referred to the advice given by Spanier's very prominent medical doctors as "hearsay" and requested immediate incarceration.</p><p>Former AG Bruce Beemer, now an Allegheny County (PA) judge, dispatched state troopers to Chicago to question members of Spanier's family in an effort to dig up dirt. The process upset Spanier's then ninety-one year-old mother that she suffered a stroke and never recovered from the set back.</p><p>Spanier not only had to endure these attacks from the outside forces, but did so while being undermined by top officials at Penn State University, including then General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin, the Board of Trustees, and their hired gun -- former FBI Director Louis Freeh.</p><p>A lesser man would have given up in the face of such adversity, but Spanier never wavered.</p><p>In the end, corruption won by a hair -- with a former Pennsylvania attorney general with ties to the 1998 Sandusky case writing an unprecedented legal decision that sent Spanier to jail. </p><p>As a person with rather detailed knowledge of the Sandusky scandal, I found Spanier's accounting of the case to be accurate with very little opinion or speculation mixed in. The book also relates previously unknown details from closed legal proceedings that further the narrative of a corrupt legal system run amok. </p><p>Highly recommend!</p><p><b>RATING: 5 STARS </b></p><p>Information: <a href="https://www.spanierinthelionsden.com/">https://www.spanierinthelionsden.com/</a></p><p>Available for purchase</p><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lions-Den-State-Scandal-Judgment/dp/B09XRPL7P8/ref=sr_1_2?crid=H00ONJ8DCXTS&keywords=graham+spanier&qid=1653677378&s=books&sprefix=graham+spanier%2Cstripbooks%2C73&sr=1-2">Amazon</a></p><p><a href="https://www.booksamillion.com/p/Lions-Den/Graham-Spanier/9798985699494">BAM</a></p><p><a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/in-the-lions-den-graham-spanier/1141350354?ean=9798985699494">Barnes & Noble</a></p><p><a href="https://bookshop.org/books/in-the-lions-den-the-penn-state-scandal-and-a-rush-to-judgment/9798985699494">Bookshop.org</a></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-63278824735195157752022-04-18T12:20:00.010-04:002022-04-19T11:39:32.331-04:00ESPN's Paterno hit piece, "Untold," is refuted by the facts<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTyDHolvpoxlM_56rNAFlQxvs_Qx0UHD0-75wOZRuhBO7_sYEPN_s7keGeqKOAjRsBalOCiUflko0e4KCJe4YzFM1FBsx6Ns97jHuyiDKJnpUWnBVzHgPAZl9qC6lJ-E65uiZqS8qais0104ZJ7DNQWlChpQt1R4-90K_KwAxioLONG978-GJqOJlC/s599/Screen%20Shot%202022-04-16%20at%2010.09.19%20AM.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="491" data-original-width="599" height="524" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTyDHolvpoxlM_56rNAFlQxvs_Qx0UHD0-75wOZRuhBO7_sYEPN_s7keGeqKOAjRsBalOCiUflko0e4KCJe4YzFM1FBsx6Ns97jHuyiDKJnpUWnBVzHgPAZl9qC6lJ-E65uiZqS8qais0104ZJ7DNQWlChpQt1R4-90K_KwAxioLONG978-GJqOJlC/w640-h524/Screen%20Shot%202022-04-16%20at%2010.09.19%20AM.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Not Untold: A 1979 Sports Illustrated story mentioned the Todd Hodne incident</span></b></td></tr></tbody></table><i><br /></i><p></p><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">By<br />Ray Blehar</span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">April 18, 2022</span></i></div><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">ESPN's Paula Lavigne's and Tom Junod's hit piece on Joe Paterno, titled "<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/32496588/before-jerry-sandusky-penn-state-football-had-another-serial-sexual-predator-untold-story-crimes-fight-bring-justiceThis">Untold</a>," piles onto the false narrative (from the Freeh Report) that the former legendary coach and Penn State University (PSU) protected the football program at all costs. Like the Freeh Report, "Untold" assigns sinister motives to nearly every action taken by Paterno and other PSU officials with respect to the arrest and conviction of former football player Todd Hodne. And, like the Freeh Report, "Untold" makes its case mostly through innuendo and uncorroborated statements. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The facts about Paterno and PSU's handling of criminal cases stand in stark contrast to the story spun by Lavigne and Junod.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">1. According to former judge Carmine Prestia, neither Paterno, nor anyone else from the football program, <a href="https://www.statecollege.com/district-judge-never-once-any-sign-paterno-tampered-in-justice-system/">ever interfered in criminal investigations</a> or asked that his players received special treatment in the 40 years he was a policeman and judge.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">2. Former Penn State Faculty Senate chairs wrote that over their hundreds of years of experience they were <a href="http://www2.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=412018">never asked to give favorable treatment to student athletes</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">3. No one from Penn State was <a href="https://onwardstate.com/2016/01/22/superior-court-dismisses-three-charges-against-former-penn-state-admins/">convicted for covering up or obstructing the investigation</a> of the Jerry Sandusky criminal case. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But ESPN wasn't about to let those facts stand in the way of its story.</span></p><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a name='more'></a></span></span><p><b><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">"Untold" Fallacy #1: Paterno called one of the victims</span></b></p><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Untold uses a headline story that relied on an uncorroborated account from a victim named Karen. She alleged that in the timeframe following the attack, she received a call from Joe Paterno asking "If she was okay". </span></div><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In an attempt to justify using Karen's uncorroborated account, the authors wrote there were no call logs kept by Paterno at the time (</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;">as</span><span style="font-family: times;"> if that would have been the only way to corroborate her account).</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">However, Karen had a roommate, Jean, who dated a PSU football player named Clyde Carson. Karen also stated she had spent the summer going to parties that included a lot of PSU football players. It is highly improbable that Karen would have received a phone call from Joe Paterno and not shared that information with her roommate, Jean or with Clyde. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">According to victim Betsy Sailor, Paterno was a "demigod" at the time. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">There is no dispute that Joe was probably the most famous figure in State College and on the Penn State campus, if not in the entire state of Pennsylvania. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">And after Karen got a call from Joe Paterno, she told exactly no one.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Not her roommate, Jean. Not Clyde. Not any of the other football players. Not her parents. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">There is little doubt that Lavigne and Junod knew that ethically they should not use her uncorroborated account, but they weren't about to let the <a href="https://mediahelpingmedia.org/2006/06/22/accuracy-in-journalism/">standards for accuracy in journalism</a> get in the way of the story. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">They treated it as fact, then built a baseless case of witness tampering and intimidation around it.</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Untold Fallacy #2: Paterno was tampering with Karen to protect Hodne</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">From the column (my highlights):</span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">We circled back to Paterno. What did she mean she knew he was involved? "He knew who I was. He knew the police were interviewing me. The trial itself <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">I was discouraged from going to, and not necessarily by the police.</span> <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">And I'm trying to remember how all that went as well.</span>" </span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i><i>How did Paterno know her? Did he reach out? Did he call her? "<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">I think he might have. I think he might have,'" </span><span style="background-color: white;">she said. "And I'm trying to remember all those details, and I hesitate to blurt things out because I'm not totally certain about how that all went.</span> Yeah. I think he did. I think he did. And from then on, he knew me. He would say hello to me on campus if he would see me." She went on. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">"I'm trying so hard to remember. It was a rather shallow conversation. It wasn't anything. But the impression I got was he knew it was that guy [Hodne] but he wanted to probe and see if I knew that it was him</span>. I think that was kind of the gist of it. Which at the time I was really—I don't remember what I said. I don't remember too much about what I revealed or didn't reveal. I don't think I revealed much of anything." Why did she think he was asking her questions? "<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Oh, to protect his player,"</span> Karen said.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">And:</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i><i>But the call went differently than she expected. To Karen, Paterno's call "was kind of an admission that his football player did it, and he was expecting me to move forward." Karen wanted to move forward but didn't want to forget. She was, in fact, hoping to prosecute. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">"He was trying to ascertain if I was going to go to [the Betsy Sailor hearing] and if the police had discovered anything concrete.</span> My recollection is that he came out and asked me if I was going to testify—if I was planning to go to court." When Paterno called, she had hoped that he was calling out of concern for her. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Instead, Karen felt he was calling out of concern for his program. "He was kind of scaring me I think a little bit," </span>she says.</i></span></div></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">It is clear that Karen's account of the over 40 year old incident is limited at best. She did not provide details of her attack other than what was written in a newspaper account at the time of the attack. It is unknown whether her memories of the Betsy Sailor case are genuine or came as a result of her memory being refreshed by Lavigne and Junod.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Police records confirm that she was attacked and that her attacker's modus operandi matched Hodne's. Her roommate Jean confirmed the police investigation took place and that their apartment was dusted for fingerprints. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Anything beyond that is uncorroborated.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">ESPN's shaky case that Paterno interfering or trying to tamper is contradicted by his record of not interfering with criminal justice system dating back over 40 years.</span></p><p><br /></p><p><b><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Untold Fallacy #3: The PSU football program got favorable treatment in the courts</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">While not written in those terms, the authors wrote that victim Betsy Sailor's case against Todd Hodne was a case against the "institution of Penn State football program." </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">From Untold:</span></span></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">It was not easy for her. Betsy was but one person, still very young, daring to bring criminal charges against a Penn State football player. </span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">She had never known the power of Penn State football until she felt it firsthand—until she understood that by accusing one of its players, she had taken it on</span><span style="background-color: white;">. "I felt like I had thrown dirt at the queen," she says. "I felt bad. I felt bad that one of the things that I admired about this institution, the football team, had produced this individual. They weren't at fault, but I just felt bad. I was just ... I guess I was kind of shocked that part of the university that I admired would do that."</span></span></i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">She had taken on the institution of Penn State football</span><span style="background-color: white;"> and, alone among Hodne's victims, had brought her case to court. </span></span></i></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The fact that Sailor's case was the only one to make it to trial was the district attorney's decision based on the evidence, not out of fealty to the University or Penn State football.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Then DA David Grine decided her case was the only one that had enough evidence to obtain a conviction because of fingerprints found at the crime scene, her identification of Hodne's Puma Clyde sneakers, and the phone call from Hodne to her off campus residence. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In other cases, the victims did not see Hodne nor were fingerprints obtained. Certainly, Grine could have attempted to make the case in the case of another victim (Susan) because he had phone records tied to Hodne, but prosecutors don't like to bring cases with multiple victims because they risk losing the entire case if one victim is deemed not credible. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">ESPN and Lavigne were similarly called out for her lack of knowledge about legal matters in their attempted smear of Michigan State's Mark Dantonio and Tom Izzo. In that story, ESPN Lavigne also used an uncorroborated account from an unnamed source to allege that prosecutors gave a former MSU basketball player, Travis Walton, favorable treatment.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Former East Lansing city attorney David Meyers <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state/spartans/2018/02/12/attorney-travis-waltons-plea-agreement-consistent-michigans-other-college-towns/331816002/">responded</a> to the ESPN story:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(48, 48, 48); color: #303030;">“I detest that a municipal case, that was resolved (eight) years ago </span><span style="background-color: #fcff01; caret-color: rgb(48, 48, 48); color: #303030;">in the normal manner,</span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(48, 48, 48); color: #303030;"> has been made into a sideshow...</span></i><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(48, 48, 48); color: #303030;"><i>At no point in my role as Asst. City Attorney did Travis Walton or any other person receive preferential treatment from me as to their criminal proceedings. East Lansing City prosecutions had previously been cleared of preferential treatment in a 2015 article by ESPN and Ms. Levine [sic].</i></span></span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Untold Fallacy #4: Football and athletic programs had higher incidents of sexual violence</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">From Untold:</span></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">And yet the story of Todd Hodne is not simply a reminder of how much has changed since 1978. It's a reminder of how slowly change has come. It's a reminder that change didn't come until it had to. </span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">It's a reminder that, in the matter of athletic departments and sexual violence, change came because the worst that could possibly happen so often did.</span><span style="background-color: white;"> It's a reminder that incremental progress has occurred at the cost of indelible pain and that every law protecting students today exists because of the absence of such laws a few decades ago—an absence that gave rise to the notorious stories and impossible outrages that led to institutions and athletic departments finally being called into account.</span></span></i></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">While sexual assault cases involving football and other athletic departments often make headlines, Lavigne and Junod provided no statistics to support that sexual crimes were (or are) more prevalent among athletes than other students. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">According to her ESPN bio, Lavigne <span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(44, 47, 52); color: #2c2f34;">has a background in "data journalism and mining public records."</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Federal Clery Act reporting makes these data of sexual assault crimes available to the public, there is no legitimate excuse for the "data" journalist not to include crime statistics to support her story.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Penn State's latest Clery Act report for the University Park campus is <a href="https://www.police.psu.edu/sites/police/files/penn_state_university_park_2021_3.pdf">here</a>. According to the latest reports, there were 45, 39, and 28 rapes in 2018, 2019, and 2020 respectively. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The lack of headlines confirms the none were perpetrated by football players over those years.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">From Untold:</span></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">Lizette Olsen, who worked at the rape crisis center at the time, remembers the university broadly supporting rape prevention and awareness efforts but that "they were low-hanging fruit." It was different when dealing with specific cases, she says. "</span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">When there were instances of sexual violence where the perpetrator was someone of value, i.e., the football team, things did not go so well </span><span style="background-color: white;">... I can't actually say to you that that was an institutional response as much as it was </span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">the response of individuals in leadership who were trying to assist the football team or the athletic department." </span> </span></i></p><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Olson provided no specific cases of football players or other PSU athletes to corroborate her allegation, however, there were certainly a few high profile athletes who were charged with sex crimes in recent years.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Football players Anwar Phillips (2003) and Austin Scott (2007) were both charged with sexual assault.- Phillips was <a href="https://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/trial-proves-anwar-phillips-assault-case-not-as-simple-as-some-people-perceived/article_010dc36c-4386-51f6-838a-02a41c77c585.html">acquitted</a> and the charges were eventually <a href="https://www.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2009/10/former_penn_state_rb_austin_sc.html">withdrawn</a> (by the accuser) against Scott. Neither Phillips nor Scott were represented by University attorneys.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In 1999, wrestlers <a href="https://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/10/penn_state_nate_parker_rape_se.html">Nate Parker and Jean Celestin were charged with raping a woman</a> in an off-campus apartment. Parker was eventually acquitted, however Celestin was convicted and granted an appeal. He was never re-tried. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Based on that limited set of data, there were four allegations against PSU athletes and one conviction (that was later appealed). The data reflects a higher success rate of prosecution than across the United States than a 2003 study.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In 2003, <a href="https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/2003-12-21-athletes-sexual-assault_x.htm">USAToday</a> conducted a search of public records and found 168 sexual assault allegations made against professional and student athletes over a 12 year-period. Of those, only 22 went to trial and only six resulted in convictions. These statistics confirm the difficulty in obtaining convictions in sexual assault cases, however, they do not confirm that sexual assaults are more prevalent among athletes.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The only attempt to use statistics in Untold was to imply Penn State was covering up rape cases. The cover-up angle relied on a single, unnamed and uncorroborated sources and faulty analysis.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">From Untold:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">There was a discrepancy between how institutions and advocates a</span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">t Penn State talked about rapes and sexual assaults and in how they counted them at the time.</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">A former Penn State student who gave campus orientations remembers being discouraged from telling parents of incoming freshmen how many rapes were happening in State College</span><span style="background-color: white;">. Ed Nolder, an officer with the Penn State University Police at the time, says, "Rape was not a big thing then; I don't think I heard of eight rapes in my entire eight years with the police force." </span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program counted a total of 12 rapes and sexual assaults at Penn State University and the borough of State College in all of 1978. The student newspaper ran an editorial that year counting 35 rapes and sexual assaults in and around Penn State as of September.</span></span></i></div><div><i><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></i></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">First, Ed Nolder's statistics of eight rapes in eight years would be consistent with the FBI report of 12 rapes in State College and at University Park. University Park is a different jurisdiction than State College. The statistics for 1978 infer that more crimes took place off-campus than on-campus. All of Hodne's confirmed and alleged rapes took place off-campus.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The Collegian editorial counted rapes and sexual assaults in those two jurisdictions, as well as surrounding jurisdictions (e.g., Ferguson Township, College Township, etc).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Lavigne and Junod simply didn't take the time to learn the <a href="http://usgwarchives.net/maps/pa/county/centre/usgs/">geography</a> around PSU and that rapes occurred in other jurisdictions other than on campus and in State College borough. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">There was nothing contradictory about the reports. Rather, every statistic referenced was based on different jurisdictions.</span></div><p><b><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Fallacy Fallacy #5: PSU and Paterno swept the Hodne case under the rug.</span></b></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">Beyond the announcement of Hodne's suspension from the team, </span><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">neither the school nor the football program ever made a public statement of any kind about Hodne or the students he attacked</span><span style="background-color: white;">. He was, after all, a player of no consequence, involved in an isolated incident. He would leave State College and never be heard from again.</span></span></i></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Every crime involving Hodne took place off-campus and was under the jurisdiction of the State College Borough police department. The University Park police would have no record of the crimes, therefore University officials would have little to no knowledge of the incidents nor have reason to be informed of them.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">There was no legal basis or even an ethical basis for PSU to make statements about Hodne's conviction. </span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Summary</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">While "Untold" was supposed to be a story written to give voices to the co-eds at PSU who didn't receive justice after being victimized by Todd Hodne, the reality of the situation is that Lavigne and Junod used the victims in an attempt to convince readers that Paterno and the University did not cooperate with investigators and attempted to silence or intimidate the victims.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://espnpressroom.com/us/bios/paula-lavigne/">Lavigne has made her career</a> on writing factually challenged and sensationalized stories of sexual assault on campus. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">She won a Peabody Award for her January 2018 <a href="https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/22214566/pattern-denial-inaction-information-suppression-michigan-state-goes-larry-nassar-case-espn">Outside The Lines</a> report claiming that Michigan State University's Tom Izzo and Mark D'Antonio mishandling sexual assault cases involving their athletes. Lavigne claimed there was<i> <span style="background-color: white;">"a pattern of widespread denial, inaction and information suppression." </span></i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">ESPN stood by her reporting on D'Antonio even though it was thoroughly debunked by a the <a href="https://media.clickondetroit.com/document_dev/2017/06/05/Jones%20Day%20report%20MSU_9904330_ver1.0.PDF">Jones Day</a> report that was published in June 2017.</span></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In both instances, we found that senior leaders within the football program and the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (Athletic Department) complied with the RVSM policy by p<span style="background-color: #fcff01;">romptly and accurately reporting the information they learned</span> about the underlying incidents to departments within the University that are tasked with investigating and responding to such incidents. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">We also found no evidence that senior leaders within the football program or Athletic Department attempted to impede, cover up, or obstruct</span> the Office of Institutional Equity’s (OIE’s) investigation into the underlying incidents. </span></i></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">One might ask how could Paula Lavigne make such claims against D'Antonio when an independent report confirmed he handled the situations appropriately?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The answer is that Lavigne wasn't going to let facts get in the way of her story at Michigan State just like she didn't let them get in the way of her story about Hodne, PSU, and Paterno.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Sadly, that is the state of "journalism" today. </span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-38327070674581305932021-11-10T12:38:00.011-05:002021-11-10T21:56:01.847-05:0010 Years Later: Unfinished Business of Sandusky Scandal <br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheWt-YEk-otllzXnTuVfx9djxYE_Kikt7KJgt_YpzXchGdwxiP5Xhp5IjwG6SyWkzf1VRH9q1SfgUWNU6Zuz0yGM-4XCMJib1dX0-X4S7CdSLJGCjnYwEirj5OlibMmBZ1vrIWAjpKDW4/s474/Louie+Freeh.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="315" data-original-width="474" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheWt-YEk-otllzXnTuVfx9djxYE_Kikt7KJgt_YpzXchGdwxiP5Xhp5IjwG6SyWkzf1VRH9q1SfgUWNU6Zuz0yGM-4XCMJib1dX0-X4S7CdSLJGCjnYwEirj5OlibMmBZ1vrIWAjpKDW4/w640-h426/Louie+Freeh.