"Freeh source materials" confirm the Curley File

Freeh Report source materials already in the public domain, combined with other evidence, confirm that Tim Curley had a file on Sandusky -- and its contents found their way into the so-called Schultz "secret file"

By

Ray Blehar 

Even though the alumni-elected members of the Penn State University (PSU) Board of Trustees (BOT) have succeeded in gaining access to the Freeh source materials, the court sided with Old Main to keep the information from being publicly disclosed.

Regardless of that ruling, and likely unknown to the public, some of the Freeh source materials  are already in the public domain - and they prove that evidence was manipulated and/or tampered with in order to railroad PSU officials (i.e., Curley, Schultz, and Spanier).

However, when the source materials are combined with other existing evidence, the totality of the evidence confirms that former PSU Athletic Director (AD) Tim Curley had information related to the Sandusky matter -- and that information was illegally placed into the so-called "secret file" of former PSU VP for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz.

The Key Evidence?

What appears to be a seemingly insignificant document -- a February 11, 2001 computer printout that lists the names of the Board of Directors of The Second Mile (TSM) and its date/time stamp -- turns out to be a very key piece of evidence.

According to the Freeh Report (at 71), on "February 12, 2001, at about 11:10 AM, Schultz researched the internet about the Board members of The Second Mile, the charitable organization Sandusky founded."

The passage is referenced to End Note #303: Schultz confidential file notes (5-1-12), however this printout -- that was printed at the exact same time "Schultz researched the internet" -- was not included in the Freeh Report.  Had it been included, most reasonable people (not Sally Jenkins) would have concluded that Freeh was making quite an evidentiary leap to tie an unlabeled computer printout to a specific individual.  In short, Freeh excluded the print out as a matter of maintaining his (alleged) credibility.

The document wasn't introduced as evidence in any legal proceeding to date -- for a very good reason.

The timeline of evidence does not support Gary Schultz searching for the names of members of the TSM Board on February 12, 2001.

Curley, Not Schultz, Concerned About TSM

Freeh Report Exhibit 5C, the February 12, 2001 "Confidential" hand-written note of Gary Schultz outlined an early plan for addressing the 2001 incident.  Schultz made no mention of  TSM in that plan.

According to the grand jury testimony of Curley (at 181 and 188), he originated the plan to inform TSM about the 2001 incident  and proposed it during the February 25, 2001 meeting with former PSU President Graham Spanier and Schultz.

Freeh Report Exhibit 5G, Schultz's February 28, 2001  email  also confirms Curley proposed informing TSM: "we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation (I think that's what Tim proposed)."

Schultz also memorialized Curley's plan, which included discussions with TSM, on February 25th and 26th, in handwriting (Exhibit 5G) and by email (Exhibit 5F), respectively.

Finally, Freeh Report Exhibit 2J, the notes of Graham Spanier, also confirm that Curley was very concerned about his impending interaction with TSM.

In summary, this evidence reveals that Curley came up with the plan to talk to TSM and had concerns about the charity's reaction.  Given the evidence, it was Curley - not Schultz -- who printed out the names of the TSM board members on February 12th.

While the printout turns out to be a very significant document in the grand scheme of things, it's not the only "source" document that provides evidence of manipulation and/or tampering.

March 7, 2001 Email Manipulation/Bias

A March 7, 2001 email allegedly obtained from the so-called "secret file" of Gary Schultz, memorialized a discussion between  Curley and Schultz's former administrative assistant Joan Coble, regarding Curley's follow up on the plan to address the incident.

Freeh Report's Exhibit 5I of the email is on the left, while the source document (introduced as Commonwealth's Exhibit 18 at the July 2013 preliminary hearing) is on the right.

The evidence shows that the Freeh Report exhibit was printed from an email file and was not the full email discussion between Coble and Curley.  The Freeh Report excluded any mention of Curley's affirmative response that he had followed through on the plan by March 7th.  Note that March 7th is the circled date at top of the full email.

This is significant because the Freeh Report stated, without equivocation, that Curley met with TSM on March 19, 2001.  However, the Freeh Report's March 19, 2001 date is based on a hearsay statement from an unnamed legal representative for TSM.

The Freeh Report's conclusion of the March 19th meeting between Curley and TSM was also refuted by Spanier's notes (Freeh Exhibit 2J).  Spanier wrote that he met with Curley shortly after their late February meeting that the former AD had followed through on the plan to speak with TSM.

The Freeh Report made several inferences that Spanier had been less than honest with the Freeh investigators, thus excluding the critical evidence of the March 7th date was two fold:  to support the Freeh Report conclusion of a March 19th meeting and to undermine the credibility of Spanier.

As shown in email obtained by PSU alumnus, Ryan Bagwell, Freeh made it a point to alert personnel conducting Spanier's background investigation for a security clearance about evidence found during the (criminal) investigation.  Spanier would eventually lose his clearance as a result of the charges against him.

The evidence manipulation to persecute PSU officials certainly was more widespread than those documents.  Over 80 documents cited as sources in the Freeh Report were excluded, and most importantly, some of the most critical missing evidence is tied to the Curley/Schultz files.

