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."

Does "Plain Language" of the Laws Point to Collusion Between 11/9/11 BOT, Freeh, and the AG?

The "plain language" of the laws reveal the PSU Three were wrongly charged and it was highly likely that the PSU BOT knew it.

By
Ray Blehar

Last Monday, August 18th,  I wrote that prosecutor Joe McGettigan told Judge Cleland they were not going to try the case of Curley and Schultz -- with the AG's intention to get one or both to flip and testify against Spanier.  That blogpost described the weak evidence against Spanier, specifically the testimony of (duplicitous) Cynthia Baldwin and e-mails of dubious provenance.

PSU Three:  Plain language of the FTR and
 EWOC laws don't support charges against them.

However, one of the biggest weaknesses in the case against results from the "plain language" of the laws, two of which which most assuredly didn't apply to Curley, and Schultz on 11/9/11.  This fact that was very likely known by the both OAG and the PSU BOT.

The Failure To Report (FTR) child abuse charge (23 Pa. C.S. § 6311)  and the Endangering the Welfare of Children charges (18 Pa. C.S. § 4304 A) don't apply because the law requires the abused children to be "under the care" of, or be provided or subject of PSU's " education, training, or control," respectively.

Failure To Report
In the 2001 FTR case, the victim was "unknown," therefore it was impossible for the Commonwealth to claim the "unknown" victim was under the care of, or affiliated with,  the PSU Three or PSU at large.  The "unknown" child was in the care of Jerry Sandusky, who was not a PSU employee at the time of the incident. The relevant portion of the statute follows (my emphasis added):

(a)  General rule.--A person who, in the course of employment, occupation or 

practice of a profession, comes into contact with children shall report or cause a 

report to be made or in accordance with section 6313 (relating to reporting 

procedure) when the person has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of

medical, professional or other training and experience, that a child under the 

care, supervision, guidance or training of that person or of an agency, 

institution,organization or other entity with which that person is affiliated is a 

victim of child abuse, including child abuse by an individual who is not a perpetrator....

Endangering the Welfare of Children
The EWOC charges are unsupported because the Victims 1, 3, 5, and 9, who all were allegedly abused after February 2001, were not provided "education, training, or control" by PSU.  The relevant statute follows below.  Please note that the grading of the offense is cited in section (b) which is  from the description of the offense in section (a).

(a) Offense defined.--

(1)  A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.

(2)  A person commits an offense if the person, in an official capacity, prevents or interferes with the making of a report of suspected child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 (relating to child protective services).

(3)  As used in this subsection, the term "person supervising the welfare of a child" means a person other than a parent or guardian that provides care, education, training or control of a child.

(b)  Grading.--An offense under this section constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. However, where there is a course of conduct of endangering the welfare of a child, the offense constitutes a felony of the third degree. (Dec. 19, 1988, P.L.1275, No.158, eff. 60 days; July 6, 1995, P.L.251, No.31, eff. 60 days; Nov. 29, 2006, P.L.1581, No.179, eff. 60 days)

Spanier moved for dismissal based on May 16, 2013 (Note: filing is no longer on Dauphin County web-site)  based on the fact that the laws did not apply.  His motion was joined by Curley and Schultz.  Point 4 of Curley's motion follows:

The AG's Sleight of Hand

AG Linda Kelly obviously knew these laws didn't apply when they filed charges, and in the case of FTR, pulled some sleight of hand on November 7. 2011 when she permitted prosecuting attorney Frank Fina to retroactively apply language from the 2007 statute in the presentment (in violation of the ex post facto clauses of the PA and U.S. Constitutions) and  to charge Curley and Schultz for violating 18 Pa. C.S. § 6319 instead of  § 6311.

Just days earlier, on November 5, 2001, the 23-page Sandusky grand jury presentment (page 12) cited Curley and Schultz for violating 23 Pa. C.S. § 6311.  

Sandusky Grand Jury Presentment

Obviously, the other weakness in the citation in the grand jury presentment is that describing Curley and Schultz as school or institution employees is erroneous, according the the definitions of both a "school employee" (employed by a public or private school, intermediate unit or area vocational-technical school) and a student (under age 17) according to 23 Pa. C.S. § 6303.  Morever, neither Curley nor Schultz was the "person in charge."

Finally, one day earlier, a 24-page version of the presentment was attached as "Exhibit A" to the Affidavit of Probable Cause (i.e, criminal complaint).  That document cited Curley and Schultz for violating 23 Pa. C.S. § 6319 on page 24.  