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">Freeh should have to pay back over $8.5 M plus damages to the University</span></b></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p></p><p>In my <a href="https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2021/10/after-nearly-10-years-its-time-to-do.html">last post</a>, I discussed the long overdue action of naming the football field as Paterno Field at Beaver Stadium as a means of honoring legendary coach Joseph V. Paterno.</p><p>But that isn't the only unfinished business of the Sandusky Scandal.</p><p>Numerous actions should take place in order to right the wrongs and hold people accountable for their dishonesty. While the list of villains of this scandal is long, there are some who can be realistically held accountable for their wrongdoing. Unfortunately, there are others who will walk away from the scandal without getting the punishment they deserve.</p><p>First, let's focus on those who can realistically be held accountable -- and former FBI Director Louis Freeh is at the top on the list.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Louis Freeh</span></b></p><p>Louis Freeh was paid over $8 million dollars to conduct a "an independent, full, and complete investigation into the <b>recently publicized allegations</b> of sexual abuse at the facilities." </p><p>Freeh did not fulfill this requirement because he provided only cursory mentions of the alleged on-campus crimes by Sandusky against Victims 3, 4, and 7 that were publicized in the November 2011 <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/08/03/freeh.report.pdf">grand jury presentment</a>. The November 2011 grand jury presentment was published by every major newspaper in the United States.</p><p>According to the <a href="http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20AMENDED%20BILL%20OF%20PARTICULARS.pdf">amended Bill of Particulars</a>, these crimes took place between 1994 and 2000 in the East Area Locker Rooms and the Lasch Building. </p><p>Freeh's more in-depth (but certainly not complete) reporting began with the crimes against Victim 6 that took place in 1998, but ignoring the crimes that were taking place simultaneously against Victim 4, as well as not discussing the crimes that took place before 1998 against Victim 7. Victim 3's abuse from 1999 until 2001 was also not discussed in any detail in the Freeh Report. </p><p>The exclusion of the details of those crimes on campus was obviously intentional because neither Joe Paterno nor the Penn State administrators had knowledge that they occurred. The fact Freeh omitted Victim 4 trial testimony that other football coaches (e.g., Fran Ganter, Dick Anderson, Tom Bradley, etc) had observed him showering with Sandusky provides rather indisputable evidence that Freeh's investigation was a "witch-hunt" against Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. </p><p>The only mention of Victim 4's abuse (by Freeh) was an incident that took place in San Antonio, Texas that the Alamo Bowl -- which, contractually, was outside the scope of the report. </p><p>As such, the Freeh investigation was not full and complete because it skipped over numerous highly publicized incidents of the Sandusky case. </p><p>Aside from being incomplete, the report was far from independent. </p><p>A <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qTeZanImCrewBy3pr8-UHPJDzKMl_0nR/view">diary kept by a key member of the Freeh investigative</a> team clearly showed that Freeh did not conduct an independent investigation and was receiving secret grand jury evidence from the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (PA OAG).</p><p>In summary, Freeh did not fulfill his contractual obligations which resulted in the submission of an incomplete and biased report that caused exceptional harm to the University.</p><p>Not only should the University get it's money back,<b> but it should file a lawsuit for pecuniary damages caused by Freeh's investigation</b> -- to include, but not limited to, recovery of $60 million in fines levied by the NCAA, lost football revenue, lost revenues (fees) from the University application process, and decreased charitable donations.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">PA OAG Officials</span></b></p><p>There were/are numerous officials in the PA OAG who either need to be punished or require additional punishment for their roles in the scandal and former AG turned Governor Tom Corbett tops the list.</p><p></p><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Tom Corbett</span></b></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIz3zCzNBRgr23risXeil6hPxniUO2LLaDN6lyCXSMo6nkX524xxox9gpxmKM6XbZF19fhHGT6GTfv0WJwmcEsSyjttbNFJjGDNfNKTDdEkKy1eI2Gxv1Nsm2y_Eq2X9nFIhPPXmKITPY/s258/Corbett+wristwatch.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="196" data-original-width="258" height="486" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIz3zCzNBRgr23risXeil6hPxniUO2LLaDN6lyCXSMo6nkX524xxox9gpxmKM6XbZF19fhHGT6GTfv0WJwmcEsSyjttbNFJjGDNfNKTDdEkKy1eI2Gxv1Nsm2y_Eq2X9nFIhPPXmKITPY/w640-h486/Corbett+wristwatch.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">Corbett should be persona non grata at PSU for causing the scandal.</span></b></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p>As a result of his vendetta against Spanier, Corbett suffered the humiliation of being the first incumbent governor to be defeated in his re-election bid. But that's not punishment enough.</p><p>Unlike other former OAG officials, Corbett was smart enough to not leave a trail of evidence in his wake that could be used to file ethics charges or legal charges. </p><p>Given that situation, a fitting punishment for Tom Corbett would be for The Board of Trustees to designate him as <b>persona non grata on Penn State properties. </b></p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Josh Shapiro</b></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdTLJ80llPHUXBDHhqjqiLF0EMc3futJ2yl5k6_25-dxbcGW2szmCqODcj4mYMIcW5Barr4pxja-VwjYrmn-vKWlLfwzjXJH8W_w_MQIMdI3rYXdeztyzJpS4OcmrZDhWJL5rFX3aaEn0/s640/Shapiro+Ferman.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="640" height="478" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdTLJ80llPHUXBDHhqjqiLF0EMc3futJ2yl5k6_25-dxbcGW2szmCqODcj4mYMIcW5Barr4pxja-VwjYrmn-vKWlLfwzjXJH8W_w_MQIMdI3rYXdeztyzJpS4OcmrZDhWJL5rFX3aaEn0/w640-h478/Shapiro+Ferman.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;"><b>Shapiro: Must be DEFEATED for his practice of <a href="https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2018/05/shapiros-unequal-justice.html">unequal justice under the law</a></b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Current AG Josh Shapiro also deserves punishment for his hypocritical persecution of PSU officials. </p><p>While Shapiro continuously ranted that "no one is above the law" while prosecuting Spanier, Curley, and Schultz, he never bothered to charge Dr. Jack "Just Wear Swim Trunks" Raykovitz for his inaction when it came to Sandusky showering with children.</p><p>Shapiro was initially elected as AG by running on the promise to investigate The Second Mile charity and received the endorsement of the PSU alumni group PS4RS. Once Shapiro got in office, he never held up his end of the bargain. </p><p>There is little doubt that Shapiro was using (and will continue to use) the Penn State case as a means of public relations and will continue to lie about his concern the welfare of children. </p><p>The only person's welfare that Shapiro is concerned about is his own. </p><p>Penn Staters should <b>unite to defeat Shapiro in his run for Pennsylvania governor</b>. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Frank Fina</span></b></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-vaWM8rYx4brRaiWfqu5aLfrcUbirPvE4OmUggzMGLrVYMG1fTytzNTbNT7zO7VgbpBjUmMAMZhxue5O8jwiBPxD8u0mlqSmSiGMtMNeAJItjHDON1lNlU8BnZQbRQHNyxlv3hZjQWVU/s1280/Fina.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><b><img border="0" data-original-height="853" data-original-width="1280" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-vaWM8rYx4brRaiWfqu5aLfrcUbirPvE4OmUggzMGLrVYMG1fTytzNTbNT7zO7VgbpBjUmMAMZhxue5O8jwiBPxD8u0mlqSmSiGMtMNeAJItjHDON1lNlU8BnZQbRQHNyxlv3hZjQWVU/w640-h426/Fina.jpg" width="640" /></b></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">Fina needs a return visit to the ODC misleading the court about PSU evidence.</span></b></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Frank Fina has already been disciplined by the Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) for making misleading statements to the court regarding the limits of his questioning of then-PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin. Fina received a suspension of his law license for one year and one day for that particular transgression -- but the list of possible ethical violations is longer.</p><p>The <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qTeZanImCrewBy3pr8-UHPJDzKMl_0nR/view">McChesney diary</a> confirmed that Fina (and others) misled the court about the discovery of the 1998 and 2001 email evidence and the evidence related to the so-called "secret file" of Gary Schultz. The diary contains a statement purporting to be from Fina where he had not alerted the defense counsel to the existence of the emails until he "<a href="https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2020/01/diary-entries-point-to-2001-email-fraud.html">had the right chain of custody</a>." Fina, by omission, allowed the defense counsel to believe that Louis Freeh discovered the 1998 and 2001 emails in March 2012. Meanwhile, internal discussions of the Freeh investigators revealed that the 1998 emails had been discovered earlier and were distributed to members of the PSU Board of Trustees in February 2012. </p><p>Similarly, the diary stated that the so-called Schultz file originally contained many more documents than those provided and that <a href="https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2020/02/diary-incredible-shrinking-schultz-file.html">copies of the file were shared among investigators prior to its official discovery in April 2012.</a></p><p>These two incidents pertaining to apparent falsification of the dates of discovery of evidence are an absolute abuse of the legal system, but it's even worse considering that this was secret grand jury evidence that was not to be shared except with the court and defense counsel. </p><p>Fina also manipulated the dates of crimes in an apparent effort to cover up that the prolonged Sandusky investigation left children vulnerable to abuse. He <a href="http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20COMMONWEALTHS%20MOTION%20TO%20AMEND%20THE%20INFORMATIONS%20AND%20BILL%20OF%20PARTICULARS.pdf">petitioned the court to amend</a> the <a href="http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20Bill%20of%20Particulars.pdf">February 21, 2012 Bill of Particulars</a> (filed by Eshbach) to incorporated newly discovered information to the criminal information. In reality, Fina <a href="http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20AMENDED%20CRIMINAL%20INFORMATION%202421%202011.pdf">revised</a> the <a href="http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20AMENDED%20BILL%20OF%20PARTICULARS.pdf">May 18, 2012 Bill of Particulars</a> in order to cover up that Victim 9 was victimized by Sandusky while the criminal investigation was in progress. Victim 9 <a href="http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061412_%20JT.pdf">testified</a> his abuse continued into the summer of 2009. </p><p>In addition, he <a href="http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20AMENDED%20CRIMINAL%20INFORMATION%20FOR%202422%202011.pdf">changed</a> the dates of victimization for Victim 3 as between July 1999 and December 2001. Victim 3 <a href="http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061412_%20JT.pdf">testified</a> that his contact with Sandusky occurred when Sandusky was an active coach and shortly after he retired in early 2000. Given that victim didn't support the dates, it appears that Fina made them up implicate PSU officials for endangering the welfare of Victim 3. </p><p>Finally, in April 2011, <a href="https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/09/nifonged-part-3-freeh-exposed-finas.html">Fina apparently misled the court about an alleged incident occurring on campus in 1984</a> in order to obtain a subpoena to conduct a "fishing expedition" for email evidence prior to 1998. At the time, there was no police report, child welfare report, or any other information to support his claim of something happening in 1984. </p><p>I could go on, but suffice it to say, Frank Fina has yet to answer for all of his questionable actions in the Sandusky-Penn State scandal and <b>needs to return visit to the ODC</b>.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Jonelle Eshbach</span></b></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVqUHHNPRQ8iXvShqCLTuhtrovCEwYjJ7j09v9nUZQErApMpbNmRTK5euiBywKA8Si_SMzEbL0pFjhqIFMtJuCsL89aUAaCurNu_ie8ERA-WH1setGJctDROHpd61MDIbecy5VM_Bj5wE/s474/Eshbach.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><b><img border="0" data-original-height="316" data-original-width="474" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVqUHHNPRQ8iXvShqCLTuhtrovCEwYjJ7j09v9nUZQErApMpbNmRTK5euiBywKA8Si_SMzEbL0pFjhqIFMtJuCsL89aUAaCurNu_ie8ERA-WH1setGJctDROHpd61MDIbecy5VM_Bj5wE/w640-h426/Eshbach.jpg" width="640" /></b></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b> <span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">Eshbach should go before the ODC for her misleading statements to the court. </span></b></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Jonelle Eshbach was the author of the now infamous November 2011 grand jury presentment. Similar to Baldwin, Eshbach made truthful but misleading statements about the evidence in the Sandusky case, especially pertaining to the 2001 shower incident. </p><p>When alleged eye (ear) witness Mike McQueary confronted Eshbach over her misleading statements, she informed <a href="https://www.bigtrial.net/2017/10/penn-state-confidential-prosecutor-told.html">Mike he couldn't do anything about it because it could compromise her case</a>.</p><p>In addition to those incidents, Eshbach teamed with Fina to mislead the court about the email evidence in the case and was the likely leaker (in the fall of 2010) of the 1998 University Park police report to the Harrisburg Patriot News' Jan Murphy. Fina and Eshbach would later testify that they set a trap to catch the leaker, but were unsuccessful.</p><p>Jonelle has a lot of questions to answer.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Bruce Beemer</span></b></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjrxAgLQN92ZupuVyf57Rnk1SaZmdtb7QjCke08FtT-dmbVA_aX0dttnYjCTzV0jQIULG8pteRXiQm-NDRDHxzBGBQmFAn99m3L-wk_M86-KYTxHEOBD3e-VcaIWSvhmFS5SQW5sayJZY/s474/Bruce+Beemer.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="272" data-original-width="474" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjrxAgLQN92ZupuVyf57Rnk1SaZmdtb7QjCke08FtT-dmbVA_aX0dttnYjCTzV0jQIULG8pteRXiQm-NDRDHxzBGBQmFAn99m3L-wk_M86-KYTxHEOBD3e-VcaIWSvhmFS5SQW5sayJZY/w640-h368/Bruce+Beemer.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">Beemer continued the PSU email deception and should answer to the ODC.</span></b></td></tr></tbody></table><p>It comes as no surprise that Bruce Beemer is now a Judge in Pennsylvania's corrupt legal system. Before becoming a judge, however, he was the lead prosecutor on the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier cases. </p><p>At the July 2013 preliminary hearing, Beemer used smoke and mirrors in order to never tell the court and the defendants who discovered Schultz's PSU emails and when they were discovered. You can read the transcripts backwards and forwards, but there is no date for the original discovery of those emails.</p><p>At best, the hearing testimony of PSU's John Corro places the discovery in March or April of 2011.</p><p>The AG's IT witness, Braden Cook, testified that he recovered emails that were supposed to be accounted for, but were not in the inventory in March of 2012. He contacted the AG's IT team to get a copy. At a minimum, this is a chain of custody issue. Cook never testified who provided the files to the AG originally.</p><p>Beemer's questioning of Cook and Corro avoided asking when the emails were originally recovered but Cook's testimony referencing the March 2012 recovery date was in synch with Freeh's public statements of his team finding the emails in March of 2012. Apparently, the defense attorneys never questioned the date because of Freeh's deception.</p><p>The bottom line is that Beemer continued the email ruse and needs to answer for it before the ODC.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Patrick Schulte and Laura Dikta</span></b></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXqa1YHRUfpvKJq1Uaj8U5cbki6VS1HYi3sOgwG_ndy1pwc-E-RW6YfQhvyIiboZxSOMySWH3cC0v6MjgMOvUWihEM6Z9Rjm5j4Epr3mVrjc3aMf5ahJbAQUWSO9McG4iBznnMMDnb6Ko/s800/Schulte+Ditka.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="535" data-original-width="800" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXqa1YHRUfpvKJq1Uaj8U5cbki6VS1HYi3sOgwG_ndy1pwc-E-RW6YfQhvyIiboZxSOMySWH3cC0v6MjgMOvUWihEM6Z9Rjm5j4Epr3mVrjc3aMf5ahJbAQUWSO9McG4iBznnMMDnb6Ko/w640-h428/Schulte+Ditka.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;"><b>Schulte (left) and Ditka (middle) misled the court about PSU evidence.</b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>When Josh Shapiro took his victory lap for the highly questionable the misdemeanor conviction of Graham Spanier, prosecutors Patrick Schulte and Laura Ditka mugged for the cameras along with him.</p><p>While it seems that the karma has already taken care of <a href="https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/postgazette/obituary.aspx?pid=190494961">Laura Ditka</a>, Patrick Schulte is still out there practicing law and likely doing so by bending the rules of evidence. </p><p>Ironically, Ditka and Schulte's presentation of some critical evidence in the Spanier case conflicted with the evidence in the Freeh Report and in other court documents.</p><p>In order to make the case that Schultz was directing the actions of Curley, Ditka and Schulte alleged that on <b>February 25, 2001</b>, Schultz met with Curley to discuss what to do about Sandusky showering with the a youth. Ditka alleged that after the meeting, Schultz returned to his office and printed out a list of the directors of The Second Mile, then turned the list over and wrote the now infamous 3 step instructions on the back of it. </p><p>3. Tell Chair of Second Mile</p><p>2. Report to Dept of Welfare</p><p>3. Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.</p><p> * who's the chair??</p><p>However, the <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/08/03/freeh.report.pdf">Freeh Report</a> (page 71) reported:</p><div class="page" title="Page 71"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span style="font-family: PalatinoLinotype; font-size: 12pt;">"On <b>February 12, 2001,</b> at about 11:10 a.m., Schultz researched the internet about the Board members of the Second Mile, the charitable organization Sandusky founded."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: PalatinoLinotype; font-size: 12pt;">The Freeh Report source of this statement was Schultz's notes (</span><span style="font-family: PalatinoLinotype; font-size: 6pt; vertical-align: 3pt;">303 </span><span style="font-family: PalatinoLinotype; font-size: 10pt;">Schultz confidential file notes (5</span><span style="font-family: PalatinoLinotype; font-size: 10pt;">‐</span><span style="font-family: PalatinoLinotype; font-size: 10pt;">1</span><span style="font-family: PalatinoLinotype; font-size: 10pt;">‐</span><span style="font-family: PalatinoLinotype; font-size: 10pt;">12)</span></p><div class="page" title="Page 152"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/538658663/Schultz-Omnibus-Pre-Trial-Motion-10-31-12">Other</a> legal filings in the case confirm that the print out of The Second Mile members was indeed printed on February 12, 2001 at 11:10 a.m. according to the date/time stamp on the lower right corner of the page. </p><p>So how was it that Ditka and Schulte could present this printout at trial and say it was printed on February 25, 2001? The only way would have been to redact the date from the lower right corner. Note that all three pages pertaining to The Second Mile in evidence contain the date/time stamp, so this was not simply an error made when copying the page, but rather an intentional redaction. </p><p>This was not the only misleading part of the Commonwealth's presentation -- but I'll save the worst for the ODC. Patrick Schulte was the star of that one.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Penn State University</span></b></p><p>Most of the miscreants from the PSU Board of Trustees will never be held to account for their roles I the case, however there is one PSU official who can still be held to account for misdeeds in the Sandusky Scandal -- and that would be former General Counsel, Cynthia Baldwin.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Cynthia Baldwin</span></b></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAMbzwXWYjLMGz-Exr_d14ZZgaR6B5TzFP6bcAXjw1PgUZe1MEeOB4H994XjMio2YNfNSulAraFVsQKnP_EKsCe5hSupVRkChPNIV7L6nXpXJsXg6nZMTgtjIAF7LX95PC0DjEKOxeXfI/s474/Baldwin+AJ.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="331" data-original-width="474" height="446" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAMbzwXWYjLMGz-Exr_d14ZZgaR6B5TzFP6bcAXjw1PgUZe1MEeOB4H994XjMio2YNfNSulAraFVsQKnP_EKsCe5hSupVRkChPNIV7L6nXpXJsXg6nZMTgtjIAF7LX95PC0DjEKOxeXfI/w640-h446/Baldwin+AJ.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">Baldwin also needs a return visit to the ODC to answer for misleading the court.</span></b></td></tr></tbody></table><p><br /></p><p>Former PSU General Counsel (and former PA Supreme Court Justice) Cynthia Baldwin received censure from the ODC for misleading Curley, Schultz, and Spanier about her legal representation. While the three administrators believed Baldwin represented them, she gave intentionally misleading statement to the grand jury about her representation of Curley and Schultz. In Spanier's case, she made it clear to the grand jury she was NOT representing Spanier -- but never informed Spanier of the same.</p><p>Despite these clear deceptions, the ODC essentially said that Baldwin was stupid, but not a menace to the legal world.</p><p>My analysis of the evidence concludes that the ODC was wrong. </p><p>While Baldwin made scores of <a href="https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2020/09/baldwin-couldnt-keep-her-lies-straight.html">misleading statements</a> when she testified before a grand jury on <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/192201126/Cynthia-Baldwin-grand-jury-transcript-from-October-26-2012">October 26, 2012</a>, her exchange with Fina regarding an alleged thumb drive given to Judge Fuedale is really something to behold. It is a case of telling the truth, but being very misleading. </p><p>Spanier alleged that Baldwin had provided a thumb drive of his emails to Judge Feudale during his April 2011 grand jury appearance. When Spanier asked Baldwin what she was doing, she purportedly said that the thumb drive contained his emails. Spanier then asked, if it was all his emails back to 2004, to which Baldwin purportedly said, <i>"Yes. All of them."</i></p><p>However, according to testimony from the July 2013 preliminary hearing, the PSU IT department conducted searches in March/April 2011 and provided Baldwin with 3 thumb drives -- two containing results related to specific search terms and one containing <b>all of the emails from searches of the folders of <u>Curley, Schultz, Spanier, McQueary, and Paterno back to 1997</u></b>. However, Spanier's data only went back to 2004 because the email server was upgraded that year and Spanier's emails were not archived. </p><p>Here's the interrogative between Fina and Baldwin at her grand jury appearance (my <b><i>emphasis </i></b>added).</p><p>Fina: "Okay. Alright. I'll start at the end actually. You have -- <i><b>you did not hand over a thumb drive</b></i> to the Judge. He was there to testify; is that correct?"</p><p>Baldwin: "If I had done that you probably would have hit me because giving something to the judge and not to giving it to you would have been really bad and the judge would have hit me too."</p><p>Fina: "That is true."</p><p>Baldwin: "And there was no handing over of any thumb drive <b><i>containing his entire history of emails</i></b>. I don't know where the 2004 came from. That didn't happen."</p><p>In summary, Baldwin told the truth because she did not turn over a thumb drive containing Spanier's entire history of emails, but rather a thumb drive containing all of the recoverable emails from all PSU officials named on the Subpoena. </p><p>Getting to the bottom of the email deception remains a critical part of the case and the ODC definitely needs to investigate it. </p><p>Baldwin should also return to the ODC to answer for this and other alleged misrepresentations to the court. </p></div></div></div></div></div></div><p>In summary, these are the individuals who -- in my opinion -- can still be realistically held to account either legally or ethically for their misdeeds in the case. </p><p>That said, the list of others who still deserve a karma visit is long and it includes, but is not limited to, Rod Erickson, Ken Frazier, Karen Peetz, John Surma, and Mark Emmert.</p><p>Anyone I missed? </p><p>Let me know in the comment section. Also, how would you hold those individuals to account?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>--- Ray Blehar, November 10, 2021 at 12:38 PM EST</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-62787809737030341862021-10-19T09:40:00.005-04:002021-11-10T17:15:23.486-05:00After nearly 10 years, it's time to do the right thing<p><i>"There's never a wrong time to do the right thing."<span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> (Charles M. Blow)</span></i></p><p>In late summer 2021, Penn State University honored Sue Paterno, placing her on the cover of the <i>Penn State</i>r magazine while writing about her life. Of course, much of the story revolved around Sue's life spent as the wife of legendary football coach and mother of five, as well as her well known efforts as a volunteer for the University and the community.</p><p>The column was long overdue and a step in the right direction.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJg1KK35unwqs8l08QqVW4sKNNmp9K51GZDxdAazdck9s1dF1wYwknH2f0De1d5v2enASlGnsbRA3YrksRb-NsobGtTWfZaTf2shFpoJgSLIg9dc1l5KAh3mmfYkxabnq45T6SdUjX6RQ/s829/sue+paterno.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="829" data-original-width="639" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJg1KK35unwqs8l08QqVW4sKNNmp9K51GZDxdAazdck9s1dF1wYwknH2f0De1d5v2enASlGnsbRA3YrksRb-NsobGtTWfZaTf2shFpoJgSLIg9dc1l5KAh3mmfYkxabnq45T6SdUjX6RQ/w494-h640/sue+paterno.png" width="494" /></a></div><br /><p></p><span></span><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><br /></p><p>It is said that time heals all wounds. </p><p>However, I believe that it is not just the passing of time that caused the <i>Penn Stater </i>to honor Sue Paterno.</p><p>I believe that they -- <i>and WE</i> -- have all learned a lot since November 2011. </p><p>I believe that <i>WE</i> is not specific to just Penn Staters, but the entire country, including the media, the NCAA, and the majority of the public.</p><p>About ten years ago, <i>WE</i> didn't know much about serial sex offenders.</p><p>In November 2011 and then following in July 2012, <i>WE</i> were told that the Jerry Sandusky scandal alleged to be a product of the "football culture" at Penn State. The majority of people bought into this narrative after spurious facts were twisted by the the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and former FBI Director Louis Freeh to fit the "football culture" narrative.