Curley's Notes Turned Over In February 2011

The grand jury questioning by Frank Fina revealed he was not yet aware that Tim Curley possessed any information about Sandusky.  Fina didn't ask a single question whether Tim had taken notes during any of the meetings about the 2001 incident.  In fact, Fina didn't even ask Curley (or anyone else) if they had searched for documents responsive to Subpoena 1179.  Clearly, Fina knew that Baldwin didn't tell these men to search for documents.

According to the Freeh Report (at 84), on February 15, 2011, Baldwin met with members of the football coaching staff to discuss their knowledge of Sandusky.  The next day, OAG investigators were present and conducted more interviews.  It is likely that the search for documents from the football coaches and AD officials occurred then or very shortly thereafter.

OAG special agent, Anthony Sassano later testified that the legal team of Duane Morris delivered boxes of information (he presumed was from Schultz's office)  that contained Sandusky's retirement paperwork.  Duane Morris was the former employer of Cynthia Baldwin -- and she brought in members of that firm in to assist her.  According to a notation on one of the retirement papers (Freeh Report Exhibit 3H), it was received (by someone, but certainly not Louis Freeh) on February 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm.

While the public has been led to believe that the retirement paperwork came from the Schultz file, it is clear that Curley had a copy of it.  As noted on the letter, Sandusky was instructed to return his signed copy to Curley (see below).  This indeed confirms that Curley and/or the AD's office had information related to Sandusky in its possession.

But that's not the only significant issue regarding the Curley file.


More Tampering?
According to the testimony of Joan Coble, she had no specific knowledge of anything in the bottom drawer of Schultz's filing cabinet.  She testified she never looked in the drawer.  As such, Coble's testimony provided no legitimate information regarding the contents of the Schultz file.

Based on the evidence cited previously, by the time Kimberly Belcher removed the file from Schultz's bottom drawer in November 2011, it had been touched by so many hands that the authenticity/integrity of the contents would be compromised.

It also appears that one of the "hands" involved may have tampered with the retirement letter.

Under magnification, it appears that Schultz's signature has been overlaid on a previous signature block. Note that the words "BY UNIVERSITY OFFICER: and "for Finance" do not have shadowing or aliasing around them.

















For the purpose of comparison, here is top of page two at similar magnification, showing the clear, bolder, non-shadowed type as the authentic typeface.

It is highly probable that those who tampered with the evidence did so thinking that Freeh's impeccable reputation would prevent anyone from questioning the authenticity of the evidence and that they could get away with railroading the PSU 3.

Under the patently ridiculous narrative of the Freeh Report, it was the lure of the Penn State football facilities that provided the "very currency" that Sandusky used to attract his victims. With Schultz's signature affixed to the document, each of the PSU 3 (and Paterno) would be tried in the court of public opinon for enabling Sandusky's sexual abuse.

Freeh publicly smeared PSU officials for allowing Sandusky to be on campus after there were no charges or findings against him in 1998.  Moreover, Freeh ignored the evidence that no crimes occurred on campus after 2001, instead stating that abuse continued on the PSU campus through 2009.

As has been demonstrated repeatedly, evidence timelines or chain of custody of evidence can be counted on to undo the false narratives of the cases prosecuted by the PA Corruption Network.

The Chain of Custody of the Schultz Files

According to OAG officials, the notes of Schultz were not provided to them until April 2012 -- by Schultz and his former administrative assistant, Kimberly Belcher.

Louis Freeh claimed, during his highly publicized press conference, that "we found them in conjunction with the Attorney General."  The Freeh Report notes the date of discovery as May 1, 2012.

However, both of those claims are refuted by the notebook of former PSU President Rodney Erickson.  On 31 January 2012, which was three months before the Schultz notes were either turned over to the OAG or "found" by Freeh, Erickson wrote that he was to get copies of the notes of Curley and Schultz.

PSU alumnae Eileen Morgan's excellent analysis of the evidence surrounding the grand jury questioning of Curley, Schultz, and the late former PSU football Coach, Joe Paterno almost certainly proves that Frank Fina received the Schultz file from PSU (i.e., Baldwin) prior to the January 12, 2011 proceeding.

While Erickson's notebook confirms that he knew that Freeh's alleged discovery of the Schultz file and the OAG's pretense that the files were not turned over until April 2012 were both shams, it also confirmed that he was aware of Fina's strategy to get Curley and Schultz to flip.

Based on the analysis of the evidence, it is highly probable that Fina, et al, decided to throw the whole kitchen sink of evidence at Schultz, rather than Curley, in an effort to produce the flip.

The Truth

PSU, under Erickson and new puppet President Eric Barron have paid out untold millions to keep various litigants, including some of its own trustees,  from accessing the Freeh source materials.

In doing so, Old Main and the Old Guard utilized specious arguments or protecting employee confidentiality and that the Freeh Report didn't impact University decisions as a means to keep the alumni trustees from finding out the truth.

The reality of the matter is that Erickson, Baldwin, and others know that it is only a matter of time before the Freeh source materials expose the truth about the Sandusky matter.

And the only thing Erickson, Baldwin, Harmon, Fina and numerous others fear more than the truth is what the truth will eventually do to them.