What was the purpose of the AG omitting page 24, which contained a listing of charges for Sandusky, Curley, and Schultz, from the publicly released presentment?

Graham Spanier
As for Graham Spanier, the OAG didn't even bother to provide a citation of the statute in the Conspiracy of Silence grand jury presentment (page 39).  Just as in the cases of Curley and Schultz, the OAG charged Spanier for violating § 6319.

Given the falsity of the charges under § 6311, the AG cited § 6319 for the PSU Three because it does not enumerate who is actually required to report. See below:

§ 6319. Penalties for failure to report or to refer.

A person or official required by this chapter to report a case of suspected child abuse or to make a referral to the appropriate authorities who willfully fails to do so commits a misdemeanor of the third degree for the first violation and a misdemeanor of the second degree for a second or subsequent violation. (Nov. 29, 2006, P.L.1581, No.179, eff. 180 days)

The Plain Language of the Law

Graham Spanier's November 6, 2011 statement, for which he was criticized by many for backing Curley and Schultz, was exactly right based on the plain language of the laws you have just read:

"Tim Curley and Gary Schultz operate at the highest levels of honesty, integrity and 

compassion. I am confident the record will show that these charges are groundless

and that they conducted themselves professionally and appropriately."

One of the most confounding parts of this entire scandal is that the Penn State Board of Trustees allegedly didn't bother to read the law before they made their decisions on 11/9/11.  If this is true, it would be yet another lapse of the Board's fiduciary responsibility under Standing Order IX. (1) (f) 4. which requires members to prepare diligently for each meeting. 

Surma : "We don't know anything..."

According to Board Co-Chair John Surma, the decision to terminate Paterno and Spanier was based on the members reading of the Sandusky grand jury presentment and related media reports.  An excerpt from CNN 11/9/11 press conference transcript follows:

"SURMA: The board deliberative process is, as it implies, a process that requires some time. There was information that we sought, although we don't know anything more about the actual details than the grand jury report and whatever you all write." 

Frazier:  Either colossally
failed to diligently prepare
or was in on the "railroad."

The lawyers on the board that night included Stephanie Nolan Deviney and Kenneth Frazier, who as General Counsel for Merck famously defended the pharmaceutical giant in the Vioxx case.  Frazier, in defending the Freeh Report and dismissing the Paterno report said this:

“In my personal opinion, the Paterno report strains to interpret the 1998 and 2001 emails and other documentation in ways that are at odds with the plain language of those documents,” Frazier said. “The Paterno report is therefore, largely non-responsive or irrelevant.”

It strains credulity that Frazier never bothered to check "the plain language" of the law when he read the grand jury presentment.

 And it also strains credulity that the legal firm, Reed Smith, that was retained by the PSU BOT, didn't check the FTR and perjury laws and realize they didn't apply.

Deviney: Also failed to diligently
 prepare for meeting.

One can likey conclude that Surma silenced Reed Smith and that Frazier and others in the know also remained silent about the laws during the Board's 11/9/11 deliberations.

As for Stephanie Deviney, instead of doing legal research. made her decision based on emotions.  According to the New York Times, Deviney remembered going to the bedroom of her 7-year old son to kiss him good night and she "thought of the mothers of all those boys in the presentment."

Collusion among AG, BOT, and Freeh

The PSU BOT and the PA OAG both had to know the FTR charges didn't apply to Curley and Schultz, and that the perjury charges also couldn't stick based on the uncorroborated testimony of Mike McQueary.  The AG's filing of those charges was wrong, as was the BOT's inaction to rebut the charges.  

It appears that both parties are using the Sandusky scandal as a deflection. The OAG has put the onus on PSU officials in order to cover-up the failures of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare and the actions and in-actions of individuals at The Second Mile.  

Similarly, the PSU BOT gladly threw Paterno and the administrators under the bus very likely to deflect attention away from their business relationships with The Second Mile.  The Freeh Report, which Frazier called "comprehensive and thorough," made no mention of those relationships either.

It has been truly amazing to see that neither the AG Linda Kelly, the PSU BOT, and Louis Freeh had not a single bad word to say about Sandusky's victim farm.  Moreover, the Board put a provision in the Sandusky victim settlements that precluded them from suing the charity, according to settlement attorney Josh Rozen:  

"Under the terms of each settlement, the victims have agreed not to sue Penn State or Second Mile [Sandusky's former charity], and cede their right to sue Second Mile to the university, which plans to go to court to try to get the charity's insurer to reimburse the university for some of the claim amount, Rozen said."