</p><p>Since that time, sex scandals involving scores of athletes over many years have emerged at Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State involving medical doctors molesting student athletes. Wrestlers, football players, and gymnasts were among those who were abused.</p><p>Unless I missed a clipping, these incidents were not blamed on the "wrestling culture" at Ohio State, the "football culture" at Michigan, or the "gymnastics culture" at Michigan State. </p><p>The NCAA didn't publicly shame OSU, UM, and MSU and burden them with fines and sanctions.</p><p>Why?</p><p>The NCAA learned that its unprecedented "experiment" of sanctioning Penn State Athletics for a crime not dealing with student athletes was an abject failure.</p><p>The NCAA restored 111 wins to Joe Paterno's record, rightfully placing him at the top of Division I college football with 409 wins. </p><p>Now it's time for Penn State University to do the rest and show the world what <i>WE </i>have learned.</p><p>After nearly 10 years, it's time to do the right thing. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1B2AOL40JgrG6-byUlG9iwQLO-czXNDepWmzC5UDlrdFJkcGQ2n6jEXmQodaBEslBO7fLF6NZWx_A6mTtQ0l6XqjysyEIaYQ5L9IiwtoAXfjm2VCqaV4YKMBSm4qfvlzudYM0hfqrFL4/s1264/Paterno+Field.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1264" data-original-width="1262" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1B2AOL40JgrG6-byUlG9iwQLO-czXNDepWmzC5UDlrdFJkcGQ2n6jEXmQodaBEslBO7fLF6NZWx_A6mTtQ0l6XqjysyEIaYQ5L9IiwtoAXfjm2VCqaV4YKMBSm4qfvlzudYM0hfqrFL4/w638-h640/Paterno+Field.png" width="638" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>-- Ray Blehar, October 19, 2021, 9:40 AM EDT</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-8021574636420553152021-05-29T15:40:00.012-04:002021-05-29T17:04:04.672-04:00Dishonest Shapiro Continues Cover Up Lie<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="770" data-original-width="558" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKsOjkROyl2qTlHvQP7_duHM8wVSVR3ql9VqbYBwOsS7p-DkrabyADi5J1QtS-riBtFVoLOIBsFiZAKl4kyAp2H2i7yWEbVItbdVhI4TtxiLUWT9i7nCM-BnHAtftRMTyqDdA5kcSOkzU/w464-h640/Shapiro+Tweet+Lie.png" width="464" /></div>PA Attorney General Josh Shapiro continues to repeat the lie of Tom Corbett, Linda Kelly, Louis Freeh, and numerous media know nothings that former PSU President Graham Spanier covered up the child abuse crimes of Jerry Sandusky.<p></p><p>Shapiro's tweet, above, contains false and defamatory statements because Shapiro knows that that not a single witness or document presented at Spanier's trial alleged that the former PSU President was ever informed of child abuse.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><b>1. Spanier did not "turn a blind eye to child abuse."</b></p><p>Gary Schultz and Tim Curley testified that they told Spanier it was horseplay.</p><p>The key witness, Mike McQueary, never spoke to Spanier.</p><p>No emails or notes (from 1998 and/or 2001) show that Spanier was ever informed of child abuse. </p><p><b>2. Spanier did not "cover up Jerry Sandusky's abuse."</b></p><p>Aside from never being informed of "abuse," there is no evidence of a cover-up. </p><p>If this were an actual cover up, the eyewitness would have been sworn to silence (and possibly paid off), there would have been no emails or notes to find, and the University's lawyer would not have been looped in. </p></blockquote><p>Instead, Spanier and others communicated openly about the incident on email, Schultz kept notes about the meetings, the University General Counsel reviewed the incident, the incident was reported to The Second Mile, and the eye-witness, Mike McQueary, was not told to keep quiet. </p><p>There was no cover-up -- at least not by Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and Paterno.</p><p>And, by the way, what would the motive be to cover-up the crimes of a person who is no longer an employee, coach, or otherwise has no real involvement with the University?</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">The Real Cover-Ups</span></b></p><p>The real cover-ups in the Spanier case were carried out by officials of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (PA OAG), the Pennsylvania State Police, Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS), officials of The Second Mile (TSM), former PSU high ranking officials, and former FBI Director Louis Freeh. </p><p>All of these groups took part in covering up (or not disclosing) exculpatory evidence.</p><p>Based on multiple sources of evidence, it became absolutely clear that Freeh, the PA OAG, the PSP, and some former high ranking PSU officials collaborated to frame Spanier and others for a "cover-up" of Sandusky's sexual victimization of children.</p><p>Former FBI Director Louis Freeh's role in the cover-up was making a proclamation to a world-wide audience that his investigative team discovered the 1998 and 2001 emails, as well as the so-called secret file of Gary Schultz. </p><p>Freeh's July 2012 false statements further cemented the media's PSU "cover-up" narrative.</p><p>However, by July 2013, most intelligent people came to the realize that Freeh's statements were false. No one from his investigative team testified to recovering the emails or the Schultz file at the preliminary hearing of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. </p><p>In fact, at that hearing, PSU IT employee John Corro testified to <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2020/01/diary-entries-point-to-2001-email-fraud.html">recovering the 1998 and 2001 emails in Schultz's email archive</a> (in March/April 2011) -- however, there is not, nor has there ever been, a proper chain of custody for those emails.</p><p>According to court records, Corro turned the emails over to disgraced, former PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin. Baldwin, according to court records, promised to turn the emails over to the PA OAG and the grand jury judge by 15 April 2011. </p><p>Nothing on the public record shows that Baldwin made the transfer. </p><p>That said, the June 2014 Moulton Report confirmed that the Penn State emails were in possession of the PSP in July 2011 -- therefore, Baldwin turned them over to the court, the PA OAG, and/or the PSP prior to July 2011. </p><p>In October 2012, Baldwin testified that she didn't know about the emails until the Freeh Report was published -- even though she had been before the court discussing the emails in April 2011.</p><p>However, the leak of the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qTeZanImCrewBy3pr8-UHPJDzKMl_0nR/view">McChesney diary</a> revealed that the 1998 emails were being circulated among PSU officials in mid-February 2012 and that the PSP possessed the emails at that time -- this was prior to Freeh's alleged discovery of March 20, 2012. </p><p>Similarly, in February and early March of 2012, McChesney's notes detail <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2020/01/bombshell-exculpatory-evidence-removed.html">discussions about the Schultz file</a> that allegedly wasn't discovered by Freeh until May 1, 2012. The notes state that the Schultz's file was <i><b>"thick file missing - lot's of people said stuff was there."</b></i></p><p>And this bombshell:</p><p><b style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif;">"<u>Exculpatory 2.26 email is on the top</u> & they came in the same order where he says they contacted cps</span></i></b></p><p>That line of the diary confirmed information I received from two different sources -- multiple years apart -- that PSU contacted CC CYS and TSM about the 2001 incident (and they covered up that fact).</p><p>This exculpatory email was undoubtedly buried and not provided as part of discovery in the case. </p><p>That fact should surprise no one. </p><p>Mike McQueary's "my words were slightly twisted" <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/10/potential-bombshell-feb-9th-meeting-was.html">email of November 2012</a> was withheld from discovery in the Sandusky case as well as the Spanier case. </p><p>These omissions of the email weren't by oversight or by accident. </p><p>McQueary's November 11th email was a problem for the PA OAG. McQueary's credibility was critical to preserving the case against Spanier. </p><p>To be clear, the PA OAG could obtain a conviction of Sandusky without McQueary's testimony, however, making the Sandusky case into a PSU cover-up case required McQueary to be a firm and credible witness. </p><p>That email was "lost" somehow, but then made an appearance during McQueary's civil case against PSU. Interestingly, McQueary didn't have to face any questioning over that email -- even though it was public information at the time of the Spanier trial. </p><p>Apparently, it never made it into the discovery evidence in that case and Shapiro, et al, got away with covering it up -- as well as using <b>other altered evidence</b> to convict Spanier.</p><p>What was Shapiro's motive?</p><p>He undoubtedly has his sights set on being governor and wants to have this high profile conviction on his resume. </p><p>While Shapiro may be taking a victory lap now, it's only a matter of time before he and his prosecutors are -- like Fina and Baldwin before them - in front of the disciplinary board for their dishonest prosecution of Spanier. </p>Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-25255126646558256082020-10-19T11:15:00.001-04:002020-10-19T16:39:46.996-04:00The New Trial for Jerry "Hail Mary"<p><i><b><span style="font-family: georgia;"> Attorney Al Lindsay struggled to convince the court that the AG-Freeh collaboration had any impact on the verdict, but at least he was right about investigating grand jury leaks. </span></b></i></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;"><i>By<br />Ray Blehar</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">October 19, 2020, 11:15 AM, EST</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The latest attempt to win a new trial for Jerry Sandusky was another Hail Mary pass.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNEgDmxuhJ_fH4PoMrafjnXO2PVkKMC37GSJv7CfcWYh-XIuO57oFXb5uXNtynH4RSi74ZYc7HDRWB73AAqPy6H0UuqBNKr4xI-bkI1MMNgWWgf0u5OKoNL1ImdZX0cN6YLtwpPbCgJes//" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img data-original-height="600" data-original-width="940" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNEgDmxuhJ_fH4PoMrafjnXO2PVkKMC37GSJv7CfcWYh-XIuO57oFXb5uXNtynH4RSi74ZYc7HDRWB73AAqPy6H0UuqBNKr4xI-bkI1MMNgWWgf0u5OKoNL1ImdZX0cN6YLtwpPbCgJes/w320-h204/image.png" width="320" /></a></div>During oral arguments on October 14th, Sandusky's attorney, Al Lindsay, raised several issues, some old and some new, as to why his client didn't receive a fair, but he failed to provide any real argument as to how the new evidence could have changed the outcome of the trial.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">For example, Lindsay argued that the diary of Kathleen McChesney confirmed that there was collaboration between the Freeh Group (FG) and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (PA OG) during the investigation. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">He also argued that newly discovered evidence showed that the FG had interviewed one of the Sandusky trial jurors. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">While Lindsay is correct that these things happened, he couldn't explain how any of them would have impacted outcome of the trial and instead fell back on the previously failed argument of a rushed trial.</div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Judge Olson</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><i>So, Mr. Lindsay, one of the important elements that we need to consider in </i><i>determining whether a new trial is is appropriate with on the basis of </i><i>after‐discovered evidence is that the evidence that was newly discovered is likely </i><i>to result in a different verdict. And in this case, even assuming what you say is </i><i>true, <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">is that enough for us to determine that the diary and subsequent documents is </span></i><i><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">sufficient to show that the verdict would have been different?</span> Or is the evidence </i><i>so overwhelming, that it would not result in a different verdict?</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Atty Lindsay</b></div><div><i>The question, one of the issues that came out, when you say that the evidence is so </i><i>overwhelming. One of the disturbing aspects of the diary and the other i</i><i>nvestigation that we've just done is how this matter was rushed to trial. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">It's </span></i><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><i>been our position throughout this matter, there are so many things that went wrong </i><i>in this particular case, but of all the things that went wrong, it was this rush to </i></span><i><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">trial.</span> And it we detail in our motion, the timing of this trial and how significant </i><i>that was. You actually had a situation which was very unusual Mr. Amendola, and co</i><i>counsel, Mr. Romminger, before the trial they had received according to Mr. </i><i>Amendola 12,000 pages of discovery several weeks before the trial, they petitioned </i><i>the court to withdraw, stating that we can't possibly defend effectively and it </i><i>would be a violation of the rules of Professional Conduct to proceed and they </i><i>wanted to withdraw and the judge said no, and so they went to trial. Mr. Amendola </i><i>correctly said that whatever no lawyer, Mr. Amendola suggests, could have possibly </i><i>defended this case of this magnitude with the time limitations put on by the court.</i></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Of course, that argument was raised in prior appeals and was defeated or otherwise inappropriate to be argued again -- as the court noted:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><b>Judge Bowes</b></div><div><i>I know so it hasn't that hasn't that <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">already been before this court</span>?</i></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><b>Atty Lindsay</b></div><div><i>It has to this extent, it was raised. It was raised by prior appeal. But <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">it was </span></i><i><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">dismissed </span>on ineffective assistance of counsel, because there was a question asked </i><i>on the Post Conviction Relief Act hearing, Mr. Amendola said, Would he have done </i><i>anything differently if he had more time? And he said no, so that the Superior </i><i>Court just threw that particular issue out, even though Mr. Cleland said it was a</i></div><div><i>good issue.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><div><b>Judge Bowes</b></div><div style="font-style: italic;">So, counsel, your time is running low. I just want to give you that heads up. You still have your rebuttal time on top. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">You have a couple minutes left</span>.</div><div style="font-style: italic;"><br /></div><div><b>Atty Lindsay</b></div><div style="font-style: italic;">Well, I just think that the allegations that we've raised are are <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">new. They're very, they're very grave</span>. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">I think they're very, very, very, very important</span>. And it deals with the grand jury, the grand jury leaks, the abuse, It also deals with the fact that there was this collusion between the Attorney General's Office and the Freeh people. I think I'll save up my my rest of my argument for rebuttal.</div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Again, Lindsay argues that new evidence and allegations are grave and very important, but he didn't articulate to the court how they would have impacted the trial or the verdicts.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The only good points that he made were regarding how the Pennsylvania justice system seemingly has no appetite to investigate grand jury abuses. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><b>Atty Lindsay</b></div><div><i>...I'd like to address something. I think it's really important what was raised by the Attorney General, and that is we have these allegations without specificity. And of course, the answer is, Yes, we do. Because we don't have subpoena power. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">This matter should have unquestionably been referred </span></i><i><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">to a special prosecutor.</span></i><i>The issue was in the Kane case, which is 35th statewide investigating jury, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">when there are colorable allegations or indications that the sanctity of the grand jury process has been breached those allegations warrant investigation and the appointment of a special prosecutor to conduct such an investigation is appropriate</span>. In this particular case, there are significant colorable allegations the first of all, there was sufficient colorable allegations that the original grand jury judge,<span style="background-color: #fcff01;"> Judge Feudale, appointed special prosecutors, those special prosecutors according to doctor Feudale said that the attorney general's office was not cooperating with them, and </span></i><i><span style="background-color: #fcff01;">so they didn't do anything</span>. Then in this particular case, the bizarre aspect of one of the many bizarre aspects is that the court accepted the testimony of <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">Frank Fina at trial that they conducted a sting operation because they were well aware that there were leaks coming out of the Attorney General's office. That is more evidence that there was colorable allegations of leaks</span>. We raised the allegations of leaks. We petitioned the grand jury judge to appoint a special prosecutor. It was denied. We in the course of this investigation, we requested the opportunity to subpoena the reporter Sarah Ganim, who received the one leak and Judge Cleland indicated that that would be appropriate in the event that we could show that quashal was a legitimate end of Grand Jury abuse. And so we produced that evidence and produced the cases. And of course, the most significantly are the Schultz case, Curley case, </i><i>and the Spanier case, which were decided by this court....</i></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><b>Judge Bowes</b></div><div><i>Mr. Lindsay, I hate to interrupt, but I just want to keep our focus on the issues </i><i>that are before us. And I know this is a complicated matter. And it's been subject </i><i>to numerous appeals. We're all aware of that, but are what you're talking about </i><i>now, <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">is that related to what you are seeking in terms of relief at this point in </span></i><i style="background-color: #fcff01;">time? diary,</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Atty Lindsay</b></div><div><i>Absolutely. In other words, I can't go out and get these individuals who are involved to talk to me to give me affidavits, and so forth. So the Commonwealth out of one side of their mouth, says he should have brought these witnesses in and told them what they say. I don't have subpoena power. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">The whole purpose of having this hearing is so that we can bring in the author of the diary. Is this legitimate? </span></i><i>So </i><i>that's why we asked for this hearing for it's a process that should have been conducted by a special investigator special investigation. But, you know, it's been that I for reasons which are incomprehensible as to why we have not gotten that investigation, I should not be the one doing this. This should be a special prosecutor doing this. <span style="background-color: #fcff01;">But since this, since no one will allow us to have a special prosecutor appointed, we asked for the opportunity to do that, to bring in witnesses to subpoena them concerning this virtual gushing of Grand Jury leaks</span>.</i></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, at the end of the day, Lindsay made the argument that a hearing was needed so that Kathleen McChesney could confirm the authenticity of the diary and, in doing so, confirm that secret grand jury information was being shared between the FG and the PA OAG.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But still no nexus between the leaks and the trial verdict. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The court correctly pointed out that Freeh was hired after the grand juries concluded their investigations of the Sandusky's sexual victimization of children. Moreover, the Freeh Report was published after the Sandusky trial concluded, thus it didn't impact the verdicts.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The fact of the matter is that the most obvious issues of misconduct during the Sandusky trial have never been raised by his legal defense teams.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Instead, they are throwing Hail Mary passes.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-82624104386242525512020-09-03T17:04:00.001-04:002020-09-26T09:36:59.480-04:00Baldwin Couldn't Keep Her Lies Straight<b><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Cynthia Baldwin's statements and court testimony are so full of contradictions that no reasonable person could find her to be credible -- and now her credibility will again be put to the test</span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
By<br />
Ray Blehar</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-small;">September 3, 2020, 5:04 PM EDT, Updated 5:22 PM</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Back in 2013, notpsu.blogspot.com's post titled "<a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/12/whos-telling-truth-baldwin-or-everyone.html">Who's Telling the Truth, Baldwin or Everyone Else</a>" recounted numerous examples of former Penn State University (PSU) General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin's testimony being contradicted by not only current and former PSU employees, but even by members of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG). </span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It's one thing to be contradicted by other individuals; however, it's worse when you contradict yourself.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And Baldwin did that many times over when she testified before the grand jury in October 2012, before the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) Hearing Committee in May 2018, and in her public statements about the case.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The good news for Penn Staters is that Baldwin's credibility is again on the line as a result of former grand jury judge <a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2020/08/26/pa-s-chief-justice-subject-of-disciplinary-investigation-as-speculation-over-affidavit-persists/">Barry Feudale filing complaint against a sitting Supreme Court Justice</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The <a href="https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/292/Affidavit-of-Barry-F.-Feudale-executed-C2.pdf">complaint</a> will do little to nothing to fix Baldwin's already tarnished reputation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In fact, it could make matters worse.</span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Lying, Incompetent, Illiterate, or a Combination of All Three </span></b></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">When reviewing Baldwin's testimony, it can become a real head scratcher.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It's really difficult to tell if she's lying, incompetent, illiterate, or a combination of all three.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">For example, Baldwin's October 2012 grand jury appearance came as the result of a proffer letter (from Frank Fina) that she signed on October 19, 2012. The letter stated she was under investigation and "may be prosecuted." See below.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-mpwoIejhQeyr4y_yDNdP1S1_DrKoLzQpuFuCmQqXZJKh1_mEQ_Q3yLQYiYwTL-Tcz5h9ueULm2azCt9njnZevsJhyphenhyphen_vBK2GsY7ElV2SmLuo2pSlz0c8beII4vfI4cngfHhZH_CXAguo/s1600/Proffer+highlights.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="1034" height="464" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-mpwoIejhQeyr4y_yDNdP1S1_DrKoLzQpuFuCmQqXZJKh1_mEQ_Q3yLQYiYwTL-Tcz5h9ueULm2azCt9njnZevsJhyphenhyphen_vBK2GsY7ElV2SmLuo2pSlz0c8beII4vfI4cngfHhZH_CXAguo/s640/Proffer+highlights.png" width="640" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">At the ODC hearing, Baldwin testified that she didn't know the OAG suspected her of criminal wrongdoing when she testified on October 26th.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The former justice told the hearing committee, <i><b>"I did learn that much later."</b></i></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The answer is not only incredible, but it borders on the bizarre.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Baldwin's testimony regarding how Spanier learned of the 1998 incident is also quite bizarre and makes no sense based on the facts in evidence at the time. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Here is her exchange with former OAG prosecutor Frank Fina (October 2012 grand jury at 24, 25):</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Fina: Okay. Well, tell us about the context, too, that these questions were likely to rise. In other words, at that point in time, March of 2011, is Graham Spanier fully aware that he is likely to be </b></span></i><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>asked about the 1998 investigation of Sandusky and the 2001 allegations of Mike McQueary?</b></span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i><br /></i><span style="text-align: center;"><i>Baldwin: <span style="background-color: yellow;">He is fully aware of both 1998 and what was then 2002</span> but, yes. He was very aware of those and there is – there is no doubt because at some point, I became aware of the 1998 and went to get the report.</i></span></b></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i><span style="background-color: white;">Fina: Okay. And let's talk about that. </span><span style="background-color: yellow;">You got the report from the 1998 investigation, I believe, in January of 2011, correct?</span></i><br /><i style="background-color: white;"><br /></i><i style="background-color: white;">Baldwin: Urn-hum. That is correct.</i><br /><i style="background-color: white;"><br /></i><i style="background-color: white;">Fina: And that copy of the report that you had,</i><i style="background-color: yellow;"> was it copied and given to Spanier or disbursed to Spanier, Schultz, Curley</i><i style="background-color: white;"> or tell us about that?</i><br /><i style="background-color: white;"><br /></i><i><span style="background-color: white;">Baldwin: </span><span style="background-color: yellow;">No. It was not disbursed</span><span style="background-color: white;"> 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.</span></i><br /><i style="background-color: white;"><br /></i><i><span style="background-color: white;">Fina: Okay. </span><span style="background-color: yellow;">Did he ever ask to – to read it</span></i><i style="background-color: white;"> or come to your office as far as you know and read it?</i><br /><i style="background-color: white;"><br /></i></b></span><br />