Nifonged Part 3: Freeh "Exposed" Fina's Other Email Problem

When then-Governor Tom Corbett recommended Louis Freeh to conduct the investigation at Penn State, little did he know that the Freeh Report would provide key evidence that helped unveil Fina's email deception.  

By

Ray Blehar

Parts 1 and 2 of the series identified critical facts and evidence (indicating misconduct) that surfaced after Frank Fina's "flip" strategy failed.   Part 3  identifies the information contained in the Freeh Report that revealed Fina and Baldwin misrepresented evidence before the court.

Corbett Endorsed Freeh

Shortly after Penn State announced that it hired Louis Freeh, then-Governor Tom Corbett opined that Freeh was the right man for the job.

"And I think one of the reasons that someone like Mr. Freeh was appointed is because he understands the role of a grand jury investigation, the role of the prosecutors and will work well with the attorney general's office and Attorney General Linda Kelly so that [obstruction of the attorney general's investigation] does not happen."
 

Emails obtained by PSU alumnus Ryan Bagwell clearly show that Freeh's team and the prosecution worked together....but to say that Freeh and AG partnership would "work well" turned out to be wishful thinking.

On July 12, 2012, Louis Freeh's press conference left little doubt in the public's mind -- and much to Corbett's liking -- that there was a Penn State cover up involving Graham Spanier.  Later that day, the man who had taken credit for the firing of Joe Paterno, took to the microphone to take credit for recommending Freeh (at :58). 

"The hiring of Louis Freeh...which I certainly encouraged...in fact, I provided his name..." 

Corbett then rambled on and indicated that obstruction of justice charges may be in store for PSU officials (at 1:20): 


"The prior administration, they made decisions on how they would deliver and what they would deliver...and I'm sure that is the subject of much discussion on the sixteenth floor of Strawberry Square." 

And (at 2:44): 

"Prior people who were in control; now if I limit it to that, I am very disappointed in the lack of forthcoming evidence to the subpoena that was given to them by the attorney general's office."

Freeh overlooked game changing information that
 his team -wittingly or unwittingly - left behind.

Louis Freeh likely relished the opportunity to take credit for "discovering" the evidence that he alleged PSU officials sought to "conceal" from the authorities. 

Given Freeh's alleged impeccable reputation, everyone assumed he was truthful and that the supporting evidence backing up his statements would be in his report.  It wasn't.  


Then Governor Tom Corbett was among those who promoted the report, when (at :25) he stated to "the extent he had read it so far, I think is pretty thorough report."  

Had Corbett read it all the way to the very back, he would have realized the Freeh Report was obviously incomplete by virtue of the five missing exhibits (i.e., #s 1, 4, 7, 8, & 9).  He also likely would have realized that some other exhibits (exposing the Commonwealth's 1998 failure) that should have been excluded or at least redacted, remained in the report.  

It is apparent that Freeh's team, wittingly or unwittingly, left several references in place that exposed potentially "game changing" information regarding the 1998 and 2001 incidents. 

However, the evidence of Fina's email deception was the reference to Subpoena 109.

The Key Evidence: Subpoena 109 

According to the Freeh Report at 88, "the investigators had subpoenaed all emails dating back to 1997 for Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley."   This passage was sourced to end note 457: Grand Jury Subpoena 109, issued on March 24, 2011. 

Note: Former PSU police chief Tom Harmon was also among the individuals targeted by Subpoena 109.  Fina made reference to the alteration of the 1998 police report during his in-camera argument on April 13, 2011.

At the April 13, 2011 grand jury, then PSU Counsel Cynthia Baldwin (at 5) told Judge Feudale that Penn State had been "cooperating all the way through" and did not feel she needed to make a motion to quash the subpoena.  She also stated that the University was working to gather all the requested information.

PSU SOS employee John Corro testified that he was shown some language from the a subpoena in March 2011 and he delivered three USB drives of information to Baldwin in April 2011.  

According to Spanier's July 2012 letter to the Board of Trustees, Baldwin provided a thumb drive his emails - dating back to 2004 - to Judge Feudale at his April 13 appearance.  It is more likely, as I will explain, that the thumb drive contained all of the PSU emails and that a "culled" set had already been provided to the OAG.

The in-camera arguments (for pre-1997 emails) made by OAG prosecutors Fina and Eshbach at the April 13th proceeding revealed they had already received 1998 and 2001 emails -- that would eventually wind up as the "critical evidence" in the Freeh Report.

Fina, Eshbach, and Masked Comments

During former PSU President Graham Spanier's grand jury colloquy,  Frank Fina and Jonelle Eshbach made four different references about emails containing masked comments, metaphors, and other information alluding to Sandusky's crimes on campus.  There was no mention to look for this type of information in documents requested by Subpoena 1179, thus it was not a "routine" request.  In other words, Fina and Eshbach were making the following arguments/requests based emails they already possessed.


1. Fina at 15:

2. & 3. Fina and Eshbach at 20:

4.  Fina at 26:

Fina referenced an alleged 1984 incident involving Sandusky - of which there was no police report or other supporting evidence -- to make the case for the (retroactive) subpoena requiring PSU to search for emails prior to 1997.   

Feudale and Pre-1997 Order

Baldwin, who was excused from the judges chambers during Fina's and Eshbach's in-camera arguments, re-entered and was informed that Fina laid the proper grounds to justify the subpoena for emails prior to 1997. 