Conversely, the PSU BOT has done everything in its power (e.g., the firings, accepting responsibility for the conclusions in the Freeh Report, agreeing to the NCAA Consent Decree and, paying victim settlements) to ensure that Curley and Schultz, then Spanier, would be convicted in the court of public opinion -- before the trials ever take place.

As Joe McGettigan said about the Curley and Schultz trial, "we don't plan to try that case."  

And they don't need to.

The court of public opinion, aided by the actions of the OAG, the Board, and the PSU administration, and Louis Freeh, has already convicted them.

PROSECUTION or PERSECUTION - The CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

FEAR & LOATHING in HAPPY VALLEY - PENN STATE LEADERS UNDER ATTACK
by Barry Bozeman

“ The District Attorney is a quasi-judicial officer. He represents the commonwealth and the commonwealth demands no victims. It seeks justice only--equal and impartial justice-- and it is as much the duty of the district attorney to see that no innocent man suffers as it is to see that no guilty man escapes. Hence, he should act impartially. He should present the commonwealth’s case fairly, and should not press upon the jury any deductions from the evidence that are not strictly legitimate. When he exceeds this limit, and in hot zeal seeks to influence them by appealing to their prejudices, he is no longer an impartial official, but becomes a heated partisan.” Bailey v. Commonwealth, 193 Ky. 687, 237 S.W. 

In Nov of 2012 mere weeks prior to relinquishing the office to which she was appointed by Tom Corbett, Linda Kelly once again takes the stage to proffer charges against Penn State's former President Graham Spanier and to alter the charges against former AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz. 

SMSS was on this development prior to the typical staged circus designed by Kelly et al to maximize the theater for the chattering hyena class sometimes known as the media. Once again she fills her stage with a large supporting cast, this time featuring more uniforms than a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff. 

One thing leaps out at us from the beginning when taking more than a cursory glance at this freak show. What exactly was the motive for this Conspiracy of Silence touted by the Freeh Fiction and the Persecution? Why would covering for an ex-coach no longer on the payroll of PSU be of the slightest benefit to Graham Spanier, Tim Curley or Gary Schultz? Please keep that in mind as you delve deeper into this morass of prevarications. 

PROSECUTORS - POWER CONFLICT and CORRUPTION with UNLIMITED RESOURCES

FEAR & LOATHING in HAPPY VALLEY
by Barry Bozeman (an homage to Dr. Gonzo, who would have done justice to this story)

Prosecutors are “shepherds of justice.” When a government lawyer, with enormous resources at his or her disposal, abuses power and ignores ethical standards, he or she undermines public trust and inflicts damage beyond calculation to our system of justice. This consequence, alone, compels the responsible and ethical exercise of this power.

CORBETT, KELLY, BEEMER, FINA, BALDWIN, and FREEH

These 5 PROSECUTORS have the wealth and power of the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at their disposal and, in the case of prosecutor Freeh, 8.2 million Penn State dollars that he used to trash The Penn State Culture. 

CORBETT and BALDWIN both hold or held positions on the Penn State Board of Trustees. 
CORBETT became GOVERNOR.
BALDWIN was the GENERAL COUNSEL for Penn State University.

CORBETT was ATTORNEY GENERAL when the Grand Jury was convened. 
KELLY was CORBETT'S hand picked successor. She did not seek election.
BEEMER was KELLY'S chief of staff. 
FINA was lead prosecutor on the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier cases until he resigned. 
BEEMER took over for FINA.

The SLIME also RISES -- Segments of the following contain language and descriptions Dr. Gonzo might have used were he still with us. Hunter S Thompson (HST) was a master of descriptive hyperbole for effect. Picture: by Ralph Steadman, HST's artist of record.

PROSECUTORS PLAN NOVEMBER 5 PRESS CONFERENCE TO PERSECUTE PENN STATE

Well ... to hell with writing with reserved respect for the subjects of this essay. These malicious mendicants feeding from the public trough don't deserve polite measured consideration. These are bottom-feeding mutants on steroids, unfit for reason or respect. The Commonwealth has had more than its fair share of slimy creatures dredged up from permanently smoldering underground coal pits and fracking contaminated aquifers, particularly the prosecutors and judges who seem to flourish while committing some of the most heinous crimes in memory, crimes against children -- KIDS FOR CASH. 

CORBETT is a real piece of work. You can contemplate his Lebanon Valley BA and St Mary's Law Degree, as the absolute minimum requirement. His stint as counsel for Waste Management is so odorous that he has wiped it from his bio. As a prosecutor, Corbett is ethically unfit by the standards set forth by the American Bar Association: 

“ The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not to persecute, but to prosecute, and that he should endeavor to protect the innocent as well as to prosecute the guilty. He should always be interested in seeing that the truth and the right shall prevail….”