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><span style="background-color: white;">Baldwin: </span><span style="background-color: yellow;">No, he did not.</span></b></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Fina: Okay. Now, is he aware of that [1998] just from his conversations with you or did he become aware that he was getting that information from somewhere else as well?</b></span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i><br /></i><i>Baldwin: <span style="background-color: yellow;">He appeared to be getting the information from elsewhere</span>.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i><br /></i><i>Fina: Well, tell us, you know, what you come to understand.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i><br /></i><i>Baldwin: I came to understand that <span style="background-color: yellow;">he was having other discussions with Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz</span>.</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i><br /></i><i>Fina: Okay. That understanding – <span style="background-color: yellow;">tell us how clear it was. Was that what Spanier was telling you</span>?</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i><br /></i><i>Baldwin: <span style="background-color: yellow;">Correct.</span></i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">That situation is only possible if you are extremely gullible and also believe in time travel. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">First, why would Spanier tell Baldwin he knew about the 1998 incident and then turn around and lie about his knowledge of it, not once, but twice?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Next, a review of Curley and Schultz's grand jury testimony reveals that they had little to no recollection of the 1998 incident. Furthermore, neither man possessed any documents or notes about the 1998 incident that could have refreshed their memories during the time frame between January and April 2011. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The Schultz file was in the bottom drawer of Albert Horvath's desk. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The 1998 emails remained in an archived file that none of the men could access.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">There was no way that Schultz or Curley could have filled in Spanier on 1998 before he testified in the Spring of 2011. None of the emails and notes about 1998 were available prior to that fall.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Then Baldwin later gives contradictory testimony on how Spanier learned of 1998. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Baldwin October 2012 grand jury at 27, 28:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Baldwin: "<span style="background-color: yellow;">Everything that I knew was I was passing onto him</span> so that he would be aware of everything that was going on with this particular matter."</b></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Fina: "And when you say <span style="background-color: yellow;">by everything, you literally mean everything, right?</span>"</b></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Baldwin: "<span style="background-color: yellow;">I mean literally everything</span>."</b></span></i></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Literally everything -- except the 104 page 1998 police report. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Baldwin continued to testify that Spanier was fully informed about the 1998 incident. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The October 2012 grand jury exchange (at 59) between Baldwin and Fina addresses Spanier's preparations for his interviews with the OAG in March 2011 and grand jury appearance in April of that year.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Fina: As a result of you informing him that his e-mails were going to be subpoenaed, <span style="background-color: yellow;">did he stop communicating with you about the case by e-mail</span>?</b></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Baldwin: Not--no. To the extent he was communicating -- I mean he would either come down. <span style="background-color: yellow;">He would communicate by e-mail.</span> Very seldom would he pick up the phone and call.</b></span></i></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i>Fina: And in reference to other incidents than the one incident in the shower, in fact, <span style="background-color: yellow;">you had conversations with him as part of his interview with the authorities and his grand jury testimony that there was a 1998 incident</span>?</i></b></span></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span></i></div>
<div>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Baldwin: <span style="background-color: yellow;">He knew about the 1998 incident</span>. He knew about incidents from the newspaper, and he -- it is evident he knew about the shower too.</b></span></i></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Baldwin clearly threw Spanier under the bus so that he could be charged with perjury regarding his grand jury statements referencing 1998.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Based on that testimony, the PA Supreme Court pointed out that Baldwin should have known that Spanier's dishonesty before the court was not in alignment with University's interests to cooperate with the investigation. The court opined that Baldwin should have immediately informed Spanier that he needed to be represented by private counsel.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But she didn't.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In fact, Baldwin stated that she continued to represent Spanier all the way up to when he was charged.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Exchange from Baldwin October 2012 grand jury at 28:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Baldwin: "...My expectation as my job as General Counsel was <span style="background-color: yellow;">to keep Graham Spanier aware because he was not only President, he was a board member. So to keep him aware of everything that is going on</span> and his expectation was that I would keep him aware of everything that was going on."</span></b></i></div>
<div>
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></b></i></div>
<div>
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Fina: "That relationship and <span style="background-color: yellow;">that obligation never changed during this investigation did it</span>?</span></b></i></div>
<div>
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></b></i></div>
<div>
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Baldwin: "<span style="background-color: yellow;">No</span>."</span></b></i></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Hmmm.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">On April 11, 2011, Baldwin told grand jury Judge Barry Feudale that she represented the University solely. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But then she (and Feudale and Fina) allowed Spanier to testify under the guise that she was his attorney. Note that Feudale, in his affidavit, seemingly questioned the discipline meted out against Fina and Baldwin for violating attorney-client privilege and his right to counsel.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Why didn't Baldwin inform Spanier that she stopped representing him (because she knew he lied to OAG investigators about 1998)? And why didn't she advise Spanier to retain a private attorney?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">There are two answers: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">1) Baldwin was lying about Spanier's knowledge of 1998. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">2) Baldwin <a href="https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2020/08/pa-govt-baldwin-conspired-from-start.html">needed to be the attorney for PSU officials to ensure they could be entrapped by the OAG</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">More contradictions...</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In the Spring of 2012, Baldwin told an OPM investigator that <a href="http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/spanier-attorney-slams-cynthia-baldwin-in-statement,1430196/">Spanier was a "man of integrity"</a> in response to questioning during a security background check. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">She spoke highly of Spanier's "trustworthiness" and "good judgment."</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; text-align: center;">Then she hastily flip-flopped after the Freeh Report was released.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">From the<a href="https://www.pottsmerc.com/news/baldwin-told-feds-in-2012-spanier-was-trustworthy/article_f71634b7-e8f8-5083-a027-34c5464a47a3.html"> AP</a>:</span><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>"Baldwin's lawyer Charles De Monaco said Friday that <span style="background-color: yellow;">Baldwin's view of Spanier changed during the summer of 2012</span>, particularly after the release of a scathing report into the Sandusky matter produced by former FBI director Louis Freeh."</b></span></i></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Baldwin would later double down on the latter statement by going along with Fina's argument that she could testify against Spanier using the <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4728387/odc-pet-v-cynthia-a-baldwin/">crime-fraud exception</a> (Baldwin Respondent Brief at 37-44) and that their conversations were therefore not protected by attorney-client privilege. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">When Baldwin went along with the crime-fraud exception argument, she exposed that her prior grand jury testimony about Spanier's knowledge and purported lies about the 1998 incident had to be false.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">When you tell so many lies, they eventually catch up with you.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Accountability for Baldwin</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The PA Supreme Court went easy on Baldwin and determined her contradictions came as a result of incompetence. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Baldwin should have left well enough alone, but the former Supreme Court Justice continued her indignant behavior by airing a disciplinary complaint against Chief Justice Thomas Saylor.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And that could end up being one of her biggest mistakes. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><img alt="Thomas Saylor and Cynthia Baldwin" src="https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2020/08/Saylor-Baldwin-Article-202008261300.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" /></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8px;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><b>The racial complaint against Saylor could backfire, expose Baldwin's history of deception</b></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The Baldwin-Saylor case will end up as a "he said, she said." </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Baldwin's corroborating witnesses, former Grand Jury Judge Barry Feudale and former Chief Justice Ronald Castille, have sullied/and or dubious reputations. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Feudale was first stripped of Senior Judge status for his lack of objectivity (i.e., cozy relationship with Fina) and eventually taken off the bench for leaking secret court documents. Feudale filed the complaint against Saylor. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Castille defended Fina's misconduct in the Spanier case that eventually resulted in the prosecutor losing his law license. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Saylor will easily discredit Feudale and Castille.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Then all the Chief Justice has to do is put Baldwin's prior testimony and public statements on full display in order to impeach her credibility.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Saylor will show that nothing Baldwin says is credible. </span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-45385502668222171962020-08-16T10:56:00.002-04:002020-08-16T12:51:22.774-04:00PA Govt & Baldwin Conspired from the Start<i><b>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</b></i><br />
<i><b><br /></b></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFhNS-qFZXpi7BR8yNdV3DdmPNbHboNDvtSYmJSlF74WTO98Xpt4q65VUCQwFDAD9rl0xjhNX7HjRIVmCihsonBrRUD1TU5yW-X_Hiny9hGypXOniIFIdGwNiLnzYLybmsSpF5Eq5fORg/s1600/PA+Cabal.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="294" data-original-width="1068" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFhNS-qFZXpi7BR8yNdV3DdmPNbHboNDvtSYmJSlF74WTO98Xpt4q65VUCQwFDAD9rl0xjhNX7HjRIVmCihsonBrRUD1TU5yW-X_Hiny9hGypXOniIFIdGwNiLnzYLybmsSpF5Eq5fORg/s640/PA+Cabal.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>By</i><br />
<i>Ray Blehar</i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">August 16, 2020, 10:56 AM EDT</span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bnXMqRg1LWjInkdV_hMlr9bKN3Ogj-IN/view?usp=sharing">ODC v. Baldwin</a> 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.<br />
<br />
As such, there was no legitimate reason for the subpoenas to be routed to Baldwin -- especially Schultz's.<br />
<br />
There was an illegitimate one, however.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Driving Miss Daisy</span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
Former PSU public relations flack, Lanny Davis told <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190825182458/https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2012/02/penn_state_legal_counsel_cynth.html">Pulitzer prize winner Sara Ganim</a> 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.<br />
<br />
The story isn't completely true -- and there's more to the story.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Baldwin's underhandedness came to fruition when the men gave conflicting accounts at their pre-grand jury interviews.<br />
<br />
Baldwin Opinion at 40 (<b><i>my emphasis added)</i></b> :<br />
<br />
<i>Discrepancies between the testimonies of Curley, Schultz and Spanier </i><i>materialized <b>before any of the three testified before the grand jury</b>, evidencing actual </i><i>conflicts of interest. As noted herein, prior to the grand jury testimony of Curley and </i><i>Schultz on January 12, 2011, both witnesses were interviewed, accompanied by </i><i>Respondent, by an OAG investigator. The notes of these interviews reveal important</i><br />
<i>differences in their recollection of events and, critically, they reveal a divergence from </i><i>what Respondent reported that these individuals told her when she met with them to </i><i>determine whether she had a conflict of interest in representing them along with Penn </i><i>State.</i><br />
<br />
Baldwin Opinion at 42 (<i><b>my emphasis added</b></i>):<br />
<br />
<i>The substantial risk of <b>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</b>. 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.</i><br />
<br />
The PA Supreme Court opined that Baldwin's actions were merely incompetent, but the additional evidence shows it was dishonesty and deception.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Subpoena 1179</b></span></div>
<br />
The Supreme Court opinion also revealed that Curley, Schultz, Paterno, and Spanier were not named in Subpoena 1179. <b> </b>Only the University was directed to procure documents related to Sandusky's inappropriate conduct with young boys on campus.<br />
<br />
Subpoena 1179 required PSU to provide <i>(<b>my emphasis added</b>)</i>:<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">"Any and all records pertaining to the Sandusky incidents reported to occur <b>on or about March 2002 </b>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"</span></i></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></i></span>
<a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/04/baldwin-perjury-never-told-psu.html">Baldwin never mentioned Subpoena 1179</a> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Baldwin, in October 2012, testified that she alerted Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to the details of the subpoena and had them search for documents.<br />
<br />
Baldwin Opinion at 45-47 (<i><b>my emphasis added</b></i>) :<br />
<br />
<i>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 <b>find out if there</b></i><br />
<i><b>was any Sandusky -related materials so that we could turn them over to the Office of Attorney General</b>. 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.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>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?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>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.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>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?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Baldwin: Right. Yes.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Fina: What did he say?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Baldwin: No, he didn't have any materials.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Fina: And <b>your conversations with these three gentlemen; Schultz, Spanier, and Curley, were specific correct?</b> They involved emails, paper files, any information --</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Baldwin: <b>Anything that could – any document – documents that they had whether they be electronic or non[-]electronic.</b></i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>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?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Baldwin: They said they would check and get back to me.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
An <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bajNLF52WAFCAIl-f1GRVBvOZO-2m1u2/view?usp=sharing">affidavit filed by Schultz</a> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The truth is that Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were falsely charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice.<br />
<br />
The court's opinion (at 60) supports that fact (<i><b>my emphasis added</b></i>):<br />
<br />
<i>"<b>These administrators had no control over any responsive documents</b>, 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."</i><br />
<br />
Baldwin's fraudulent testimony was the only evidence used to charge Curley, Schultz, and Spanier with conspiracy to obstruct justice related to Subpoena 1179. <br />
<br />
The conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges were eventually <a href="https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/ncaa/penn-state-ex-officials-most-serious-charges-still-dismissed" rel="nofollow">dismissed due to Baldwin's and Fina's misconduct</a>.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The 1998 Police Report</span></b></div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Here is Baldwin's grand jury testimony about the 1998 police report (<i><b>my emphasis added</b></i>).<br />
<br />
<i>Fina: Okay. And let's talk about that. You got the report from the 1998 investigation, I believe, in January of 2011, correct?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Baldwin: Urn-hum. That is correct.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>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?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Baldwin: <b>No. It was not disbursed</b> 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.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Fina: Okay. Did he ever ask to – to read it or come to your office as far as you know and read it?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Baldwin: No, he did not.</i><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Baldwin's "legal" decision not to disburse the report was nonsense.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Those charges were dismissed in 2016 due to Baldwin's and Fina's misconduct.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Swearing In</span></b></div>
<br />
At the swearing in of Curley and Schultz on January 12, 2011, Baldwin gave a non-answer when she was asked who she represented.<br />
<br />
<i>Fina: "Judge, we're here on Notice 29. We have some witnesses to be sworn, Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Feudale: "Represented by?"</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Baldwin: "My name is Cynthia Baldwin, general counsel for Pennsylvania State University."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Feudale: "Will you be providing representation for both of those identified witnesses?"</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Baldwin: "[Schultz] is retired but was employed by the university and [Curley] is still an employee."</i><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
When asked about the representation mix up later, PSU PR flack Lanny Davis explained that Baldwin did "not remember hearing those answers."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Prior to Spanier's swearing in, then Supervisory Grand Jury Judge Barry Feudale asked Baldwin who she represented. The exchange follows:<br />
<br />
<i>Feudale: "...Cindy, just for the record, who do you represent?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Baldwin: "The university."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Feudale: "The university solely?"</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Baldwin: "Yes, I represent the university solely?</i><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
At that point, everyone in the room (except for Spanier) knew or should have known that Baldwin's presence was in violation of the <a href="https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=42&div=0&chpt=45&sctn=49&subsctn=0">grand jury statute</a>. <br />
<br />
But what happened next was even worse.<br />
<br />
Feudale asked Spanier if he had legal representation. The exchange follows:<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Feudale: "Sir, could you give us your name for the record, please?"</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Spanier: "Graham Spanier."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Feudale: "Sir, you're represented by counsel today?</i><br />
<i>Spanier: "Yes."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Feudale: "Could you just identify counsel."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Spanier: "Cynthia Baldwin, sitting behind me."</i><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Feudale Emails Erase All Doubt</span></b></div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
He defends Corbett and the indefensible slow pace of the Sandusky investigation:<br />
<br />
<i>"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..."</i><br />
<br />
His July 2013 email to Philadephia Inquirer reporters revealed his bias against PSU officials and that he had leaked information (<i><b>my emphasis added</b></i>).<br />
<br />
<i>"...when I started to hear comments from people (who seemed in the know) that the <b>Spanier/Curley/Schultz cases may not be prosecuted,</b> <b>the price (silence) was too high</b>."</i><br />
<br />
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 (<i><b>my emphasis added</b></i>).<br />
<br />
<i>"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." <b>You cannot put a price on your integrity</b>. if what I characterize ast he (sic) Sandusky el (sic) al cases are abandoned, it will be <b>a travesty of justice </b>unlike anything I have experienced in my professional career."</i><br />
<br />
The irony in the previous passage is simply overwhelming.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Coming soon: Baldwin Couldn't Keep Her Lies Straight</i>Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-56917907028582948512020-08-05T14:24:00.002-04:002020-08-05T14:46:07.809-04:00Lawyer Rebuts Baldwin's Racism Allegations<i><b>Lawyer dismantled Baldwin's argument by using her own record as a Supreme Court Justice </b></i><br />
<br />
<i>By</i><br />
<i>Ray Blehar</i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">August 5, 2020, 2:25 PM</span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrulmT0PUsX_Gweg3suFO9AMWe9A-jguGOzOp92Rf4aF6jRQW_eulPq-pUId3nPFizH_GoLD_zDOZamjAAlGZBvO7Q0KOJL8WG9F5R03utKo8Q5hCi37COeP2eI60xlm0iOCige5hs3_Y/s1600/Baldwin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="212" data-original-width="238" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrulmT0PUsX_Gweg3suFO9AMWe9A-jguGOzOp92Rf4aF6jRQW_eulPq-pUId3nPFizH_GoLD_zDOZamjAAlGZBvO7Q0KOJL8WG9F5R03utKo8Q5hCi37COeP2eI60xlm0iOCige5hs3_Y/s320/Baldwin.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Racial claims unsupported by Baldwin's record</span></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
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. <br />
<br />
She amazingly claimed that Justice Saylor -- <i>who recused himself from ruling on her case </i>-- 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.<br />
<br />
Vance, in an <a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2020/07/31/pa-supreme-court-chief-justice-saylors-record-speaks-for-itself/?cmp=share_twitter&fbclid=IwAR2_lPjEEwmvgM-7tlcSMA3GzzPlp74p0i-puTqX0tI5PXul_5Z7aB8FvEs&slreturn=20200705133931">op-ed for the Legal Intelligencer</a>, 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. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
From the column:<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">Nothing in her short jurisprudential history shows an overriding concern for issues uniquely relevant to minority communities; nor is there any evidence that she routinely disagreed with the majority view of the court on </span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333;">any</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"> issue—let alone those pertinent to minorities. Tellingly, while on the court, Baldwin authored a grand total of 16 opinions and statements dissenting in whole or in part from the majority’s perspective; by contrast, Saylor authored 52 such opinions and statements during the same period.</span></span></i><br />
<br />
Vance also attacked disgraced former Supervisory Grand Jury Judge Barry Feudale, who backed up Baldwin's claims about Saylor. From the column:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">According to a story first published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 24, Baldwin, who is Black, believes that the “unfair ordeal” that ultimately resulted in her public reprimand was the result of Saylor’s “bigotry.” In support of this grave allegation, Baldwin relies on an affidavit signed by former Judge Barry Feudale—the very same judge who oversaw the grand jury proceedings where Baldwin’s unethical conduct was permitted to continue unabated. The affidavit claims that during a 2012 conversation between the two men, Saylor demanded Feudale’s cooperation in the forthcoming investigation into Baldwin and allegedly insisted that disciplinary measures were necessary because “she caused … a lot of trouble when she was on the Supreme Court with her minority agenda.”</span></i></span><br />
<br />
Vance closed the column as follows (<i><b>my emphasis added</b></i>):<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Finally, Baldwin's allegations are predicated on a false premise -- namely, that she was treated unfairly. The fulll extent of Baldwin's multiple transgressions, which include conflict of interest and breach of confidentiality, are too lengthy to set forth in detail here; suffice it to say, however, that <b>a public reprimand was, if anything, a more lenient punishment that the circumstances of her case would ordinarily require</b>.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></i>