Feudale ordered Baldwin to provide the full set of emails, dating "from 1997 back" to him, and a culled set containing just emails related to Sandusky to the OAG.   

Timeline: Freeh & Baldwin Exposed The Deception

Dec 29, 2010:  Subpoena 1179 for Sandusky information related to 2002 incident.


Jan 10, 2011:  PSU turned over handful of materials (likely including "Schultz" file).

Mar 22, 2011: Spanier interviewed by Fina, Eshbach, Rossman, and Sassano.

Mar 24, 2011: Subpoena 109 for emails from 1997 to the present. No motion to quash.

Apr 11, 2011: Due date for emails re: Subpoena 109.

Apr 13, 2011: Baldwin turned over thumb drive to Feudale.  

Apr 13, 2011: Judge Feudale agreed to write order for emails prior to 1997.

Apr 13, 2011: Baldwin promised to turn over all emails by April 15th.

At the outset of the April 13th grand jury, Baldwin explained that PSU had been cooperating with the subpoena but was having difficulty obtaining the emails because the University's administrative computer networks were not centralized.  She also argued (at 5) that the request for emails from 1997 to the present was "much too broad."  

It strains credulity that - in the face of the new, expanded requirement for all emails prior to 1997-  Baldwin would commit to turning around the information in just two days.  Not only did approximately 15 years of email have to be recovered and searched, but it had to be combed through for "metaphors" and possible "allusions" to Sandusky.  Yet all of this would be completed in two days -- according to Baldwin.

Baldwin (at 27) exposed the ex post facto argument for the pre-1997 data when she stated that PSU's IT people were already working to gather and cull out the emails.

The Clincher:  A USB Drive 

While Baldwin's promise to deliver emails in two days was quite incredible, the clincher that the emails had already been gathered was her statement that they would all fit on a single USB drive.

How could Baldwin, who probably knows less about IT than she does about education law (and that says a lot), have known all of the data would fit on a single USB drive?  The answer is she knew they would fit on a USB because she already had it in her possession.   

This also lends credence to the scenario that Dr. Spanier didn't see her turning over his emails to Feudale -- he saw her turn over all the emails to Feudale.   Baldwin and Fina talked their way around that fact at her grand jury appearance in October 2012.  


The evidence presented reveals that Baldwin, Fina, and Esbach were all in on the email deception --  and the railroading of PSU officials.

Fina vs. Nifong

Durham County DA was disbarred, in part, for misrepresenting evidence before the court in the Duke lacrosse case.  Specifically, Nifong falsely represented to the Court that he had turned over the complete DNA reports and other evidence (when he had not).  He was found to have made false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1),  and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.


In this case, Fina (and Baldwin) likely made numerous misrepresentations and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty and deceit when they pretended that the email evidence related to Subpoena 109 and emails related to the pre-1997 order had yet to be gathered.  It is also likely Fina fabricated the existence of a 1984 incident as a means to justify the search for pre-1997 emails.  The duo of Fina and Baldwin also engaged in similar conduct at Baldwin's grand jury appearance when they talked their way around Baldwin's provision of Spanier's emails to Feudale on April 13, 2011.  See below.

The document excerpt on the left is from the April 13th grand jury, when Fina instructed Baldwin to hand over the complete set of emails to Judge Fuedale.  The document excerpt on the right reflects Fina grand jury questioning Baldwin, implying she didn't hand over emails to the judge.  Baldwin's answer utilizes two technicalities to deny she handed over Spanier's emails. 

1. The thumb drive contained ALL the emails, not just Spanier's.
2. Subpoena 109 and the subsequent order required emails prior to and after 2004.

While she did not commit perjury, her answer was indeed deceptive -- and Fina knew it.

Conclusion

The narrative of a Penn State cover-up was a very poorly executed deception that was attempted by a bunch of amateurs.  Those amateurs included Tom Corbett, Linda Kelly, Frank Fina, Barry Feudale, Jonelle Eshbach, Cynthia Baldwin, and a cub reporter at the Harrisburg Patriot News. 

The flaws in the November 4th 2011 grand jury presentment and in the Patriot News' subsequent Pulitzer Prize winning reporting were rather obvious from the outset. Those flaws were further exposed by the evidence contained in the Freeh Report (and subsequent legal proceedings).  

The Freeh Report was expected to be the definitive account on Penn State's role in the Sandusky case and the emails were supposed to be the evidence proving a cover-up by top PSU officials -- including Joe Paterno.

Instead, the Freeh Report provided the critical piece of evidence that helped to unveil the Commonwealth's and Fina's email deception. 

It's clear that Frank Fina's problems with email aren't just with "Porngate."

Mark Emmert: Unfit to Lead

Evidence revealing the level of Mark Emmert's corruption and lack of integrity in the Penn State case are grounds for his removal.

By
Ray Blehar

Dr. Ed Ray Provided The Initial Tip 
That Someone (Everyone) Was Lying

Today is the third anniversary of Penn State University's (PSU) and the NCAA's unprecedented agreement to punish the PSU football program and athletic department without cause. 

The evidence in the case proves that conduct of NCAA President Mark Emmert was so unethical, dishonest, and, at times delusional, that he is not fit to be the President of the NCAA.