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">With this backdrop in mind, <b>the accusations leveled by the discredited duo of Baldwin and Feudale should be given the exactly the weight they deserve -- none</b>.</span></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Next: Baldwin Undermined Clients From StartRay Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-85442465204613601292020-07-30T09:59:00.000-04:002020-07-30T14:11:37.987-04:00Analysis: Court Was Wrong. Baldwin Dishonest...AND Incompetent. <i><b>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 </b></i><br />
<i><b><br /></b></i>
<i>By</i><br />
<i>Ray Blehar</i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">July 30, 2020, 9:59 AM EDT</span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
But the court was not well informed and instead wrote (Opinion at 66):<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The Disciplinary Board, having concluded that Respondent poses no danger</i><br />
<i>to the public or the profession and recognizing that her misconduct here <b>did not reflect</b></i><br />
<i><b>any dishonesty in the practice of law,</b> recommends that this Court neither suspend nor</i><br />
<i>disbar her. Instead, the Disciplinary Board recommends that this Court discipline </i><i>Respondent by and through a public censure.</i><br />
<i></i><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7rLy_VEqHLx8XtA4_-kxh1TpMKWwNx1zUjUVYrfmrQ5Xxoruz3zZBZiFCDNPmwt_SLfzvwrNiCHF6qjcykbbVsauSGyCP9lvXpHJSaMtFe2gbd2akmrg5tv44IfHIsfk7nfb2lwAiwIw/s1600/Baldwin+and+Fina.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="193" data-original-width="261" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7rLy_VEqHLx8XtA4_-kxh1TpMKWwNx1zUjUVYrfmrQ5Xxoruz3zZBZiFCDNPmwt_SLfzvwrNiCHF6qjcykbbVsauSGyCP9lvXpHJSaMtFe2gbd2akmrg5tv44IfHIsfk7nfb2lwAiwIw/s320/Baldwin+and+Fina.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Fina, Baldwin, & others undermined the justice system</span></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
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.<br />
<br />
And the same goes for Frank Fina, who got off easy with a license suspension of one year and one day.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Opinion at 64 (<i><b>emphasis added</b></i>):<br />
<br />
<i>"Moreover, Fina’s testimony at the Hearing Committee’s evidentiary proceedings,</i><br />
<i>in which he suggested that she was a target in an “aggressive investigation” regarding</i><br />
<i>possible obstruction of justice charges against her for failure to comply with the subpoena</i><br />
<i>duces tecum, is itself questionable. A review of the transcript of Respondent’s grand jury</i><br />
<i>testimony reflects that Fina’s questioning plainly does not reflect any “aggressive</i><br />
<i>investigation” of possible criminal wrongdoing by Respondent. Other than having</i><br />
<i>Respondent confirm that neither Curley, Schultz nor Spanier provided her with any</i><br />
<i>Sandusky-related documents upon her request, Fina did not question Respondent</i><br />
<i>regarding the slow pace of Penn State’s production of documents responsive to the</i><br />
<i>subpoena duces tecum while Respondent was primarily responsible for compliance. In</i><br />
<i>this regard, it is significant that <b>Fina asked Respondent no questions relating to the grand</b></i><br />
<i><b>jury’s finding, as set forth in its Grand Jury Presentment, that upon service of the</b></i><br />
<i><b>subpoena duces tecum on Penn State in January 2011, it had not been sent to Penn</b></i><br />
<i><b>State’s specialized SOS unit or any other information technology professionals to collect</b></i><br />
<i><b>documents (including emails) related to Sandusky matters.</b> Grand Jury Presentment at</i><br />
<i>23. As previously described, <b>Fina’s questioning of Respondent focused almost</b></i><br />
<i><b>exclusively on implicating Curley, Schultz and Spanier for their efforts to avoid the</b></i><br />
<i><b>disclosure of incriminating documents and not on any wrongdoing by Respondent</b>.</i><br />
<br />
The OAG's "Conspiracy of Silence" grand jury presentment, the Freeh Report, and Baldwin's statements/testimony about the gathering of evidence were misleading and/or untruthful.<br />
<br />
Based on analysis of the OAG's questioning of Curley, Schultz, and Paterno at the January 2011 grand jury, it was obvious that Baldwin had provided Fina and former OAG prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach with the so-called "secret file" from Schultz's office. To be clear, she had complied with Subpoena 1179 in a timely manner.<br />
<br />
Evidence from the July 2013 preliminary hearing of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier confirmed that Baldwin used the SOS to collect emails. <br />
<br />
PSU SOS employee John Corro confirmed that Baldwin approached her in March or April of 2011 to search for emails responsive to a grand jury subpoena. He further testified that he provided 3 USB drives containing the emails to Baldwin.<br />
<br />
At the Spanier grand jury colloquy of April 11, 2011, Baldwin admitted that the PSU IT department (a.k.a., the SOS) was gathering emails responsive to Subpoena 1179 and would gather additional emails from 1997 and earlier that were responsive to newly issued Subpoena 109. <br />
<br />
The former justice also told the court that all responsive materials would be provided to the court and the OAG by April 15, 2011. <br />
<br />
The Moulton Report confirmed that a USB drive of Penn State emails was provided to the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) in July 2011. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Baldwin Fought Release of Docs To Freeh in Dec 2011</span></b></div>
<br />
Some have contended that the Penn State emails provided to the PSP did not contain the so-called "smoking gun" emails purportedly found by Louis Freeh. Recall that Freeh claimed his team found the 1998 and 2001 emails in March 2012.<br />
<br />
Freeh's claim went belly up when the <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oj0NxmnwqmtJysIa8DJbstgIbwcrCb5_">diary of Kathleen McChesney</a> revealed that 1998 emails were being distributed to key members of the Board of Trustees in February 2012 -- at least a month before Freeh's purported discovery of them.<br />
<br />
The diary further revealed that that <span style="text-align: center;">Baldwin possessed a large volume of documents related to the Sandusky case in her Old Main office and was reluctant to release them to Freeh's investigators.</span><br />
<br />
Freeh's team had been trying to get the documents from Baldwin since December 12th and had become frustrated by the "delay/impasse." On December 19th, Freeh reached out to Special Investigation Task Force Co-Chairs Ken Frazier and Ron Tomalis to advise them of Baldwin's intransigence.<br />
<br />
Baldwin's reluctance to provide documents to Freeh ultimately resulted in Fina sending a letter admonishing the PSU Counsel for her "lengthy history of non-compliance" with subpoenas.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The letter undoubtedly forced her hand.<br />
<br />
The very next day, on December 20th, a diary entry shows that Freeh's team was headed to Baldwin's office with boxes to collect the materials. Email correspondence from that time confirmed that "things were moving along."<br />
<br />
The email chains also revealed the Fina's seemingly letter prompted Baldwin's "retirement" as PSU general counsel.<br />
<br />
<br />
<img height="356" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbPtDkAB988dmVemqVy_WddkOoaSW1LbmAWvaK6JtTqVLMFIJFjob4Y90mcqUuxBtNV2CNxtvZu8bFoYfsKS2GHW9zuE7d0QXNvCumZlpr0pVOg5nic-VuKUfTjrM3mMo5594wn-5kQ0g/s640/Baldwin+Grand+Jury+Slide.png" width="640" /><br />
<br />
<br />
In February 2012, even though she turned over emails and documents to the OAG and Freeh, Baldwin told Freeh's investigators that she never searched for materials responsive to the grand jury subpoenas.<br />
<br />
This evidence is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Baldwin's dishonesty during the scandal, but is certainly sufficient enough to show that the PA Supreme Court got it wrong.<br />
<br />
Baldwin was not simply "in over her head" or merely "incompetent."<br />
<br />
The evidence shows she was continuously dishonest about when and how the emails and documents related to the case were obtained and was part of the effort to frame PSU officials for conspiracy to obstruct the Sandusky investigation.<br />
<br />Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-6624517585153914262020-05-09T18:55:00.003-04:002020-05-10T09:26:01.275-04:00Latest FBI Misconduct Mirrors PA OAG Missteps in Spanier Case<i><b>Court documents related to the Flynn case show that top FBI officials did not have sufficient predicate to conduct investigation and withheld exculpatory evidence...the same happened in the Spanier case and other cases</b></i><br />
<br />
<i>By<br />Ray Blehar</i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">May 9, 2020 6:56 PM EDT</span><br />
<br />
According to <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6936-michael-flynn-motion-to-dismiss/fa06f5e13a0ec71843b6/optimized/full.pdf">court filings in the case of former National Security Advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn</a>, the FBI head of counter-intelligence Bill Priestap framed the impending interview of Flynn in this manner (my <i><b>emphasis added</b></i>):<br />
<br />
<div class="l-col__main" style="box-sizing: border-box; flex: 1 1 0px; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<div class="c-entry-content " style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.2rem; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">“What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him <b>or get him fired?</b>"</span></i></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">That statement, among other evidence, proved their was insufficient predicate to continue investigating Flynn. The subsequent interview of Flynn wasn't being conducted to determine if Flynn was guilty of anything, but rather to induce Flynn to commit a crime...."or get him fired." </span></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The "or get him fired" part of the statement completely damned the FBI and DOJ actions in the case.</span></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">When have you ever heard of law enforcement officials wanting to get people fired??</span></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">For readers of this blog, the answer is in October 2010 when former </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small; font-style: inherit;">PA Attorney General </span><a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/08/were-politics-deciding-factor-in.html" style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit;">Tom Corbett vowed that that he would eventually cause the removal of PSU President Graham Spanier</a>. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small; font-style: inherit;"> From that point forward, the Jerry Sandusky criminal investigation grew legs and got moving. </span></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-size: 18px; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>Just as in the case of Lt. Gen. Flynn, PA OAG prosecutors and investigators had no direct evidence that tied Spanier to Jerry Sandusky but persisted forward with questioning of Spanier. The prosecutors then put Spanier before the grand jury with the hopes of catching him in a lie.<br />
<br />
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
PA prosecutors would eventually enlist former PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin to procure evidence that Spanier was untruthful. Spanier was eventually charged with multiple counts of perjury -- but those charge were rightfully dropped because Spanier's rights were violated.</div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit;">Similarly, Flynn's right to a fair trial were violated when the FBI and DOJ withheld evidence that resulted in Flynn's offering of a guilty plea. To be clear, had Flynn possessed that evidence, he would not have pleaded guilty. </span></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
As the <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1oj0NxmnwqmtJysIa8DJbstgIbwcrCb5_?usp=drive_open">McChesney Diary</a> revealed, the PA OAG withheld an <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2020/01/bombshell-exculpatory-evidence-removed.html">exculpatory email and other evidence regarding the 2001 shower incident</a>.</div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
Had the prosecutors shared that information as required by discovery rules, neither Tim Curley nor Gary Schultz would have ever pleaded guilty to child endangerment. It's also quite obvious that Spanier would never have been convicted had his legal team known about the exculpatory email.</div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
Sadly, the incidents of misconduct at the FBI and the PA OAG aren't isolated cases.</div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<span style="font-style: inherit;">If you recall, notpsu.blogspot.com referred to the Sandusky Scandal as Duke Lacrosse on steroids. </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit;"> In the Duke case, District Attorney Mike Nifong was eventually disbarred </span><a href="https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1253&context=faculty_publications" style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit;">withholding exculpatory DNA evidence in that case</a><span style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit;">. </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit;">The linked column discusses </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit;">twelve other North Carolina cases where discovery violations led to convictions being overturned</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit;">.</span></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<span style="font-style: inherit;">The <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellekaminsky/2019/02/28/making-a-murderer-update-what-steven-averys-appellate-win-means/#3f6953e153ac">Making of a Murderer</a>, a documentary of the Manitowoc, Wisconsin case of Steven Avery, exposes how the police and prosecutors failed to provide exculpatory evidence to Avery's legal team during his Post-Conviction Relief Appeal of a sexual assault. The documentary paints the picture that top Manitowoc law enforcement officials, some who were related to Avery, had a vendetta against him. Avery was eventually exonerated by that DNA in the sexual assault case. Avery was eventually arrested, tried and convicted for a murder years later. He won a 2019 appeal in the case because prosecutors failed to test the bones for DNA.</span></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<span style="font-style: inherit;">Avery could receive a new trial if his legal team can prove that law enforcement acted in bad faith.</span></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
Steven Avery was the son of a junk yard owner with limited means. <span style="font-family: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;">He was an easy target. </span></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
However, the other cases reveal that no one is safe -- not Generals, not University Presidents, nor star college athletes -- when top law enforcement officials decide to use the criminal justice system to advance personal and/or political agendas.</div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<br /></div>
<div id="ZRVp1m" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit;">
<i>Coming soon: Conspiracy Theories and Glass Houses</i></div>
</div>
</div>
Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-71978706075067914282020-04-18T10:16:00.000-04:002020-04-18T10:16:22.587-04:00Ray Blehar's Recent Interview on The Opperman Report<b><i>In this interview, we discuss the McChesney diary and the disciplinary cases against Frank Fina and Cynthia Baldwin</i></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCOBmkPboH405oZ47GQK419AFor1QImT3g6jyuKdEK1HBLAq-ZgmiLBKjvEY8M4O6PFZlKpKyOUdgj1vv89a_P72B2wOOqfYiirLbzFaVZ_liAFfP-9AgmQ3xYwg4az6ofbm9O7xKBeMA/s1600/Opperman+4.18.2020.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="189" data-original-width="962" height="123" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCOBmkPboH405oZ47GQK419AFor1QImT3g6jyuKdEK1HBLAq-ZgmiLBKjvEY8M4O6PFZlKpKyOUdgj1vv89a_P72B2wOOqfYiirLbzFaVZ_liAFfP-9AgmQ3xYwg4az6ofbm9O7xKBeMA/s640/Opperman+4.18.2020.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="https://www.spreaker.com/user/oppermanreport/ray-blehar-sandusky-second-mile-penn-sta?fbclid=IwAR1griNnTp0TRhJvri1plHmvSkC4trLwY-L0cFg9I3X81VZaWNSRUXJck64">https://www.spreaker.com/user/oppermanreport/ray-blehar-sandusky-second-mile-penn-sta?fbclid=IwAR1griNnTp0TRhJvri1plHmvSkC4trLwY-L0cFg9I3X81VZaWNSRUXJck64</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-83069560108757371092020-03-13T13:24:00.002-04:002020-03-14T08:38:37.199-04:00Emmert & NCAA Board Blow Call on Tournaments<b><i>Mark Emmert and the NCAA again rushed to judgment in penalizing athletes and harming communities</i></b><br />
<br />
<i>by</i><br />
<i>Ray Blehar</i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">March 13, 2020, 1:25 PM EDT, Updated March 14, 8:30 AM EDT</span><br />
<br />
Yesterday morning, notpsu.blogspot.com <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2020/03/ncaa-b1g-others-should-suspend-tourneys.html">opined that the NCAA and conferences should suspend play until the nation overcomes the coronavirus pandemic and then resume play later in the year</a>. That solution would not have endangered the health of the athletes and would have allowed for communities to reap the financial benefits of hosting the tournament.<br />
<br />
However, instead of a suspension, Mark Emmert and the Board of Governors decided to <a href="http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-cancels-remaining-winter-and-spring-championships">cancel the remaining winter athletic seasons and spring championships</a>.<br />
<br />
The move is reminiscent of Emmert's and the Executive Board's rush to judgment in penalizing Penn State Athletics based on highly questionable data furnished by former FBI Director Louis Freeh.<br />
<br />
Given the time frame of the decision, this was a knee jerk reaction. Emmert and the NCAA Board did even less research on this issue that it did in the PSU case.<br />
<br />
In that case, former Executive Committee Chair Ed Ray <a href="https://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_1330de2c-9d42-11e4-88f4-a322272a98c9.html">admitted to not reading the Freeh Report</a> and emails (obtained in the Corman case) revealed his decisions were driven by media reports and reader comments. As a result of the Corman litigation, the NCAA reversed some of its decisions, notably the restoration of wins for the PSU football program.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
What could not be reversed, however, was the NCAA's punishment of PSU athletes who had done absolutely nothing wrong and were not permitted to fight back.<br />
<br />
The difference this time around is that the college athletes are not prohibited from -- and are -- fighting back. So should the communities who planned on hosting tournaments.<br />
<br />
Right now, there is a <a href="https://www.change.org/p/ncaa-let-ncaa-athletes-get-a-year-of-eligibility-back?use_react=false">petition for athletes to receive a fifth year of eligibility</a> from the NCAA.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Update: At 2:30 PM on Friday, the NCAA announced it is working to provide "</b><a href="https://twitter.com/InsidetheNCAA/status/1238532876221775876" style="font-weight: bold;">eligibility relief</a><b>" for spring sport athletes. No such accommodations have been made for winter sport athletes.</b></i><br />
<br />
Nick Albicocco created a well reasoned petition more along the lines of notpsu's approach of <a href="https://www.change.org/p/ncaa-move-the-ncaa-tournament-march-madness-to-a-future-month?recruiter=509744042&recruited_by_id=47c63b50-ebc0-11e5-b036-2755cd56e90d">moving the tournament to a future date</a>. <br />
<br />
Please consider signing and/or sharing.Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-53002065524211738612020-03-12T10:20:00.000-04:002020-03-13T12:44:32.365-04:00NCAA, B1G, & Others Should Suspend Tourneys Right Now<b><i>Emmert's and Warren's decisions to continue play in nearly empty arenas is unsafe (and greedy)</i></b><br />
<br />
<i>by<br />Ray Blehar</i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">March 12, 2020, 10:20 AM EDT, Updated 11:00 AM & 1:26 PM EDT; Updated March 13, 2020, 12:45 PM EDT</span><br />
<br />
Last night, the <a href="https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/28887560/nba-suspends-season-further-notice-player-tests-positive-coronavirus">National Basketball Association (NBA) suspended play</a> after it was learned that Utah Jazz's Rudy Gobert tested positive for the coronavirus. <br />
<br />
The league really had no choice, given that <a href="https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2762808/incubation-period-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-from-publicly-reported">it takes approximately two weeks to develop symptoms</a> and in that time frame the Jazz played (and possibly infected) the Boston Celtics, Washington Wizards, Cleveland Cavaliers, New York Knicks, Detroit Pistons, and Toronto Raptors.<br />
<br />
All of those teams and players are possibly infected and so are their opponents from the last two weeks.<br />
<br />
The NBA was absolutely, 100 percent correct to shut it down and wait until the virus subsides to resume play.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Big Ten and the NCAA who have decided to take the risk that no athletes are infected and to <a href="http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-institute/ncaa-coronavirus-resources">continue play in nearly empty arenas</a>.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The health risk to athletes is real. <br />
<br />
At Wednesday night's late game between Nebraska and Indiana, Husker coach <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigten/2020/03/12/big-ten-tournament-fred-hoiberg-illness-hospital-coronavirus-concerns/5029639002/">Fred Hoiberg fell ill and left the game</a> in the second half. After the game, the Husker team was quarantined in the locker room until after midnight.<br />
<br />
Hoiberg was later tested and found to be suffering from the flu. However, there was no mention of whether he was tested for coronavirus.<br />
<br />
All it takes is one confirmed case of a player, coach, or staffer to knock out a swath of teams, just as it did in the NBA. March Madness could quickly become March Meekness.<br />
<br />
The NCAA recognized the situation is fluid and reserved the option to change course per the direction of its <a href="http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-establishes-coronavirus-advisory-panel">advisory panel of medical experts</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #495057;"><i>“Given the fluid situation, the advisory panel will meet regularly and provide valuable insight and expertise as the Association navigates this complicated public health challenge.”</i></span><i> </i></span><br />
<br />
While March Madness is an American tradition, the novelty of it doesn't come from the calendar. It comes from the excitement of filled arenas and watching great competition. If the virus infects NCAA athletes, neither is possible.<br />
<br />
The NCAA's and B1G's decision appears to be a head scratcher -- until you look at the money. And in big time college athletics money is television contracts and advertising revenue. So while the NCAA and Conferences will get their money up front, local businesses will lose that revenue forever.<br />
<br />
Pushing back the tournament a month or two is the better option, not just for health reasons but for economic reasons.<br />
<br />
I'll take a healthy May Madness that profits many over an unhealthy March Meekness that only profits the NCAA and the Conferences.<br />
<br />
<b>Update: The Big Ten <a href="https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/2020/03/big-ten-mens-basketball-tournament-cancelled-due-to-coronavirus.html">canceled its tournament</a> at 11:43 AM EST</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Update: The NCAA <a href="http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-cancels-remaining-winter-and-spring-championships">canceled its tournaments</a> at 4:07 PM EST</b>Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-85301301830517382392020-02-21T21:27:00.001-05:002020-02-23T11:04:48.754-05:00Fina & Baldwin Are Just the Beginning<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>The decisions to suspend Frank Fina's law license and to publicly reprimand Cynthia Baldwin are just the beginning of a long line of disciplinary actions to come against current and former OAG officials</b></span></i><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>By</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Ray Blehar</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-small;">Feb 21, 2020. 9:27 PM EST, Updated Feb 23 at 11:04 AM EST</span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSMJvw_7SD0QAOnOrqIfd6rQoK-X9_5-kSW0haXiOGy4mjaJJj4" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Image result for Fina Baldwin punished" border="0" height="295" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSMJvw_7SD0QAOnOrqIfd6rQoK-X9_5-kSW0haXiOGy4mjaJJj4" width="400" /></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">On February 20th, the Supreme Court meted out some long overdue punishment for former Penn State University (PSU) General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin and former <a href="https://www.lewistownsentinel.com/news/pa-news-apwire/2020/02/sandusky-prosecutor-former-lawyer-punished/">Deputy Attorney General (DAG) prosecutor Frank Fina</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Fina will lose his law license for one year and one day, which forces him to reapply for a license. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Baldwin will be publicly scolded on April 21 at 10 AM at 819 City County Building at 414 Grant Street in Pittsburgh.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Neither Baldwin nor Fina expressed any remorse over their misconduct. Fina's attorney, Joe McGettigan, vowed to take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Aside from the discipline, the most significant feature of Fina's ruling was its language that gives rise for filing additional complaints against the cabal of corrupt prosecutors who handled the cases of Penn State officials. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Justice Wecht wrote (my <i><b>emphasis</b></i> added):</span><br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"The hearing Committee concluded that, because Fina's name was not listed on the subpeona issued to Baldwin, Fina had not committed the threshold act of subpoenaing an attorney.....The Disciplinary Board, however, rejected the committee's interpretation of Rule 3.10. Instead the Board stated that the reference to "a public prosecutor" in the Rule <b>encompassed the OAG as the prosecuting body."</b></span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span></i>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>"Turning to the conduct that led to this disciplinary action, I emphasize that the prosecutor has a special and distinctive role in our system of justice. Unlike other lawyers, the prosecutor is more than a zealous advocated for a client. The prosecutor bears as well the high and non-delegable duty of <b>ensuring a fair process for the defendant</b> </i><b><i>and of comporting himself or herself always in a manner consistent with the position of public trust."</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />And:</span><br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"As an officer of the court, the prosecutor has the r<b>esponsibility to serve the public interest to 'seek justice within the bounds of the law</b>, not merely to convict..."</span></i><br />
<br />
OAG prosecutors Fina, Jonelle Eshbach, Patrick Schulte, and Bruce Beemer were complicit in undermining a fair process for the PSU defendants and undermining confidence in the justice system. AG Josh Shapiro also should be held accountable for his failure to ensure that Schulte and Laura Ditka (now deceased) comported themselves within the Rules of Professional Conduct at the trial of former PSU President Graham Spanier.<br />
<br />
At a minimum, Eshbach withheld potentially <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20200223155315/http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/MCQUEARY%20PLAINTIFFS%20EXHIBITS%20FROM%20JURY%20TRIAL.pdf">exculpatory information</a> (i.e., <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/10/correcting-record-part-1-mcquearys-2001.html">a November 2011 email</a>) regarding the credibility of witness Mike McQueary (see <a href="https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-attorneys/rules/rule/3/the-rules-of-professional-conduct#">Pa.R.P.C. 3.4.b.</a>).<br />
<br />
Schulte knowingly elicited false testimony from the John Doe witness during the Spanier case when he allowed that Doe was sexually assaulted by Jerry Sandusky (see <a href="https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-attorneys/rules/rule/3/the-rules-of-professional-conduct#">Pa.R.P.C. 3.4.b.</a>). The court records from the Sandusky case prove that Doe was not sexually assaulted nor indecently assaulted.<br />
<br />
Beemer obfuscated the actual dates of the recovery of the PSU emails and the Schultz file used as evidence in the conviction of Spanier (see <a href="https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-attorneys/rules/rule/3/the-rules-of-professional-conduct#">Pa.R.P.C. 3.3</a>). Beemer, et al, also failed to correct the record when Louis Freeh claimed to discover the emails.<br />
<br />
Finally, AG Josh Shapiro, who is famous for saying "no one is above the law," should also face disciplinary action because he made <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2019/05/spanier-response-to-shapiro-statement.html">numerous misstatements of fact in his public response to Spanier's conviction being vacated</a>. Shapiro celebrated the conviction of Spanier along with prosecutors Schulte and Laura Ditka (now deceased). However, Shapiro had a supervisory duty to ensure the prosecutors complied with the RPC -- and evidence shows they didn't (see <a href="https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-attorneys/rules/rule/3/the-rules-of-professional-conduct#">Pa.R.P.C. 5.1.b.</a>).<br />
<br />
The punishments of Baldwin and Fina were long-awaited victories for the Penn State alumni who filed the complaints and for all Penn Staters who won't be satisfied until the University's reputation is restored and justice is served.Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-29010502189357333352020-02-06T19:25:00.001-05:002020-02-07T12:44:12.068-05:00Diary: The Incredible Shrinking Schultz File<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i>Kathleen McChesney's diary and other evidence prove multiple copies of the Schultz file existed and that information was removed from it to frame PSU officials</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>By</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Ray Blehar</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">February 6, 2020, 7:25 PM EST, Update 2/7/2020 at 9:54 AM EST</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1oj0NxmnwqmtJysIa8DJbstgIbwcrCb5_">diary of Kathleen McChesney</a> and other evidence confirm that Louis Freeh's investigators not only didn't find the so-called Schulz secret file, but that multiple copies of Schultz's file were held by numerous groups and that records were removed in an effort to subvert justice.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">First, a diary entry of March 30, 2012 states:</span><br />
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Concerned about Schultz sensitive files not having Sandusky stuff, thick file missing - lots of people said there was file there."</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Evidence shows that "lots of people" handled the Schultz file, including the Penn State University (PSU) General Counsel (GC), the Office of Attorney General (OAG), members of the Special Investigations Task Force (SITF), the Freeh Group and lawyers from the Duane Morris and Reed Smith law firms. </span><br />
<br />
In the PSU v. PMA case, Schultz's former administrative assistant Joan Coble was deposed and asked to verify information purportedly from the Schultz file. The PSU legal team included Freeh Exhibit 2F as part of the Schultz file.<br />
<div>
<br />
According to all available court filings, that exhibit was not among the information turned over to the OAG by Schultz and Belcher, but it was purported to be part of the file in 2016.<br />
<br />
This is another smoking gun of evidence mishandling on the part of Fina and Baldwin. Fina got away with similar <a href="http://web.archive.org/save/https://www.courthousenews.com/convicted-lawmaker-says-it-was-so-unfair/">sloppy evidence handling</a> in the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20180119010314/https://www.courthousenews.com/pas-ex-governor-corbett-clears-suit-computergate-target/">Computergate</a> and <a href="http://web.archive.org/save/https://www.pottsmerc.com/news/pa-ag-says-e-mail-battle-may-doom-corruption-case/article_41765ba5-9a02-5d29-a754-bcd699877b8c.html">Bonusgate</a> cases. </div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">Next, a February 1, 2012 entry states: </span><b><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Schultz records taken by law firm."</span></i></b><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><i><br /></i></b>Backing up one day to January 31st, the diary of former PSU President Rodney Erickson confirmed that he was attempting to obtain copies of notes obtained from <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2016/02/freeh-source-materials-confirm-curley.html">Curley</a> and Schultz.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgERgCwAYHq0UhkCXpw3QzO6-3NhgmYVT6UVezXjpp16YGBDJbjYrDKO95FCt1DaDdqPZIEvnc0fl3Ob4DY8N_yUt6I1zhA-yzPpOPI01IHVyFazvf04e3kka1pny8SUBOzsNrQHhdcBAo/s1600/Erickson+B-1+get+notes.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="165" data-original-width="640" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgERgCwAYHq0UhkCXpw3QzO6-3NhgmYVT6UVezXjpp16YGBDJbjYrDKO95FCt1DaDdqPZIEvnc0fl3Ob4DY8N_yUt6I1zhA-yzPpOPI01IHVyFazvf04e3kka1pny8SUBOzsNrQHhdcBAo/s640/Erickson+B-1+get+notes.png" width="640" /></span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">While some have argued that Erickson's references may not have been specific to the Schultz file, OAG Agent Anthony Sassano destroyed that argument on July 29, 2013. He testified that he received <i>his copy of the Schultz file</i> from Duane Morris</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Duane Morris formerly employed Cynthia Baldwin. When Baldwin took over as PSU GC in 2010, she put some of her former colleagues to work (under contract) for PSU. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi64vRfIT2vY4gEcgG5W8cnc4FVsQg6KqUctCQRQzXBSAeNIqmMy2MZbdzQiExN8Eu29n7TdqSFBhorCdFkzB5EE-9QpgsbjyyyjrLSdpNmqIeoAhHh70QppSl6bgh4SzQu-PlgCiOy-RM/s1600/Sassano+Duane+Morris_Secret+file.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="771" data-original-width="1093" height="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi64vRfIT2vY4gEcgG5W8cnc4FVsQg6KqUctCQRQzXBSAeNIqmMy2MZbdzQiExN8Eu29n7TdqSFBhorCdFkzB5EE-9QpgsbjyyyjrLSdpNmqIeoAhHh70QppSl6bgh4SzQu-PlgCiOy-RM/s640/Sassano+Duane+Morris_Secret+file.png" width="640" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Sassano did not give an exact date for when he received the file from Duane Morris, however he said it was after Gary Schultz and Tim Curley had been charged. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Belcher testified that she gave the Schultz file to the OAG staff in April of 2012.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
Why was it that the lead investigating agent (Sassano) got the file from Duane Morris instead of from the people in his own office? <br />
<br />
On February 16, 2012, the diary notes: <b><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Boxes of Inform from Schultz rev'd by Cloud/Sethman."</span></i></b><br />
<br />
Cloud and Sethman were members of the Freeh team.<br />
<br />
Another diary entry of February 27th states: <i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Per Frankie G: 3 Sandusky files in 2 sets of Schultz docs, Mustakoff imaging for LJF."</span></b></i><br />
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></b></i>
Frankie G. is Frank Guadagnino, an attorney for Reed Smith who was working under contract for the PSU GC at the time. Mike Mustakoff was an attorney for Duane Morris. Neither Guadagnino, Mustakoff, nor anyone else involved seem to care a whit about the Freeh group receiving secret investigative grand jury materials.<br />
<br />
Many hands touched the Schultz file and there is a major chain of custody issue surrounding all the evidence used in the prosecution of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.<br />
<br />
Without another criminal investigation into this matter, we will never know the full extent of information left out of the so-called Schultz secret file.<br />
<br />
That said, prior analysis by Notpsu confirmed some of the missing evidence and projects other missing evidence with high confidence.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Confirmed Missing</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Notpsu's analysis of the Freeh Report and court documents concludes the following documents are confirmed as missing or otherwise removed from the Schultz file.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2020/01/bombshell-exculpatory-evidence-removed.html">An exculpatory email dated February 26, 2001</a> (Source: McChesney diary)</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white;">Another <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/05/missing-documents-from-schultz-file.html">potentially exculpatory document sent by Schultz to Harmon on February 12, 2001</a>(Source: Freeh Report, End Note 304). </span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">A Schultz e-mail to Spanier and Curley stating plan to meet with Curley on Sunday, February 25, 2001 (Freeh Report, </span>End Note 318: Control Number 00681288). </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">An email from Spanier acknowledging the February 25, 2001 meeting (Freeh Report, </span>End Note 319: Control Number 00681288).</li>
</ul>
<div>
And while not specifically related to the Schultz file, the evidence is absolutely clear that University legal officials, in conjunction with the OAG, <a href="https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/10/correcting-record-part-1-mcquearys-2001.html">suppressed a potentially exculpatory email showing that McQueary took issue with the accuracy of the grand jury presentment.</a> <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtqtBw8urrG1V69CsQsEdWF3koZhXB4iCceqjhen6961Tb6clU5fWkFPE5x78npPTtpTxdfL7kH9aFsD882O-aro9RbR3iYl80gir1L_Dbdnxs4roX-f0cwLwKXv6LX8MJXOtHr8phUKI/s1600/McQ+Email+Suppressed.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1208" data-original-width="939" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtqtBw8urrG1V69CsQsEdWF3koZhXB4iCceqjhen6961Tb6clU5fWkFPE5x78npPTtpTxdfL7kH9aFsD882O-aro9RbR3iYl80gir1L_Dbdnxs4roX-f0cwLwKXv6LX8MJXOtHr8phUKI/s640/McQ+Email+Suppressed.png" width="496" /></a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Likely Missing Information - High Confidence</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
At the Spanier trial, prosecutors established via the testimony of Joan Coble that Schultz was a very good note taker. Prosecutor Laura Ditka (now deceased), stated:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"...Secondly, he have heard that he is a routine note taker. He took notes at every conversation and at every meeting, and they are a business record."</span></i></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Co-counsel Patrick Schulte added:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Ms. Ditka, with Ms. Coble, had indicated that Schultz was a note taker. When he had meetings he took notes. That's how this note was obtained. It is a business record."</span></b></i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Given the evidence record from the 1998 incident and Schultz's court established reputation as a note taker, it would appear that the following notes or documentation were removed from the file:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>His February 11, 2001 meeting with Curley and Paterno at Paterno's home.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>His February 11, 2001 phone call with then PSU General Counsel Wendell Courtney.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>His February 12, 2001 contact with then Chief of Police Tom Harmon (confirmed missing).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>His meeting with Tim Curley and Mike McQueary on or about February 17, 2001.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>His follow-up meeting with John McQueary and Dr. Jonathan Dranov.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
It is almost certain that these meeting notes contain information and/or details regarding what Mike McQueary reported to PSU officials, his father, and Dr. Dranov.<br />
<br />
There is no reason to doubt PSU and the OAG withheld other exculpatory information.<br />
<br />
PSU and OAG officials went along with Freeh's Schultz file discovery statement even though they knew it was patently false as it left his lips in July 2012.<br />
<br />
After Freeh's tall tale went belly-up in July 2013, when Kimberly Belcher <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=14vl5cbWbitqIrckOnFEPp3zllpCKdhV1" style="font-family: inherit;">testified</a> that she refused to hand the file over to Freeh, PSU and OAG officials remained silent on the matter.<br />
<br />
While the Freeh Report states the Schultz file was discovered on May 1, 2012, there is little doubt that it was actually recovered from Schultz's office in January 2011.<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">The <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Yhp5dJXh8nuAfW5bD2NtDlTUpefHdK1G">January 2011 grand jury transcripts of Paterno, Curley, and Schultz</a> almost certainly prove that the Schultz file was in the hands of <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/07/morgan-oag-had-schultz-file-in-january.html">Deputy AG Frank Fina before he questioned PSU officials.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">That evidence, combined with <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bajNLF52WAFCAIl-f1GRVBvOZO-2m1u2/view?usp=sharing">Schultz's October 25, 2012 affidavit</a>, points to Baldwin being the person who recovered the file and gave it to Fina.</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div>
In summary, the evidence surrounding the Schultz file is conclusive that PSU officials began collaborating with the OAG to undermine Curley, Schultz, and Spanier from the very beginning and they continue to be a party to a very serious miscarriage of justice.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<br />
<i><b style="background-color: white;">Coming Soon....</b></i><br />
<b><span style="background-color: white;"><br />
<i style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Baldwin Thrown Under the Bus Twice </i></span></b><br />
<b><span style="background-color: white;"><i style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></i></span></b>
<b><span style="background-color: white;"><i style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Even Freeh's Team Thought 1998 Stunk to the High Heavens</i><br style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><i style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"></span><i style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Fina Never Established Chain of Custody for PSU Emails </i></span></b><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-67514282000900902952020-02-05T12:10:00.002-05:002020-02-05T13:03:01.258-05:00Gladwell Gets Backlash Over Paterno Statue Statement<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i>Critics of Gladwell prove that the lies of the November 2011 grand jury presentment and Freeh Report need to be corrected</i></b></span><br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></i></b>
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">By</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Ray Blehar</span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">February 5, 2020, 12:10 PM EST</span><br />
<br />
When Malcolm Gladwell announced his support for returning the Paterno statue to its rightful place outside Beaver Stadium, he received a hearty round of applause. The audience in the State Theater agreed with Gladwell's assessment that Joe Paterno was not trained to detect a serial pedophile and that the legendary coach followed the rules of his University and was punished unfairly.<br />
<br />
Gladwell also received some criticism for his position on Paterno and, as it turns out, the criticism is rooted in the lies of the November 2011 grand jury presentment and the Freeh Report.<br />
<br />
<a href="about:invalid#zClosurez" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><img alt="Image result for paterno statue"" src="https://i0.wp.com/images.onwardstate.com/uploads/2014/04/1AA-Joe-Paterno-Statue.jpg?fit=635%2C452&ssl=1" /><br />
<br />
Actually, the criticism predated the event at the State Theater. <br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Back in September 2019, Tom Ley, a reporter for<a href="https://deadspin.com/malcolm-gladwell-goes-on-bill-simmonss-podcast-to-dust-1838218193"> Deadspin</a>, called Gladwell's argument the "oldest, dumbest defense of Paterno." Then Ley used this nonsense to support his position (<i><b>emphasis is mine</b></i>):<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">"Gladwell isn’t doing anything here that </span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222222;"><a class="sc-145m8ut-0 kEXhOz js_link sc-1out364-0 fwjlmD" data-ga="[["Embedded Url","Internal link","https://deadspin.com/a-plea-to-joe-posnanski-stop-writing-mealy-mouthed-non-5879169",{"metric25":1}]]" href="https://deadspin.com/a-plea-to-joe-posnanski-stop-writing-mealy-mouthed-non-5879169" style="box-shadow: rgb(36, 123, 114) 0px -2px 0px inset; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222222; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s ease-out 0s;">Joe Posnanski</a></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> and </span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222222;"><a class="sc-145m8ut-0 kEXhOz js_link sc-1out364-0 fwjlmD" data-ga="[["Embedded Url","Internal link","https://deadspin.com/joe-paterno-wants-us-to-believe-he-has-never-heard-of-5876432",{"metric25":1}]]" href="https://deadspin.com/joe-paterno-wants-us-to-believe-he-has-never-heard-of-5876432" style="box-shadow: rgb(36, 123, 114) 0px -2px 0px inset; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222222; line-height: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.1s ease-out 0s;">Sally Jenkins</a></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> didn’t already do years ago, which is to excuse Paterno’s failure to call the cops...who couldn’t possibly be expected to understand or properly respond to <b>being told that his longtime assistant coach was seen raping a boy in the Penn State showers</b>."</span></span></i><br />
<br />
Ley's knowledge of the case seems to be based exclusively on the November 2011 grand jury presentment because he has no idea that the record was corrected at December 2011 preliminary hearing. At that hearing, McQueary testified he never told Joe Paterno about a rape and went even further to stated never used the words rape or sodomy to describe the incident in the showers.<br />
<br />
<a href="about:invalid#zClosurez" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a>McQueary's early clarification about what he told Paterno didn't make headlines and the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/penn-states-mcqueary-testifies/2011/12/16/gIQAE5T9yO_story.html">AP placed it near the end of its report</a>. That said, there is no excuse for Ley to be ignorant of the fact that Jerry Sandusky was acquitted of the rape in that episode and/or that McQueary gave multiple versions of the event in question.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Newsweek jumped on the bashing bandwagon also. The story, titled "<a href="https://www.newsbreak.com/pennsylvania/state-college/news/0NzmnlLr/malcolm-gladwell-faces-backlash-for-saying-joe-paterno-statue-should-be-resurrected-despite-pedophilia-scandal">Malcolm Gladwell Faces Backlash For Saying Joe Paterno Statue Should Be Resurrected Despite Pedophilia Scandal</a>,"cited anonymous tweeters who disagreed with Gladwell's position on Paterno and other positions Gladwell had taken in the past.<br />
<br />
Given the second rate publication that it is, Newsweek apparently couldn't be bothered to find a copy of the Freeh Report (or spellcheck its work), so it quoted this passage from USAToday to take issue with Gladwell's position.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>"A 2012 report by former FBI director Louis Freeh found that Paterno, along with university president Grahm (sic) Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz, and athletic director Tim Curley 'repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large'..."</i></span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="about:invalid#zClosurez" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<br />
The aforementioned statement from Freeh was/is a lie based on hindsight bias. To be clear, incidents that were ruled (by the authorities) to be benign in 1998 were later charged as child abuse crimes in 2011. There were no critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse in 1998 that could be concealed. New evidence from Freeh's own Source Materials seemingly confirms that Penn State made a report to the authorities in 2001 and that the <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2020/01/bombshell-exculpatory-evidence-removed.html">exculpatory evidence was suppressed</a>.<br />
<br />
Then there is this piece from a website called truthorfiction.com, titled: "<a href="https://www.truthorfiction.com/malcolm-gladwell-paterno-statue-2020/?fbclid=IwAR0dYm2LSSOpHGozUplQIXP52ur1RBI0Or60fUj5KJxNBHsLqGXtO-5Uwn4">Did Malcolm Gladwell Say Penn State Should Restore a Statue of Joe Paterno</a>?"<br />
<br />
Its author, Arturo Garcia, attempted to dismiss Gladwell's argument by citing the aformentioned passage from the Freeh Report and then added anther hindsight gem from Freeh that classified the 1998 child as a victim, even though the authorities determined he was not at the time.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky’s victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well-being, <b>especially by not attempting to determine the identity of [a] child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001</b>."</span></i></span><br />
<br />
There was absolutely no legal basis and it was otherwise inappropriate for Freeh to contend that PSU officials had any responsibility whatsoever for identifying the child involved in the 2001 incident or to inquire as to the well-being of victims. Freeh's team knew, or should have known, that information regarding the identity and status of children under investigation is kept confidential. <br />
<br />
Something more nefarious was going on.<br />
<br />
The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) had been concerned all along that the exculpatory evidence about the 2001 incident might surface.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiflseR4ixT7UpSFoUD5ma5hISZbzZiGSTtXzwHFUOeXk4mbbJ0e2F79oyB0ydmK6ewr4SmJYLlhk0_eTi-z4LCgOSuylpuClEYwsUT4HbHrqCbL_jafMYi52gelnKjmXwhyphenhyphenjkPP8Rs4Pw/s1600/State+of+the+Child.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="1016" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiflseR4ixT7UpSFoUD5ma5hISZbzZiGSTtXzwHFUOeXk4mbbJ0e2F79oyB0ydmK6ewr4SmJYLlhk0_eTi-z4LCgOSuylpuClEYwsUT4HbHrqCbL_jafMYi52gelnKjmXwhyphenhyphenjkPP8Rs4Pw/s400/State+of+the+Child.png" width="400" /></a>In the event that happened, the OAG likely planned to argue that Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) couldn't investigate the 2001 incident because PSU officials hadn't identified the child. <br />
<br />
<br />
CC CYS' job is to protect the child and without knowing the child's name it cannot take protective action.<br />
<br />
The evidence shows that CC CYS was reluctant to investigate Sandusky in 1998. In 2001, when presented with another report about Sandusky, it did what PA CYS offices do with up to <a href="https://www.paauditor.gov/Media/Default/Reports/RPT_CYS_091417_FINAL.pdf">50 percent of child abuse reports -- it "screened out" the report [1]</a>.<br />
<br />
In the end, Joe Paterno's statue was removed because the Pennsylvania government chose to cover up its own failures in taking a pedophile off the streets.<br />
<br />
Gladwell is right.<br />
<br />
The statue should be resurrected.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Coming soon</i><br />
<br />
<i>Even Freeh's Team Thought 1998 Stunk to The High Heavens</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The Incredible Shrinking Schultz File</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Fina Never Established Chain of Custody for PSU Emails </i><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[1] See Pennsylvania Auditor General "State of the Child" Report, page 12.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-83724743305865919902020-01-23T10:45:00.001-05:002020-01-23T16:49:36.512-05:00Diary Entries Point to 2001 Email Fraud<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><i>The McChesney diary entries add to the evidence the that Freeh's team tampered with a 2001 email to implicate Paterno and Spanier</i></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i><br /></i></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>By</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Ray Blehar</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">January 23, 2020, 10:45 AM EST</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A series of entries in the <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1oj0NxmnwqmtJysIa8DJbstgIbwcrCb5_">McChesney diary</a> combined with court documents make the case that Freeh's team tampered with the February 27-28, 2001 email to implicate former legendary football coach Joe Paterno and former PSU President Graham Spanier.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The critical diary entries show that the 1998 emails were discovered separately from the 2001 emails and that the Freeh's team provided <b>only the 2001 emails</b>. OAG prosecutor Frank Fina remarked that he'd have to <b>"establish the right chain of custody"</b> for those emails. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Fina is currently facing disciplinary action for misleading the court in the Spanier case. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Court documents prove that the 1998 and 2001 emails were discovered simultaneously in an email archive belonging to PSU former VP of Business and Finance, Gary Schultz.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgSf2xfZY0t2-Ojc0wvciySRonlR7_CQFteRtSFV6F5UYJoCfpEdutfvirvZkKH1uz_seWvQ_0M5vuII08wywavitLm6pYmXEcsnPlsfqM-gGIYL4TiJUrlO5w0MhP-D5388wX4H6WWxs/s1600/1998-2001+pst+Cook+at+79.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="817" data-original-width="950" height="550" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgSf2xfZY0t2-Ojc0wvciySRonlR7_CQFteRtSFV6F5UYJoCfpEdutfvirvZkKH1uz_seWvQ_0M5vuII08wywavitLm6pYmXEcsnPlsfqM-gGIYL4TiJUrlO5w0MhP-D5388wX4H6WWxs/s640/1998-2001+pst+Cook+at+79.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The McChesney diary entries are evidence that the purported "forensic" discovery of the 1998 and 2001 emails by Freeh's team was part of a ruse by Fina to frame Curley, Schultz, and Spanier for conspiracy to obstruct justice. </span><br />