At the time of the signing of the NCAA Consent Decree, the only evidence that something was amiss was Dr. Ed Ray's interview that contradicted that the death penalty was threatened.

Today we know a lot more than we did then, including that both parties knew there was no evidence to justify punishing PSU athletics and that Mark Emmert decided unilaterally to interject the NCAA in the matter. 

Also, contrary to popular belief -- and Senator Corman's summary -- the agreement (formally titled "BINDING CONSENT DECREE IMPOSED BY THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION AND ACCEPTED BY PENN STATE UNIVERSITY) was the result of an eight-month collaboration between the top leaders of the two organizations.   Those leaders used the opportunity provided by the Sandusky case as a means to rehabilitate their public images.

Emmert actions reflected his desire to change the NCAA's reputation as a weak enforcer who harshly penalized lesser NCAA members, while giving wrist slaps to big time athletics programs.  It was also true that the top leadership of PSU was under fire for its botching of the Sandusky matter and its rash decisions to remove former PSU President Graham Spanier and legendary coach, Joe Paterno.  They too desired to boost their reputations.

Their hyperbolic public relations strategy was to accuse former PSU officials of a lack of integrity and ethics, while putting themselves on the moral high ground and portraying themselves as reformers of PSU's governance and culture, respectively.

The irony in this case is overwhelming, as it was the top leaders of the NCAA and PSU - not Spanier, Paterno, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz -- that displayed a lack of integrity and ethics. 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

The evidence in this case reveals that NCAA President Mark Emmert and/or members of his top leadership team:

1.  Knew, on November 9, 2011, that the Charter and By-Laws did not authorize the NCAA's intervention in the Sandusky matter;

2.  Knew, on or about November 10, 2011, that they had to work around the enforcement process to interject the NCAA into the Sandusky matter; 

3.  Knew, in December 2011, that the NCAA's role in the Freeh investigation went beyond monitoring.

4.  Knew, by January 31, 2012, that the Freeh investigation found no major violations.

5.  Knew, by July 15, 2012, that the Freeh Report did not contain evidence of NCAA violations;

6.  Sidestepped the NCAA's responsibility to determine if a lack of institutional control (LOIC) existed at PSU;

7.  Began negotiating, on or about July 16, 2012, with Erickson to determine the specific sanctions on the PSU athletics department.

8.  Finalized, on or about July 21, 2012, the sanctions against PSU athletics.

9.  Lied, on July 23, 2012, to Graham Spanier about not naming him in the Consent Decree and about assigning individual culpability.

DISCUSSION

1. The NCAA Had No Role In Sandusky Matter 

"There is nothing for us to do. I think it is a dead issue."

-- Tom Hosty, NCAA Enforcement Official

When Mark Emmert identified a number of rules in its November 17th letter to Penn State, he did so knowing that none of them applied to the Sandusky matter.  In addition, Emmert conveniently omitted the articles in The NCAA By-Laws and Charter that clearly showed it had no jurisdiction in the case.  To wit:

1.3.1 Basic Purpose. [*] The competitive athletics programs of member institutions are designed to be a vital part of the educational system. A basic purpose of this Association is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.

1.3.2 Obligations of Member Institutions. [*] Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

19.01.1 Mission of NCAA Enforcement Program.  It shall be the mission of the NCAA enforcement program to eliminate violations of NCAA rules and impose appropriate penalties should violations occur. The program is committed to fairness of procedures and the timely and equitable resolution of infractions cases. The achievement of these objectives is essential to the conduct of a viable and effective enforcement program. Further, an important consideration in imposing penalties is to provide fairness to uninvolved student-athletes, coaches, administrators, competitors and other institutions." 

Article 32.6.3 Statute of Limitations imposes a four-year limit or statute of limitations on rules violations that can be adjudicated by the NCAA's enforcement arm.  

Ironically, in 2010, Mark Emmert proclaimed PSU football as exemplifying everything the NCAA stands for and called Paterno "the definitive role model of what it means to be a college coach."  Sandusky's crimes that surfaced one year later had no bearing on PSU's stellar record of combining athletics and academics, did not constitute NCAA violations, and occurred outside the statute of limitations for an enforcement action. 

Emmert's and the NCAA's dishonesty is confirmed by the email below, showing that they knew as early as November 9, 2011  that matters related to the Sandusky grand jury report were not applicable and outside of the statute of limitations. (Corman/Roe Lach, #1)

After the repeal of a number of sanctions in September 2014,  Emmert backpedaled on the process used to penalize PSU, sheepishly calling it an "experiment." 

2.  Emmert Knew The Sandusky Case Was Not An Enforcement Matter

"..use it to look at the athletic culture, but Mark wants more."

-- David Berst, NCAA Policy Expert

In a November 10th ESPN interview about the Sandusky scandal, Emmert stated  "that I would never say athletics was the cause of it." He further stated that "the NCAA would let the criminal justice process move forward and see what the facts say happened...then we'll do an inquiry to see what action should be determined." (Corman/Emmert #2)

The day after the interview, former PSU Vice President for Student Affairs, Vicky Triponey emailed Mark Emmert, sending him a "THANK YOU" for his comments on "the PSU situation." She also offered her assistance with "the Penn State mess" and stated she "knew too well what people were capable of doing when immersed in a toxic culture."  

That same day, former NCAA Vice President for Enforcement, David Price, emailed Julie Roe Lach to advise her to brainstorm ways to justify an enforcement action against Penn State that did not involve violations of NCAA rules. (Corman/Roe #2 shown below)

On November 15, 2011, Emmert invited the NCAA senior leadership team to a one hour meeting on November 16th to discuss "Penn State." (Corman/Berst #2)  


The following day, David Berst, an enforcement and policy expert for the NCAA, emailed a "heads up" to Big Ten Commissioner, Jim Delaney, stating he (Berst) "pushed back and have lost the argument so far" on an NCAA inquiry.  Berst informed Michigan State President Lou Anna Simon that an inquiry could be used "to look at the athletic culture, but Mark wants more." (Corman/Berst #4).

The NCAA's role in the matter was limited, but Emmert "wanted more."

On November 17, 2011, Emmert held a conference call with the Division-I Board of Directors (BoD) at 11:30 AM to discuss Penn State situation. At his deposition  (p. 73), Emmert didn't think he shared his subsequent letter to PSU with the BoD at that time.(Corman/Emmert #5) Later that day, or about 3:10 PM, the NCAA sent a so-called "notice of inquiry" to PSU.  

The email memorializing the notice stated  "The plan is to send to the Board tomorrow, after Mark and President Erikson (sic) have spoken."  (Corman/Berst #3)

Despite the expert opinions of David Berst and the enforcement staff that there were no applicable violations in the Sandusky case - and that all of the criminal acts occurred outside the statute of limitations, Mark Emmert unilaterally decided that the NCAA would get involved in the incident.  The evidence also shows that  the Division-I BoD did not approve the letter to PSU and was not provided a copy of it after it was sent.  

Emmert's actions depict an environment in which the President could act unilaterally and was accountable to no one.   

Again, the irony in this case is overwhelming.

3.  Emmert Knew the NCAA's Role Exceeded Monitoring The Freeh Investigation

"The University has undertaken a commendable process by commissioning the independent FSS investigation."

-- Quote from NCAA Consent Decree


On November 21st, the NCAA VP for Legal Affairs, Donald Remy, arranged a November 23rd teleconference for Emmert, VP for Enforcement Julie Roe Lach, and newly selected PSU President Rodney Erickson and other PSU officials to discuss the Sandusky matter (Corman/Erickson #1).  Emmert recalled that Erickson asked for more time to respond to the four questions because PSU was waiting for the Freeh investigation to determine the facts (Emmert deposition page 92). 

 Erickson confirmed that not long after the receipt of the NCAA's November 17th letter, he was instructed by the Special Investigations Task Force -- led by Kenneth Frazier and Ronald Tomalis -- to stand down on the response to the letter and wait for the Freeh investigation to complete (Erickson deposition, page 19).  

A half-hour conference call for November 29th between Emmert and Tomalis was arranged by the NCAA.  The call included the NCAA's (redacted) "Penn State talking points" which were compiled by Donald Remy (Corman/Emmert #8).   

Frazier, Freeh, and Tomalis all had
vested interests in the investigation

Emmert had no recollection of what was discussed with Tomalis at that meeting, but just two days later, on December 1st, the NCAA set up a meeting at the Nittany Lion Inn and invited representatives from Freeh, Sporkin, and Sullivan (FSS), the Big Ten, and the NCAA (Corman/Roe Lach #6).  The Big Ten's Jon Barrett was approved to participate in the investigation by Kenneth Frazier on December 4th.  According to Barrett, Frazier wanted to give the Big Ten and NCAA equal treatment  (Corman/McNeill #3).

On December 16th, then PSU General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin provided a draft letter to the NCAA asking for an extension of time and suggesting that the Freeh Report be used as PSU's response (Corman/Berst #4).  The NCAA and FSS had gotten cozy enough that Remy and McNeill collaborated on suggestions for Baldwin's draft (Corman/McNeill #4)

During late December, the NCAA provided FSS with a list of proposed questions/avenues of investigation. (Corman/McNeill #7)  and computer search terms (Corman/McNeill #9). 

On January 6th, 2012, the NCAA prepared materials and conducted a briefing highlighting NCAA rules and examples of lack of institutional controls to FSS (Corman/McNeill #10).

Even though the NCAA attempted to influence the Freeh investigation, their efforts were unsuccessful simply because they didn't understand that Louis Freeh doesn't work for free.  Had the NCAA paid Freeh to find NCAA violations, he would have found them -- or fabricated them.


4.  The NCAA Knew the Investigation Found No Major Violations

"Curley....fastidious on rules violations e.g. giving donations...
But NCAA waiting for Freeh Report"

-- Passage, dated January 31, 2012, from Rodney Erickson's notebook

The end notes of the Freeh Report indicate that FSS investigators completed their investigation of the PSU football program and the athletic department by the end of January 2012.  

According to the notes of former President Rodney Erickson, on or about January 31st, 2012, PSU informed the NCAA that the FSS investigation had found only minor violations of NCAA rules.  