<br />
February 27, 2012:<b> <i>"PSP has Schultz emails" </i></b><br />
March 7, 2012:<b> "</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">Have emails that indicate that Paterno knew about 98 incident..."</i><br />
<br />
Freeh's purported discovery of the 1998 and 2001 emails happened on March 20, 2012.<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></i>
<br />
March 22, 2012: <i><b>"State computer person & AG found 2001 emails, PWC writing report a to validity of emails..."</b></i><br />
March 30, 2012: <i><b>"State hasn't turned over 2001 emails to Amendola, waiting til they have the right chain of custody within the next few days."</b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">March 31, 2012: <i><b>"AG has emails (we knew that GP provided)."</b></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">GP is a reference to Freeh's lead investigator, Greg Paw.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
There was no legitimate purpose for the Freeh team to be providing the 2001 emails to Fina, but it's apparent now that there was an illegitimate one.<br />
<br />
Their purpose was to fabricate evidence to implicate Paterno as the key decision maker regarding 2001 and to support failure to report and endangerment charges against Spanier.<br />
<br />
The diary shows that Lanny Davis was apparently unsatisfied with the PWC authentication report and wanted the confirmation of PSU's IT expert, John Corro.<br />
<br />
April 5, 2012: <i><b>"Lanny Davis: Wants to track this through Corro, wants to note Paterno quotes in email v. What Paterno said;"</b></i><br />
<br />
There are no diary entries showing that Corro authenticated the documents. Davis disappeared from the diary entries shortly after making the authentication request.<br />
<br />
Beginning in 2013 and thereafter, Notpsu reported (and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s5qs7h0QfU">gave public presentations</a>) detailing that the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170330212130/https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/office/en-US/cf8246ea-5b73-45c3-ba1e-8ade9e9eae05/importing-from-eudora-problems-html-messages-being-displayed-in-plain-text-and-problems-with?forum=outlook">visible html code</a> came as result of tampering with the email and that the passage "after talking it over with Joe"sentence was added to the email. The <b>&nbsp (non-breaking space) notation after that sentence is the "smoking gun"</b> because it signifies a single space break after a period. Curley typed using double spaces. Spanier and Schultz did not.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVbmrikmBWVJ46U8tH5m9RQY_aQiYfRiiikqH5JyiOeYrlg86k66m2hbyJQp0jeJaM8BJb_yIgYr-ZlNZOSS08euxhz5sT1Pj_ax0ou0SQyF2ry8N8_gpokDt9LQ0-eC0azMvQ2eAmiz8/s1600/2001+Email+With+Joe+Vulnerable.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="976" height="524" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVbmrikmBWVJ46U8tH5m9RQY_aQiYfRiiikqH5JyiOeYrlg86k66m2hbyJQp0jeJaM8BJb_yIgYr-ZlNZOSS08euxhz5sT1Pj_ax0ou0SQyF2ry8N8_gpokDt9LQ0-eC0azMvQ2eAmiz8/s640/2001+Email+With+Joe+Vulnerable.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">There is no smoking gun evidence to prove that "we then become vulnerable for not reporting it" was interjected, however the fact that Fina didn't charge Spanier with failure to report child abuse at the same time as Curley and Schultz provides the circumstantial evidence. <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/09/nifonged-part-3-freeh-exposed-finas.html">Fina possessed the original email in April 2011</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">That wasn't the only email subject to tampering by Freeh's team.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Freeh Report Exhibit 5H has the same html coding interspersed. While there are no obvious signs of interjected language, it is notable that <b>none of the "&nbsp" notations are present in Curley's typing</b>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiuVAXsOuqwyMWJzmOkrBudxy5C8O8PEasjvzaa3aSIbYeeBn5EDE7zeYiyWBm46gzJrbEsTJODH5e4zOgsSUBfK2bcPBWCpxHFr7zlO-Jzf-he6dh52BQnBYrP66V4tqSsB7LkKD_ThI/s1600/Exhibit+5H.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="791" data-original-width="961" height="526" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiuVAXsOuqwyMWJzmOkrBudxy5C8O8PEasjvzaa3aSIbYeeBn5EDE7zeYiyWBm46gzJrbEsTJODH5e4zOgsSUBfK2bcPBWCpxHFr7zlO-Jzf-he6dh52BQnBYrP66V4tqSsB7LkKD_ThI/s640/Exhibit+5H.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
The Freeh Report contained six 2001 emails and the two mentioning Spanier had formatting problems. The other four were properly formatted.<br />
<br />
In another instance, Freeh did not include the complete email chain in order to support his assertion that Curley met with The Second Mile on March 19th. Exhibit 5I is a March 7, email from Joan Coble to Curley asking if he closed the loop on the 2001 action plan about Sandusky.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnjO5EzSBjZXoyHwDq4yFFJ0tHypARDcPnwW22IchJJKxIuPpqbczE6yABqvE1tBEty17RRD-1w-2HFWdqBVQCjQSqvMZjj2GETLDhOnFVxF-2ZGUMJ-buujMpD-LKkKMThtmW_maSoOQ/s1600/Exhibit+5I.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="770" data-original-width="884" height="555" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnjO5EzSBjZXoyHwDq4yFFJ0tHypARDcPnwW22IchJJKxIuPpqbczE6yABqvE1tBEty17RRD-1w-2HFWdqBVQCjQSqvMZjj2GETLDhOnFVxF-2ZGUMJ-buujMpD-LKkKMThtmW_maSoOQ/s640/Exhibit+5I.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Coble testified that she closed the action upon the response from Curley. Here's the rest of the email chain.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLENTOWxSd3R-WZo9CjCY9_H9G6nMwb6uiKW9dPaqZJ5wzP967ZvlnWgEARgllx92UrHMrCnoCBzbtf82vYVz1jcSQN1UOFOutTUwmp8KinS7jNdFamPEdhHvOib1K7zP8J2zX6csoAvA/s1600/Curley_Coble+3.7.2001.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="987" height="496" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLENTOWxSd3R-WZo9CjCY9_H9G6nMwb6uiKW9dPaqZJ5wzP967ZvlnWgEARgllx92UrHMrCnoCBzbtf82vYVz1jcSQN1UOFOutTUwmp8KinS7jNdFamPEdhHvOib1K7zP8J2zX6csoAvA/s640/Curley_Coble+3.7.2001.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The diary entries reveal that the Freeh team possessed the Schultz file and the 2001 emails, therefore the possible reasons for not including the full email are either incompetency or dishonesty or both.<br />
<br />
Freeh's track record supports "both."<br />
<br />
In December 2019, the FBI was implicated in altering an email in order to (illegally) obtain a FISA warrant on a U.S. citizen. Based on this finding, Notpsu <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2019/12/no-surprisemisconduct-atop-fbi.html">wrote a history of similar abuses of evidence by Freeh during his tenure as FBI director</a>.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the release of the Freeh Report, news hit the street that Freeh's conclusion of bribery in the FIFA case were overturned by the sport's governing body because <a href="https://oklahoman.com/article/feed/405757/bin-hammam-wins-appeal-in-fifa-bribery-case">his investigators failed to trace the money</a>.<br />
<br />
In the aftermath of the BP Horizon settlement case, Paw confirmed that the Freeh group used an <a href="https://louisianarecord.com/stories/510585681-defamation-case-brought-against-louis-freeh-over-deepwater-horizon-fraud-corruption-allegations">entirely inaccurate recounting on a witness interview to accuse Christine Reitano of crimes</a>.<br />
<br />
Former Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, rebutted Freeh's conclusions in the Wynn-Okada case for using <a href="https://onwardstate.com/2013/05/03/new-louis-freeh-report-facing-familiar-scrutiny/">documents of dubious provenance</a> (among other deficiencies).<br />
<br />
Freeh is currently facing scrutiny for <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2016/01/20/vws-unions-dont-want-effing-freeh/#3fe02807501a">conflict of interest</a> in the Volkswagen emissions case.<br />
<br />
It's long past time that the former FBI director's destructive practices be put to and end.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Coming soon....</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Chain of Custody Never Established For Emails</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The Incredible Shrinking Schultz File</i>Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-8417061028443300512020-01-18T16:09:00.001-05:002020-01-18T17:58:27.066-05:00BOMBSHELL: Exculpatory Evidence Removed From Schultz File<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The Kathleen McChesney diary confirms an exculpatory email was removed from the Schultz file</span></b></i><br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">By</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Ray Blehar</span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">January 18, 2020, 4:09 PM EST</span><br />
<br />
Notpsu.blogspot.com has <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/10/does-2001-timeline-reveal-dpwcys-was.html">long contended</a> that Gary Schultz or someone at Penn State University (PSU) made a report to Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) in response to the 2001 incident.<br />
<br />
Now it appears we have the proof.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1oj0NxmnwqmtJysIa8DJbstgIbwcrCb5_?usp=drive_open">McChesney's diary</a> entries of May 1, 2012 detail discussions about the Schultz file and it contains the following bombshell.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Exculpatory 2.26 email is on the top & they came in the same order where he says they contacted cps"</span></i></b><br />
<br />
To be clear, an email was written documenting that the 2001 incident was properly reported and it has never seen the light of day.<br />
<br />
That evidence is a game changer and exonerates not only Schultz, but Tim Curley, Graham Spanier, and legendary coach Joe Paterno.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Ample evidence supported that someone at PSU made a report to CYS per the direction of then General Counsel (GC) Wendell Courtney. Under that scenario, the February 26 email showing plan to call DPW was <i><b>not to inform the agency about Sandusky's shower incident</b></i>, but a contingency plan if The Second Mile refused to enforce PSU's directive about Sandusky's facility use with children.<br />
<br />
Among the evidence supporting a 2001 report was an anonymous tip (in 2013) that CC CYS had received a letter or correspondence about the incident and the University's plan to follow up with The Second Mile (TSM). According to the tipster -- who had a family member who worked for CC CYS -- a copy of the correspondence was also sent to TSM.<br />
<br />
Then in 2017, a former law enforcement official relayed essentially the same information as the anonymous tipster. Correspondence between PSU and CC CYS existed regarding the 2001 incident and a copy of it was provided to TSM. The employee added that the exculpatory evidence had to have been either destroyed and/or suppressed.<br />
<br />
Notpsu chose not to run the story each time due to anonymous sourcing and/or lack of documentation, respectively.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">More Suppressed Evidence</span></b></div>
<br />
McChesney's diary shows that the exculpatory email apparently wasn't the only thing that was withheld.<br />
<br />
On March 30, 2012, McChesney wrote:<br />
<br />
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Concerned about Schultz sensitive files not having Sandusky stuff, thick file missing - lots of people said there was file there."</span></b></i><br />
<br />
Her February 27, 2012 entry also confirms there was more Sandusky evidence.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Per Frankie G: 3 Sandusky files in 2 sets of Schultz doc, Mustakoff imaging for LJF."</span></i></b><br />
<br />
Frankie G is Frank Guadagnino, a Reed Smith attorney who then worked under contract for the PSU General Counsel. Mustakoff is Mike Mustakoff, a PSU attorney. LJF is Louis J. Freeh.<br />
<br />
There seems to have been lots of copies of Schultz information floating around.<br />
<br />
According to analyses of the evidence, <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/02/evidence-in-2001-twisted-tainted-and.html">Baldwin or someone on PSU's legal team removed the files from Schultz's office right after he (Schultz) told her that he kept a file on Sandusky (in January 2011)</a>, Multiple copies of the Schultz documents were made and the Frank Fina used the information to set perjury traps for Curley and Schultz at the January 2011 grand jury.<br />
<br />
Later on down the road, after Curley and Schultz refused to flip on then PSU President Graham Spanier, the exculpatory information was removed from the file and a file containing only "incriminating" information was planted in his office shortly after Schultz left his position at PSU on November 5, 2011. <br />
<br />
Belcher retrieved the file on the 9th or 10th of November.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGFD5V-jEZEp8Truw2Z7UgUutrDMsPSTct6lSKSvBcQxUyNhoNTxoecxcQdStiAT7FSlCpOakOKJMnJqabsqQdOxQ0gmUVRckFvXfZQwk51pcsdyAWK8rYkrO220oMMFcm5qE56xxLqjc/s1600/Fina+Resigns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGFD5V-jEZEp8Truw2Z7UgUutrDMsPSTct6lSKSvBcQxUyNhoNTxoecxcQdStiAT7FSlCpOakOKJMnJqabsqQdOxQ0gmUVRckFvXfZQwk51pcsdyAWK8rYkrO220oMMFcm5qE56xxLqjc/s640/Fina+Resigns.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Fina spun a tall tale about the Schultz file to Freeh and his investigating team</span></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Here is the May 1, 2012 diary entry that seemingly supports the planted evidence scenario.<br />
<br />
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Per Fina 5.1.12"</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"...Coble brings in Becleher (sic) in as replacements, there was a Sandusky file - told her it was sacrosanct and secret;"</span></b></i><br />
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></b></i>
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Sees Horvath folder & one for GCS - She thought GCS file might be needed so she decided to bring it to him; thought about the Sandusky file, drawer with lock on it, hadn't seen file before, didn't look at papers but <u>looked through and picked up 20 most incriminating papers</u> & she drives to Schultz's house, she puts 20 in another folder, he takes documents and says thanks..."</span></b></i><br />
<br />
Belcher picked out the 20 most incriminating papers?<br />
<br />
Her testimony says otherwise. She removed the entire file and made a copy of it, then left the office to take a copy to Schultz, keeping the original (planted) file for herself.<br />
<br />
The McChesney diary is providing the evidence of what Notpsu and many other intelligent people believed from the beginning -- <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/08/altered-e-mail-found-in-freeh-report.html">three high ranking Penn State administrators and Paterno got railroaded</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>Coming soon...</b></i><br />
<i><b><br /></b></i>
<i><b>Diary Indicates Email Tampering</b></i><br />
<i><b><br /></b></i>
<i><b>Even Freeh Team Thought 1998 Stunk to High Heavens</b></i><br />
<br />
<br />Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-42553674024684325282020-01-16T13:03:00.001-05:002020-01-19T08:53:31.437-05:00More Smoking Guns from McChesney Diary Upend Freeh's Email Claims<i><b>Numerous diary entries confirm that PA OAG and State Police had Schultz's emails prior Freeh's "discovery" of them</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">By<br />Ray Blehar</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-small;">January 16, 2020, 1:00 PM EST, Updated 1/18/20 at 9:30AM EST</span><br />
<br />
The <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1oj0NxmnwqmtJysIa8DJbstgIbwcrCb5_">diary</a> of former Freeh investigator Kathleen McChesney contains numerous entries referencing the 1998 and 2001 Penn State emails that predate the purported discovery of the emails by former FBI Director Louis Freeh.<br />
<br />
At a nationally televised press conference on <a href="https://247sports.com/college/penn-state/Article/Transcript-of-Freehs-Comments-104915834/">July 11, 2012, Freeh claimed</a> that his investigative team independently discovered the 1998 and 2001 Penn State emails on March 20, 2012. The claim was also repeated on page 11 of the Freeh Report.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN5xoWj29W0JBlQMwMCJxlVvBQsaY3TAlBpr3S2VoE-u848HDQgh7uXbk-VhF89Uzlv4Lr5qRh3Bz16wgeQHQxgNG7hxgit1U2BdM2KV8Uefy4TS_5jl5JVZdgN0HmPJ8hhhmt72OM5L0/s1600/Freeh+Email+Claims.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="746" data-original-width="1007" height="472" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN5xoWj29W0JBlQMwMCJxlVvBQsaY3TAlBpr3S2VoE-u848HDQgh7uXbk-VhF89Uzlv4Lr5qRh3Bz16wgeQHQxgNG7hxgit1U2BdM2KV8Uefy4TS_5jl5JVZdgN0HmPJ8hhhmt72OM5L0/s640/Freeh+Email+Claims.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
McChesney's diary proves many times over that Freeh was fibbing.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
On February 12, 2012, McChesney wrote:<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Tomalis, Frazier interested in knowledge of JP incident & they were advised of the 1998 emails."</span></i></b><br />
<br />
JP is a reference to Joe Paterno. And this entry shows that Frazier and Tomalis were in on the scam.<br />
<br />
On February 27, 2012, McChesney wrote:<br />
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"PSP has Schultz emails."</span></b></i><br />
<br />
PSP is a reference to the Pennsylvania State Police. The <a href="http://filesource.abacast.com/commonwealthofpa/mp4_podcast/2014_06_23_REPORT_to_AG_ON_THE_SANDUSKY_INVESTIGATION.pdf">Moulton Report</a> (at 158) confirmed the PSP were provided with the PSU emails on July 7, 2011 -- over five months before Freeh's team was hired.<br />
<br />
On March 7, 2012, McChesney wrote:<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Have emails that indicate Paterno knew about 1998 incident, & more that Spanier knew that - would indicate they should have done more in 2002 - significant but not probative."</span></i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
On March 22, 2012, McChesney wrote:<br />
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"State computer person & AG found 2001 emails, PWC writing report to validity of emails; he told Zubrod about emails. they are still feuding with state, non committal re: docs they've received."</span></b></i><br />
<i><b><br /></b></i>
PWC is a reference to the Price Waterhouse Coopers who apparently worked under contract to Freeh Group International Solutions (FGIS). Zubrod is Gordon Zubrod, former US Attorney for the PA Middle District.<br />
<br />
On March 20, 2012, McChesney wrote:<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"State hasn't turned over 2001 emails to Amendola, waiting until they have the right chain of custody within next few days."</span></i></b><br />
<br />
The last statement is significant because it reveals that OAG officials (e.g, Fina, Eshbach, et al) were trying to figure out how to cover up the misconduct related to misleading the court about their discovery, leaking the emails, and tampering with their contents.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Coming soon...</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i> Diary Indicates Tampering with 2001 Email</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i>The Incredible Shrinking Schultz File</i></b><br />
<br />Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-19741464913089807892020-01-15T15:27:00.003-05:002020-01-16T21:51:37.244-05:00McChesney Diary Confirms Freeh & OAG Misconduct<b><i>Former Freeh Team member Kathleen McChesney's diary confirmed that the PA OAG supplied her team with the PSU emails and the Schultz file</i></b><br />
<br />
<i>By</i><br />
<i>Ray Blehar</i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">January 15, 2020, 3:27 PM EST</span><br />
<br />
Yesterday, Ralph Cipriano of BigTrial.net released a <a href="http://www.bigtrial.net/2020/01/former-fbi-agents-diary-details-illegal.html">bombshell report</a> confirming this blog's <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/08/freeh-found-nothing-during-his.html">previous reporting</a> that Louis Freeh's team was handed the emails and the Schultz file by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (PA OAG).<br />
<br />
Kathleen McChesney, one of the key investigators into the Sandusky matter at Penn State University, kept a detailed <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1oj0NxmnwqmtJysIa8DJbstgIbwcrCb5_">diary</a> of the activities of the 2011-2012 investigation. <br />
<br />
At one point in the diary, McChesney wrote in reference to the email evidence:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "yanone kaffeesatz"; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"><b><i>"Records - IT: Team working with Atty general, will receive in stages."</i></b></span><br />
<br />
On April 2, 2012, McChesney wrote in reference to the Schultz file:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "yanone kaffeesatz"; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"><b><i>"AG documents received re: Curley and Schultz."</i></b></span><br />
<br />
Our August 13, 2013 story confirmed that Kimberly Belcher twice refused to hand over the Schultz file to Freeh's team and instead gave it to the PA OAG in April 2012. She also testified that Schultz's legal team provided their copy of the file to the OAG one day earlier.<br />
<br />
Belcher's testimony is seemingly confirmed by the diary, in which McChesney wrote:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "yanone kaffeesatz"; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"><b><i>"Fina got papers from two different sources."</i></b></span><br />
<br />
Circling back, McChesney's diary (i.e., <span style="color: #222222; font-family: "yanone kaffeesatz"; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"><i style="font-weight: bold;">"AG documents received re: Curley and Schultz."</i>)<i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i></span>also may confirm our reporting that the <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2016/02/freeh-source-materials-confirm-curley.html">Athletic Department had maintained a file on Sandusky</a> and that the so-called "Schultz secret file" may have contained information gathered from both the Finance and Athletic Department offices.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzmy8mKCFbXIYR7xkCEygmbihe0Bg1NtqCM0IQPjGL_riLbakHsRxGwvnFYorlAkpGSkDMaRQezFEafyn3hPRf77EmsMCkCivieoOSxxkySCmXAEY95l5o4A9D-h0gFxi15WekS60iKks/s1600/Frazier+Freeh+Tomalis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" height="478" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzmy8mKCFbXIYR7xkCEygmbihe0Bg1NtqCM0IQPjGL_riLbakHsRxGwvnFYorlAkpGSkDMaRQezFEafyn3hPRf77EmsMCkCivieoOSxxkySCmXAEY95l5o4A9D-h0gFxi15WekS60iKks/s640/Frazier+Freeh+Tomalis.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Email confirms Freeh, Frazier, and Tomalis waited for leaked emails to be leaked to the press</span></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
As Cipriano's blogpost correctly pointed out, the transmission of these materials from the PA OAG to Freeh's team constituted illegal leaks of secret grand jury information.<br />
<br />
The illegal leaks go a long way to explain why Freeh spun a yarn about his team discovering the emails and the Schultz file. To be clear, the only cover-up at PSU was the one being conducted by Freeh and members of the Special Investigations Task Force (SITF).<br />
<br />
Emails revealed that individuals from the SITF and the Freeh team <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/09/old-mains-leaks-confidentiality.html">were waiting for the leaked information to be further leaked (by the OAG) to the press</a> and for the targeted PSU officials, especially former President Graham Spanier and former legendary head football coach Joe Paterno, to be convicted in the court of public opinion.<br />
<br />
Not only was the Freeh investigation a sham, but it became part of Pennsylvania's system of injustice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-50751548468804181742019-12-22T10:03:00.000-05:002019-12-22T12:57:41.301-05:00No Surprise...Misconduct Atop FBI<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The latest DOJ IG report adds to the FBI's long history of executive misconduct, but Louis Freeh somehow remains in an unofficial "witness protection program"</span></b></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">By</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Ray Blehar</span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">December 22, 2019, 10:03 AM EST</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>On Monday, December 9th, DOJ IG John Horowitz <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf">reported</a> that top FBI officials made 17 errors and omissions to the FISA court in order to justify surveillance on a U.S. citizen. The report also found 51 violations of the procedures used for verifying and validating information in the FISA warrant submissions (a.k.a. the Woods Procedures).<br />
<br />
Topping the list of misrepresentations, an FBI Office of General Counsel (OGC) attorney <b><i>altered an email</i></b> in order convince the court to renew a FISA warrant to spy on President Donald Trump. The OGC attorney changed a single phrase in an email to make it appear that Carter Page, an associate of the Trump campaign and a CIA source, was not a CIA source.<br />
<br />
The DOJ IG also found that exculpatory evidence was withheld from the court that likely would have put an end to the investigation almost immediately after it was opened.<br />
<br />
Errors and omissions.<br />
Misrepresentations.<br />
Alteration of email.<br />
Withholding of exculpatory evidence<br />
<br />
Sound familiar?<br />
<br />
They should because notpsu.blogspot.com reported similar episodes in its review and analysis of former FBI Director Louis Freeh's investigation of Penn State University (PSU).<br />
<br />
The FBI took another hit when FISC judge Rosemary Collyer issued an strong <a href="https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc%2019%2002%20191217.pdf">rebuke</a> of the FBI's handling of the case and called into question the reliability of evidence in other FISA applications.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><span style="background-color: white; color: #303030;">"The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable."</span> </b></span></i><br />
<i><br /></i>Rolling back the calendar to 2002, then FBI Director Robert Mueller was called into the FISC to address 75 instances of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/23/us/secret-court-says-fbi-aides-misled-judges-in-75-cases.html">FISA cheating</a> prior to him becoming the agency's head.<br />
<br />
And who was at the helm before Mueller? Louis Freeh.<br />
<br />
While IG Horowitz's report did not answer why the most recent FISA cheating occurred, the answer seems rather obvious. FISA operates in secret and there's little chance that anyone is going to <b><i>check the work</i></b>, especially when the work is done at the executive level.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
It seems like poetic justice that the Horowitz report and Collyer's legal opinion came on the heels of the opening of Clint Eastwood's movie, Richard Jewell. The movie gives a blow by blow account of the FBI abuses during the investigation of the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Park bombing.<br />
<br />
Then FBI Director Louis Freeh became personally involved in the case because there was immense pressure to find the perpetrator immediately. The Olympic games and the economic windfall that came with it was at risk.<br />
<br />
Atlanta FBI field agents duped Jewell into waiving his right to an attorney (and violating his Constitutional rights). Right before Jewell's interview, his name was<b> <i>leaked to the media</i></b>.<br />
<br />
The media rushed to judgment and immediately convicted Jewell in the court of public opinion. Jewell went through living hell for 88 days before the FBI finally cleared him. He filed and won lawsuits for defamation.<br />
<br />
Violation of rights.<br />
Leaking of criminal information.<br />
Media rush to judgment.<br />
<br />
To quote Yogi Berra, "it's deja vu all over again."<br />
<br />
The FBI misconduct with Jewell and with the 2016-17 FISA case are very similar the missteps in the Freeh investigation of PSU in 2011-12.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Misrepresentations</span></b></div>
<br />
In a press release and then later in a <a href="https://247sports.com/college/penn-state/Article/Transcript-of-Freehs-Comments-104915834/">press conference on July 11, 2012</a>, Freeh falsely claimed that his team made independent discovery of the Penn State emails on March 20, 2012.<br />
<br />
<i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"In critical written correspondence that we recovered on March 20th of this year, we see evidence of their proposed plan of action in February 2001...</span></b></i><br />
<i><br /></i><span style="font-family: "sanchezregular" , serif; font-size: 15.3333px;">And:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 17.6333px;"><i><b>"Our investigative team made independent discovery of critical 1998 and 2001 emails – the most important evidence in this investigation."</b></i></span><br />
<br />
No one (except <a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.comhttp//notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/08/freeh-found-nothing-during-his.html">notpsu.blogspot.com</a>) questioned Freeh's statement because neither PSU nor the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (PA OAG) ever called him out for the misrepresentation.<br />
<br />
Readers of this blog know that Freeh's email discovery claims came crashing down in at the July 2013 preliminary hearing of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. At that hearing, neither PSU's computer forensics expert nor the PA OAG's computer forensics expert testified to Freeh's team being involved in the discovery of the emails.<br />
<br />
John Corro, the PSU expert, testified that <b><i>in March or April of 2011 he provided three USB keys containing the emails</i></b> to then PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin .<br />
<br />
The PA OAG's expert, Braden Cook, made no mention of Freeh when he testified to collecting the email evidence.<br />
<br />
You would think that the testimony from Corro and Cook would have been a major story given that it proved Freeh made some serious misrepresentations about his PSU investigation, but no such media reports came out of that hearing.<br />
<br />
It was as if Freeh was in an unofficial "witness protection program."<br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, at the July 2013 hearing, OAG expert Cook testified that the PSU emails were missing from custody when he went to retrieve them and were copied to a file (on March 23, 2012).<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghJzYsWisX7P0rWh2m12b2VeOXIwwCTUY7wG8kmARlWFaUBQj4ZxwGOZtldKit1tNv-RTyUTTL2aEbQt5snuLMn8MiJ25_3lvkZQZ4NMT07GgSBgMzvW5aPyKsQJArTc8brbPf80JyR1s/s1600/Cook+at+70.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="303" data-original-width="859" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghJzYsWisX7P0rWh2m12b2VeOXIwwCTUY7wG8kmARlWFaUBQj4ZxwGOZtldKit1tNv-RTyUTTL2aEbQt5snuLMn8MiJ25_3lvkZQZ4NMT07GgSBgMzvW5aPyKsQJArTc8brbPf80JyR1s/s640/Cook+at+70.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Cook misspoke when he said "March of 2011" because he was not assigned to the case at that time, but that does not preclude that the OAG didn't have the emails on or about that time.<br />
<br />
Right after then Governor Tom Corbett's March 2011 budget spat with Spanier, the OAG contacted the former PSU President to interview him about the Sandusky matter. That interview took place on March 22, 2011.<br />
<br />
After the interview Spanier was called to testify before the grand jury on April 13th. At that proceeding, OAG prosecutors made statements alluding to their possession of the 1998 and 2001 emails. Then the prosecution successfully argued for a subpoena to force PSU to turn over emails <i><b>from 1997 and back</b>.</i><br />
<br />
The only reason for the OAG prosecutors to specifically argue for those older emails was that they already had the 1998 and 2001 emails.<br />
<br />
And if the 2001 email was the so-called "smoking gun" email for implicating Spanier (and Paterno) in the decision not to report Sandusky, then why wasn't Spanier charged with failure to report in November 2011?<br />
<br />
The answer is that in March 2011, the so called "smoking gun" email didn't contain the necessary language for implicating Spanier.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Altered Email</span></b></div>
<br />
Back in the late summer of 2012, many people criticized our reporting on the suspected email fraud because of their assumption that Freeh had an impeccable reputation.<br />
<br />
In response to those critics, contributors to this blog provided<a href="http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/08/freeh-cover-up-exposed-joe-paterno-is.html"> information regarding the case of former FBI whistle blower Frederick Whitehurst showing that Freeh's FBI covered up or otherwise suppressed flawed analyses of forensic evidence</a> in order to obtain convictions in thousands of cases.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In 1994, he reported his concerns with FBI lab practices internally. It was “alterations of reports, alterations of evidence, folks testifying outside their areas of expertise in courts of law”, said Whitehurst, but “really what was going on was human rights violations. We have a right to fair trials in this country… And that’s not what was going on at the FBI lab.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">”</span></b></i></span><br />
<br />
Freeh's command center on the PSU campus included a network of computers that were not connected to the PSU network or any other network. The work conducted on that network was untraceable and impossible to audit after the network was disestablished.<br />
<br />
It was perfect situation to alter emails and other documents because there was little to no chance the anyone would <b><i>check the work</i></b>. That...and the PA OAG and PSU were in on the email scam.<br />
<br />
IT forensics experts consulted by notpsu.blogspot.com uniformly agreed that the email below and several others (with visible html code) were suspicious and needed to be compared to the original files on the PSU server.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg92o4erm4n342FS77s7IpOOvyrl75h9dD04ddjGQ5OIGmMZqx2S3w0QQQMOvJTY8YlQOeUzDUX4C-2xm4xfG5t79sfOHuQg0w27TVjv0h3zED8odTM1CARj0y2ZAxWRlz3gk89i5EKAo/s1600/Freeh+5G+email.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="772" data-original-width="1284" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg92o4erm4n342FS77s7IpOOvyrl75h9dD04ddjGQ5OIGmMZqx2S3w0QQQMOvJTY8YlQOeUzDUX4C-2xm4xfG5t79sfOHuQg0w27TVjv0h3zED8odTM1CARj0y2ZAxWRlz3gk89i5EKAo/s640/Freeh+5G+email.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
During the July 2013 preliminary hearings, OAG IT forensics expert Cook provided faulty reasoning for the "html" code that appeared in the email. His testimony (at 80) was:<br />
<i><br /></i><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>"...that is actually formatting that is put in there from a web page. So that wasn't part of the actual email. That was just some formatting that was in there."</b></span></i><br />
<br />
Nonsense.<br />
<br />
The most likely reason for the html code was because the email was created in the Eudora email system and then opened, edited, saved, and then printed using the Microsoft Outlook email system. That's what would have happened to a file that was created by Schultz in 2001 using PSU's Eudora system and then altered and printed by someone using Outlook at a later date.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, on October 9, 2015, McQueary's legal team <a href="http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/MCQUEARY%20MOTION%20TO%20DETERMINE%20SUFFICIENCY%20OF%20DEFENDANTS%20RESPONSE%20TO%20PLAINTIFFS%20SECOND%20REQUEST%20FOR%20ADMISSIONS.pdf">filed a motion to authenticate the PSU email exhibits and notes from the Freeh Report</a>.<br />
<br />
In December 2015, McQueary's team later withdrew the motion based that it was moot.<br />
<br />
Freeh was apparently still covered by the unofficial "witness protection program."<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Violation of Rights</b></span></div>
<br />
As the Horowitz report revealed, FBI personnel withheld exculpatory evidence from the FISC in order to maintain surveillance on the Trump campaign associate Carter Page. This was a violation of Page's 4th Amendment Right prohibiting illegal searches.<br />
<br />
Similarly, Louis Freeh and PA OAG prosecutors -- undoubtedly with cooperation from Baldwin and/or other PSU high officials -- withheld potential exculpatory email evidence that could have cast doubt on the entire PSU scandal.<br />
<br />
On November 10, 2011, McQueary sent an email to AG prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach complaining about how he had been ruined by their portrayal of his actions (or inactions) during the 2001 shower incident and asking Eshbach to make a statement to correct the record.<br />
<br />
Eshbach told him he could not make such a statement. She later testified:<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">"My advice to Mr. McQueary not to make a statement was based on the </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">strengthening of my -- and saving of my case.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">"I did not want him [McQueary] making statements to the press at that time that could at some time be used against him in cross-examination."</span></b></span></i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8nLDzJ8jb3dtwfS0rWJb8LTDfj3z9s8qTUluTL0srAELUwGi8pwvAAVKdpJGvT1kM-ZjhLQt7NLhBu7MUlLQuivzcv5aTU40kSbR_ACuvEZoyVytOTzBNOAuqvi0F0195qRMvkx6k6Ck/s1600/McQueary+Email+P-43.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="763" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8nLDzJ8jb3dtwfS0rWJb8LTDfj3z9s8qTUluTL0srAELUwGi8pwvAAVKdpJGvT1kM-ZjhLQt7NLhBu7MUlLQuivzcv5aTU40kSbR_ACuvEZoyVytOTzBNOAuqvi0F0195qRMvkx6k6Ck/s1600/McQueary+Email+P-43.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In the email, McQueary questioned his own eye-witness account, describing what he witnessed as:<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b> <i style="text-align: center;">"a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion <u>whatever it was</u>." </i></b></span><br />
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span><span style="text-align: center;">Later he added:</span><i style="text-align: center;"> </i><i style="text-align: center;">"</i><br />
<i style="text-align: center;"><br /></i><i style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I feel my <u>words were twisted and not totally portrayed correctly</u> in the presentment..."</span></b></i><br />
<br />
The Supreme Court held in Brady v. Maryland that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process rights "where the evidence is either material to guilt of punishment."<br />
<br />
It was quite clear that the prosecutor Eshbach felt McQueary's uncertainty about what he saw and his objections to the grand jury presentment had could possibly <b><i>ruin her case</i></b>.<br />
<br />
And that's the reason why the OAG prosecutors and Freeh never let this email see the light of day.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Leaks and Media Complicity</span></b></div>
<br />
At the nationally televised press conference on July 11, 2012, Freeh condemned the PSU email leaks and stated that no one on his team was responsible for them.<br />
<br />
While it's possible that Freeh was telling the truth about his team's role in the leaks, email correspondence between PSU Trustees Ken Frazier and Ron Tomalis, and Omar McNeil of the Freeh Group prove they all expected the emails to show up in media reports on or about June 11, 2012.<br />
<br />
The PSU Board of Trustees even had a media strategy in place if the emails went public.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp4C-JGJFMzrBsitignxk2EeFr4EDjIJD8g27qlg_JGDw_-FKdvQWFztkxvGUwSzzWV0f7YPuPWbvFeUuzw9MJUJbHqSdPEZtpV9i-BmLcwj9V1wXfIyBHWwNor9RbFTiaeIT2jKJuVOs/s1600/Frazier+leaked+emails+featured.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="557" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp4C-JGJFMzrBsitignxk2EeFr4EDjIJD8g27qlg_JGDw_-FKdvQWFztkxvGUwSzzWV0f7YPuPWbvFeUuzw9MJUJbHqSdPEZtpV9i-BmLcwj9V1wXfIyBHWwNor9RbFTiaeIT2jKJuVOs/s640/Frazier+leaked+emails+featured.png" width="556" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
The leaks of the emails to the press didn't happen until June 29th. The CNN story stated that the network was not in possession of the emails but the contents were read to them.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOdJuak1F96JtqVwTCKnRXNBbIEzxCQ4IQoB3i0BTA4rnMpbS2vyK7-iQ2f7oycKIs8zXRmV15IwyDbU0A7Eyc7yZCgoWUeoYX6tf_JYmXUtFyRxamLjCQFUruZvIV_HXrUo8MylzWnZc/s1600/CNN+doesn%2527t+have+emails.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="974" data-original-width="1324" height="470" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOdJuak1F96JtqVwTCKnRXNBbIEzxCQ4IQoB3i0BTA4rnMpbS2vyK7-iQ2f7oycKIs8zXRmV15IwyDbU0A7Eyc7yZCgoWUeoYX6tf_JYmXUtFyRxamLjCQFUruZvIV_HXrUo8MylzWnZc/s640/CNN+doesn%2527t+have+emails.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It is highly likely the email leaks were delayed by 18 days because the leakers didn't want the media's focus to be taken off of the Sandusky trial.<br />
<br />
To be clear, the evidence above shows that Freeh, Frazier, Tomalis, and top PSU officials were in the loop that there were going to be leaks of the emails and that negative publicity (about Paterno, Spanier, and others) would follow.<br />
<br />
Freeh had been down that road before with Richard Jewell.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the leaks, Freeh performed a public lynching of PSU officials at his press conference, declaring that the "Tone at the top was completely wrong."<br />
<br />
Today, the irony of Freeh's statement is overwhelming.<br />
<br />Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-51007937000761772862019-11-22T17:29:00.001-05:002019-11-22T17:37:40.842-05:00Initial Report: Sandusky Receives Same Sentence of 30-60 years<i><b>An updated post will follow once the court documents have not been posted on the Centre County Media Page</b></i><br />
<br />
<i>By</i><br />
<i>Ray Blehar</i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">November 22, 2019, 5:23 PM EST</span><br />
<br />
Media outlets are reporting that Jerry Sandusky received the same sentence of 30-60 years and, if he serves out his term, will be in prison until age 98.<br />
<br />
Sandusky was convicted of 45 of 48 counts in June 2012, however, his 30-60 year sentence was based on only four (4) of the counts that garnered 5 to 10 year sentences and those sentences were to be served consecutively. The remaining 41 counts were ordered to be served consecutively, including the counts involved in the Victim 8/Janitor incident.<br />
<br />
The re-sentencing came as a result of the PA Supreme Court ruling that the Commonwealth's determination of Sexually Violent Predators (SVPs) was unconstitutional and that the mandatory minimum sentences connected to the SVP determination could no longer be applied.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see how Judge Maureen Skerda compiled the 30-60 year sentence, but it would have been easy for her to get there given she had 41 counts that she could apply consecutively.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNsTgd5a5uGWG9TW8xhlM4gwmCFLPCZhyphenhyphen-tLUth19dQyssLEoMz4qDIz5JkzBbxg9fMCKmZUlgDcaKqvz4olap9pJFhTscN5F9gL-VyFG7CRbfFMAjiGBEgfk764zqAKh9rBggZfRpLAw/s1600/Smilin+Jerry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNsTgd5a5uGWG9TW8xhlM4gwmCFLPCZhyphenhyphen-tLUth19dQyssLEoMz4qDIz5JkzBbxg9fMCKmZUlgDcaKqvz4olap9pJFhTscN5F9gL-VyFG7CRbfFMAjiGBEgfk764zqAKh9rBggZfRpLAw/s640/Smilin+Jerry.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Sandusky maintained his innocence at the proceeding.Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-73331006812693563042019-11-21T12:19:00.001-05:002019-11-21T13:30:04.144-05:00Supreme Court Shoots Down Fina's Blame-Shifting Arguments<i><b>Fina's legal team's flimsy blame-shifting arguments didn't gain much traction at yesterday's Supreme Court hearing</b></i><br />
<br />
<i>By</i><br />
<i>Ray Blehar</i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">November 21, 2019, 12:19 PM EST, Updated 1:12PM EST</span><br />
<br />
Disgraced former AG and Philly DA prosecutor Frank Fina continued his blame-shifting defense at yesterday's Supreme Court hearing according to coverage by <a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2019/11/20/hearing-over-frank-fina-suspension-recommendation-shows-faultlines-among-pa-justices/?kw=Hearing%20Over%20Frank%20Fina%20Suspension%20Recommendation%20Shows%20Fault%20Lines%20Among%20Pa.%20Justices&utm_source=email&utm_medium=enl&utm_campaign=newsroomupdate&utm_content=20191120&utm_term=tli">The Legal Intelligencer</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwe-1pQH-mbcrLgmg3idGtYUkVMj9jOV1RiXCeb-wdfpfpmQvm0sxobOshswCrsk934hRaoR7OfVo2MvKfPh8TEj_9jeRPSRsLJ6_Fc8zbWjSJhmmY5p4lU197Hb_ZztTYKb_LX4Vb4ps/s1600/Fina+Resigns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwe-1pQH-mbcrLgmg3idGtYUkVMj9jOV1RiXCeb-wdfpfpmQvm0sxobOshswCrsk934hRaoR7OfVo2MvKfPh8TEj_9jeRPSRsLJ6_Fc8zbWjSJhmmY5p4lU197Hb_ZztTYKb_LX4Vb4ps/s640/Fina+Resigns.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
While the headline (i.e., spin) of the story by The Legal alleged the hearing showed "Fault Lines Among P.A. Justices," notpsu.blogspot.com's analysis concluded that the justices were simply giving fair time to arguments put forth by the respective legal counsels. <br />
<br />
The bottom line appears to be that the justices shot down Fina's blame-shifting arguments.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>Blame-shift #1: Bruce Beemer, not Fina, signed the subpoena.</b><br />
<br />
On October 22, 2012, then prosecutor Fina misled Judge Barry Feudale about not questioning then-PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin about issues covered by attorney-client privilege, then later went on the question Baldwin on those issues. Fina's defense team argued that he should not be held responsible because he was not the signatory on the subpoena for Baldwin's grand jury subpoena.<br />
<br />
That argument was quickly dismissed by Justice Max Baer according to The Legal's coverage:<br />
<br />
<i> "<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Justice Max Baer was quick to disagree with that argument, saying line prosecutors are rarely the ones issuing subpoenas, and if the rule were enforced as strictly as McAndrews recommended it would be easy for prosecutors to get around it.</span></span></i><br />
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 30px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>“This rule would no longer exist,” Baer said. “I hope you have better arguments than that.”</i></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 30px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
<b style="color: black;">Blame-shift #2: Judge Feudale should have held a hearing of privilege prior to letting Baldwin testify.</b></div>
According to the grand jury colloquy on October 22, 2012, Fina told the court (Feudale) that a hearing on privilege should wait until after Baldwin testified to the grand jury so that her appearance would not become public information. His concern over keeping Baldwin's upcoming testimony under wraps was because he had just learned that Curley's and Schultz's attorneys had asserted claims of privilege regarding their client's communication with Baldwin. <br />
<br />
Fina obviously knew that<i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>Farrell's and Roberto's arguments should be heard before Baldwin was permitted to testify and that only the clients (i.e., Curley and Schultz) can waive privilege. But instead of going the route of sure defeat, Fina asserted that Penn State University could (and did) waive privilege in the case.<br />
<br />
In order to avoid having to argue the issue with Roberto and Farrell before procuring Baldwin's testimony, Fina stipulated to Feudale that he would not delve into discussions held between Baldwin, Curley, and Schultz. <br />
<br />
Instead of owing up to that fact, Fina's legal team asserted it was Feudale's fault for not holding a hearing on waiver of privilege.<br />
<br />
<i>Judge Christine Donahue shot that argument down, referring to it as "putting a bunny in the hat" because who could waive privilege was one of the issues discussed at the October 22nd hearing and Fina purposely put the issue on the back-burner in order to procure Baldwin's testimony against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. </i><br />
<br />
ODC attorney Amelia Kittredge boiled it down to Fina "wanted this done fast, quick, and in a hurry" and that Fina was "someone who cannot or will not separate right from wrong."<br />
<br />
Supreme Court will rule in this case is anyone's guess, however if it is consistent in how it ruled in the <a href="http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/former-da-parks-millers-law-license-suspended,1479271/">Stacy Parks Miller case</a>, then Fina should lose his license for a year and one day because he still refuses to own up for his transgressions and has shown no remorse regarding his actions.Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2260510730184507282.post-20334885774139334072019-10-22T17:54:00.004-04:002019-10-22T19:44:22.200-04:00Fina's Transgressions Are Worse Than ODC Knows<b><i>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</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<br />
<div>
<b><i>by</i></b></div>
<div>
<b><i>Ray Blehar</i></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">October 22, 2019, 5:55 PM EDT</span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnUJhIMU_DOuSEKspBnLPGihyphenhyphengMzf4MeHBgoGawIIRbOnmMFVh_J0iB6D2sZl-rZZ_eUszL-zQPVu9BTeOYZA65w1UJpXVD1OixBx8CuOTfTVuiYQts6j_cgQsaX_ugTiNZNtdMP_N8iI/s1600/Fina+Resigns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnUJhIMU_DOuSEKspBnLPGihyphenhyphengMzf4MeHBgoGawIIRbOnmMFVh_J0iB6D2sZl-rZZ_eUszL-zQPVu9BTeOYZA65w1UJpXVD1OixBx8CuOTfTVuiYQts6j_cgQsaX_ugTiNZNtdMP_N8iI/s640/Fina+Resigns.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Fina's transgressions are far worse than violating privilege with Baldwin</span></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
At Baldwin's <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/192201126/Cynthia-Baldwin-grand-jury-transcript-from-October-26-2012#">grand jury appearance</a>, Fina wasted little time in asking her about the discussions she had with Curley and Schultz for the grand jury (at 18).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTPgEoICA8qFzPi-DAkZh2V9XbnCb_T-olfpYNTLHCqYCw2mBQDaela3W1Y9CmcC8MV6xGBeFunM57NP0tYRTbAnOxMKjQwxi_AjtVvfop_7HcaZbYkjpoCQnLfkRhJSdaKXN3F6ZhJtM/s1600/Baldwin++GJ+18.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="397" data-original-width="981" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTPgEoICA8qFzPi-DAkZh2V9XbnCb_T-olfpYNTLHCqYCw2mBQDaela3W1Y9CmcC8MV6xGBeFunM57NP0tYRTbAnOxMKjQwxi_AjtVvfop_7HcaZbYkjpoCQnLfkRhJSdaKXN3F6ZhJtM/s640/Baldwin++GJ+18.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5UI95RBJ5qDubdv87CoLKQqza_VcU50eda9aG3ck5jgkGWY-fVemYFa3T25xY1xFX4kL_UBhMJr7o30HuKHNRbIDbKVewNeoGkIxk4lDgM3wH_IL3cEDoX-YGJoqY9_3_EDqCOWstMqc/s1600/Baldwin+cull.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="558" data-original-width="746" height="478" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5UI95RBJ5qDubdv87CoLKQqza_VcU50eda9aG3ck5jgkGWY-fVemYFa3T25xY1xFX4kL_UBhMJr7o30HuKHNRbIDbKVewNeoGkIxk4lDgM3wH_IL3cEDoX-YGJoqY9_3_EDqCOWstMqc/s640/Baldwin+cull.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Then she immediately followed that up with two lies -- and Fina knew she was lying.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpbZZ2vNdzG0EV315YrcF1rvH1GfM-RPPkE3JPo4bw-IdFtV_omU7SmUtFfOorZFT4ZYGgmVCcBMAr_PlSDFkvjYMxw9DBW6CK_6AU7imUvYyaMFSB-TeapAIvdrl8e-oSz7WNLeywGQM/s1600/Baldwin+GJ+73.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="427" data-original-width="640" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpbZZ2vNdzG0EV315YrcF1rvH1GfM-RPPkE3JPo4bw-IdFtV_omU7SmUtFfOorZFT4ZYGgmVCcBMAr_PlSDFkvjYMxw9DBW6CK_6AU7imUvYyaMFSB-TeapAIvdrl8e-oSz7WNLeywGQM/s640/Baldwin+GJ+73.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Lie #1: Subpoenas were not provided to Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.</b><br />
<br />
Schultz and Spanier confirmed that they never saw the subpoena in question. Sources close to Curley stated he was never provided with a copy.<br />
<br />
Subpoena 1179 stated:<br />
<br />
<i style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">"to acquire and disclose to the Grand Jury: Any and all records pertaining to the Sandusky incidents reported to occur </span><b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">on or about March 2002 </b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">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"</span></i><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<i style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></i>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Lie #2: Information was obtained from Curley, Schultz, and Spanier's offices</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">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. </span><br />
<br />
If there was a failure to obtain evidence from Schultz's office, that failure belonged to Baldwin -- and Fina knew that too. In <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Baldwin+proffer+letter&sxsrf=ACYBGNSj7pDk1eol5bbHzEwtX38FdrMehA:1571778351913&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=L3wczjtpIuMrOM%253A%252CF42_mnCaQQ-YgM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRQVqtzyBGczxSkLFM5ftj9dRG1MA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZgNPS4rDlAhVpx1kKHco-DCIQ9QEwAnoECAkQCQ#imgrc=Za4yytisMCe-7M:&vet=1">December 2011, he wrote a letter to Baldwin admonishing her</a> for failing to comply with subpoenas. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
His conduct at the October 2012 grand jury was not only unethical, but could be considered criminal.</div>
Ray Bleharhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14557326921056183979noreply@blogger.com4