Specifically, PSU informed the NCAA that PSU Athletic Director (AD) Timothy Curley and another AD official were "fastidious about rules violations."   The notes also indicate that despite being informed of PSU's compliance with rules, the NCAA was "waiting for Freeh Report."

The NCAA was told PSU athletics was "fastidious on rules violations," but remained confident that the Freeh investigation would find reasons to punish PSU athletics.

I would be remiss not to mention the lack of integrity of former President Rodney Erickson, who, despite this evidence, advised the PSU lawyers to move forward with a settlement with the NCAA because "they hold all the cards.  We hold none."

5.  Emmert Knew The Freeh Report Did Not Justify A Finding of a LOIC

"I don't believe Judge Freeh will take any position other than what is noted in the report."

-- Omar McNeill, responding to NCAA's request for a statement on LOIC

On July 12, 2012, Mark Emmert (Corman/Emmert # 16) requested that James Isch, Donald Remy, Kevin Lennon, Julie Roe (Lach) and Crissy Schluep begin an immediate review of the Freeh Report.  

By July 14th, NCAA officials understood the Freeh Report lacked the evidence to legitimately punish Penn State Athletics.  In an email (Corman/Roe #17), Julie Roe Lach wrote: "if we make this an enforcement issue, we...will lose the war when the COI has to rule."  In the same email, Roe referred to NCAA's enforcement action as a "bluff" and stated that Mark (Emmert) agreed with her assessment.





















Earlier that day, Kevin Lennon wrote to Roe Lach about the NCAA's "idea to bring Judge Freeh in" expressing concerns that it would raise questions regarding why the matter was not given to its enforcement staff.  As noted earlier, Emmert and others knew it would be impossible to carry out punishments against PSU in an enforcement action.






















The deposition of Omar McNeil stated (pages 116-117) that on July 17, 2012, Donald Remy referred a question from Mark Emmert asking "why we did not have any specific mention of institutional or lack of institutional control in the report."  On page 120, McNeil stated that Remy also asked if Judge Freeh would have a view on whether there was a lack of institutional control if asked.  McNeil answered, "I don't believe that Judge Freeh will take any position other than what is noted in the report."

In summary, the NCAA knew the Freeh Report was devoid of specific information that could be used in an enforcement action and attempted to reach out to FSS to get them to make an additional statement regarding a lack of institutional control.  


6.  Emmert Sidestepped the NCAA's responsibility to determine if a LOIC existed at PSU

Emmert and the NCAA Weaseled Out of
the Responsibility to Determine a LOIC

"Penn State determined that yes, there were violations of the NCAA By-Laws."  
"We didn't have to."

-- Donald Remy, NCAA Legal Counsel

After being rebuffed by FSS, former PSU President Rodney Erickson stepped up to the plate and offered his unqualified opinion that the Freeh Report constituted a LOIC.   

Emmert's decision to accept Erickson's opinion on the matter was clearly an unethical act and a dodge of the NCAA's responsibilities in the matter.   

The NCAA Division I manual, Articles 32.7.1.1 and 32.7.1.2 state an institution can conduct its own investigation, however the investigation must be reviewed by Committee on Infractions (COI).  The COI's review must determine that "a thorough investigation of possible violations of NCAA legislation has been conducted."  After that has been determined, the enforcement staff and the institution "shall submit a written report" of the "proposed findings of facts," a summary of the information on which the findings are based;" and "a stipulation that the "findings are violations of NCAA legislation."  After that has been completed, the institution and the enforcement staff propose appropriate penalties based on the violations. 

NCAA counsel Donald Remy doubled down on Emmert's unethical and irresponsible maneuver, stating that Penn State determined that By-Law violations occurred based on its evaluation of the Freeh Report.

Remy at 256:  "I think that was Penn State's determination after the reading the Freeh Report. You read the Freeh Report, it comes back to the questions. Everything goes back to the questions. Were there violations of NCAA bylaws? Penn State determined that yes, there were violations of NCAA bylaws."

 "Q Did NCAA, as part of the overall process in which you engaged in, make a determination 
 that there was a lack of institutional control at Penn State such that these penalties were justified? 

Remy at 257: "Penn State did. I mean, that's what they said to us and so that's the basis upon which we moved forward. We didn't have to." 

The evidence proves the NCAA knew there were no violations found in the investigation or cited in the Freeh Report.   Emmert and the NCAA leadership's acceptance of Erickson's "guilty plea" was inexcusable.

7.  Emmert Negotiated With Erickson To Determine Penalties

Gene Marsh: Strictly "window dressing"

"It was absolutely not a negotiation. And I was finally glad to see that David Berst in his deposition, boom, say it was not a negotiation."

-- Gene Marsh, Attorney for PSU

Senator Corman's summary of the case was correct in that there were two parallel conversations occurring in the case.  The "real" discussion of penalties took place between Emmert and Erickson.  Conversely, Gene Marsh was brought in by PSU to serve as "window dressing" for the fake negotiations between him, Donald Remy, and David Berst.   

Evidence indicates that Marsh was likely selected because he was incompetent and easily intimidated.  His track record showed he had blown his previous two gigs representing the Ohio State and Alabama football programs, with each case resulting in probation, losses of scholarships, and vacating of wins.  In other words, he was Erickson's and Emmert's ideal man for the job.

Marsh was used by the NCAA and PSU to provide disinformation, such as constant reminders of the position of the NCAA Executive Committee on the death penalty, to PSU attorneys Frank Guadagnino and Stephen Dunham.  Erickson then pretended to consult them for advice on "negotiating" with the NCAA.

In spite of the charade, the depositions Rodney Erickson, current BOT Chairman Keith Masser and Gene Marsh all confirm that negotiations began on Monday, July 16th and a list of proposed penalties was crafted by July 17th.

Rodney Erickson's Deposition 
By Erickson's own admission he and Emmert discussed potential NCAA sanctions  "On that Friday" (July 13th) as he was leaving the Scranton campus (Erickson deposition, page 30). 

Q. Shortly thereafter, am I right, is the time you had your first contact with President Emmert about potential NCAA sanctions?

A. On that Friday, yes.

Erickson went on to state that he did not talk to Emmert over the weekend and that the first substantive conversation took place with Emmert on Monday, July 16th and that negotiations started the same day (p. 229).  The post-season bowl ban was part of the negotiations (p. 227):

Q. Am I accurate that Penn State actually negotiated a reduction in the proposal length of the post-season ban?

A. Five to four years.

Erickson's recollection of Monday's discussion was that Emmert "said this  is not a normal situation where we go through the -- and he also said that the Freeh Group has already done an investigation that's more thorough...And that was one of the reasons...we may be able to move things in this direction of some sort of a package of sanctions (p. 43). 

Keith Masser's Deposition

The NCAA wasn't on my radar, but Rod Erickson  informed Karen and I that there were -- that the NCAA was interested in providing some kind of sanctions to Penn State. And that's -- and that --and then we were having periodic updates through that week. After that initial call with Rod Erickson, we had a short, maybe a day or so after that, an Executive Committee briefing by Rod Erickson. And then we were briefed periodically during that week prior to the consent decree being offered. (Masser Deposition, page 26).

According to the meeting invitation below, the Executive Committee briefing Masser mentioned was held on Tuesday, July 17th (Corman/Guadagnino #3).  That confirms Masser was informed on Monday, July 16th.

Gene Marsh Deposition
Marsh was much more definitive about the days the NCAA Consent Decree and penalties were proposed, stating that the settlement option originated Monday, July 16th and the penalties were laid out on Tuesday the 17th.


"So Monday was Remy and then Tuesday was when Remy and Dave gave me their first list of what -- what penalties that people had in mind." (Marsh Deposition, page 40)


The email below shows the first round of penalties proposed (Corman/Guadagnino #5).  

On Wednesday, July 18th, PSU legal staff member Frank Guadagnino checked with the NCAA regarding PSU initiating the draft of the NCAA Consent Decree (Corman/Guadagnino #6). 

This evidence proves that the sanctions and Consent Decree did not originate as a result of a death penalty threat and were a collaboration/negotiation between PSU and the NCAA.

8.  Sanctions Finalized and Rubber Stamped

"We have to make the best judgment at the time the issue is in front of us, with the information in front of us, and the executive committee, I think, did that well."

-- Mark Emmert

Shortly after midnight on Saturday, July 21st, emails from the NCAA arrived in the mailboxes of Gene Marsh, the PSU legal counsel, and - interestingly enough - a PSU campus "help desk" that was manned by an international student.   

So much for that confidentiality thing.

The negotiations on penalties were complete and the remaining issues were to clean up the language of the eventual consent decree, finalize the media campaign, and -- lastly -- get the approval of the NCAA Executive Committee.

On the afternoon of July 21st, the NCAA Executive Committee met to discuss the Penn State situation.  

According to Ed Ray, who admitted to neither reading the Freeh Report or the Consent Decree before he voted, the vote against the death penalty might have been 19-2 (with Ray and Pastides voting for).  It's a good bet Pastides didn't read the Freeh Report.

The unanimous decision that emanated from that meeting was that Mark Emmert could enter into a consent decree with PSU and noted a list of penalties that could be levied.  The proposal also dishonestly had a provision that the NCAA would take action unilaterally if PSU didn't agree to the sanctions. (Corman/Emmert #23)  

In summary, the Executive Committee simply rubber stamped what had already been negotiated by Emmert and Erickson without knowing they were bluffed.

9.  Lied to Graham Spanier and About Individual Culpability

It is one thing to lie to the public and to think that you won't get caught (e.g., Erickson and the death penalty), but it is quite another to tell a bald-faced lie when you know you'll get caught.

The latter is exactly what Mark Emmert did when former President Graham Spanier requested that the NCAA not name him or other PSU officials based on the evidence in the Freeh Report.

Emmert provided a weaselly answer that he didn't "intend" to single out individuals, all the while knowing that the NCAA Consent Decree language singled out Spanier.  (Corman/Emmert 27 and 28).

What is truly amazing about Emmert's answer to Spanier, however, is that after the NCAA Consent Decree was issued he continued to insist that individual culpability was not established -- even though it clearly was stated in the language of the document.  

In conclusion, the evidence in this case (and others) shows that Mark Emmert not only lacks integrity and ethics, but appears to be a leader who is completely detached from reality.

He remains unfit to be the President of the NCAA.