The muddy, blood-spattered path from prosecutor to higher political office is well worn and often traveled. PA politicians have plumbed the furthest depths of this sewer more often than most. It's an obvious route, where vastly superior resources in staff and wealth are pitted against individuals forced to pay hideous amounts of money to well-connected mouthpieces or suffer the consequences of representation by a court-appointed well meaning dullard of less than equal wit with none of the resources. Prosecutors have all the advantage and, too often, pursue publicity or a high conviction rate at the expense of truth or justice. The current reigning champion example of this being The West Memphis Three

CORBETT, SURMA, FRAZIER, TOMALIS & BALDWIN - UNCOMMONLY CLEAR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST PART 1 A

Eight days after the Nov 9, 2011 firing of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier, Corbett, Frazier, Surma, Garban, and Balwin had Louis Freeh in place as the "INDEPENDENT" executioner for Penn State demanding complete collusion with Attorney General of Pennsylvania Linda Kelly.  

"The hiring of Louis Freeh is synonymous with an institution paying $8.2 million to concoct evidence supporting its own guilt and liability. Why would any institution in its right mind fund such an effort? It's insanity, clearly demonstrating the conflicted interests that are the point of this article. The Freeh insanity depicts Penn State as a schizophrenic trying to convict itself of a crime imagined in the fevered mind of its own alter-ego, the Board of Trustees." 

In Part I CORBETT & SURMA - UNCOMMONLY COMPLETE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
the roots of the damaging decisions of the Board of Trustees were exposed, showing why Corbett, Surma and Corbett's appointees should have recused themselves from the Nov 9th meeting that resulted in the termination of President Spanier and Joe Paterno.

Although I have followed these events very closely since Linda Kelly's Presentment drew my interest on Nov 5, 2011; I was very surprised to find the enclosed documents among the 300 made available by Ryan Bagwell. They verify the 8 day timeline and actually confirm the effort to restrict the special investigation group to a tightly controlled Cobett conflicted few. 

If you want further confirmation that the events of Nov 9, 2011 were a well-planned and executed strategy on the part of the Attorney General turned Governor Tom Corbett and his willing Joe hating partner John Surma, then take a quick look at this timeline. Have you ever seen any sizable governing body move this quickly?

TIMELINE  NOV 5, 2011 Penn State stands accused at the moment Linda Kelly decides to put equal sized posters of AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz on her Presentment stage along side of a poster of Jerry Sandusky,  There was simply no equivalence involved in the crimes of which they are accused thus the display was part of a strategy to anchor a narrative of PSU enabling Sandusky's abuse.

The verifiable LIE in that presentment; that Mike McQueary saw a boy being "subjected to anal rape" on the Penn State campus was tied to Curley and Schultz in another LIE - that McQueary told this to Joe Paterno and then to the two PSU administrators.  Those lies created the media tsunami that made Penn State the equal villain in the public eye.

THE PENN STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRAITORS

By Barry Bozeman

Who are these exceptional men and women granted the honor of serving as Trustees of the great institution of higher learning known as The Pennsylvania State University? Who are these successful businessmen and women who rose to positions of power and prominence and were chosen to safeguard the reputation and financial resources of one of the finest institutions in the land? 

What manner of leader would fail to stand up for the integrity and honor signified by the Nittany Lion and the motto: Making Life Better? What Trustee would capitulate to a Presentment before trial and accept blame prior to judgment or liability for the actions of a former employee 11 years in the past?  If anyone attacks an institution you are entrusted to defend and protect, what will you expect if you lie down and surrender before the legal process indicates any fault or blame? Where is there any "SUCCESS WITH HONOR" in that cowardly rush to injustice? 

In the face of a media tsunami of bad publicity, these cowards and turncoats chose to surrender any claim to right action and accepted blame on behalf of the University based on a Presentment containing the lie that one of their assistant coaches had witnessed a child being "subjected to anal intercourse" by a former employee in the football locker room. They chose to accept the claim that two administrators and their football coach conspired to cover up this alleged incident based on various flimsy accounts by a possibly damaged and compromised assistant coach.  What do we call such people?  

trai·tor   noun

1.  a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, alma mater, etc.

"they see me as a traitor, a sellout to the enemy"

synonyms:       betrayer, backstabber, double-crosser, renegade, fifth columnist; turncoat, defector, deserter; collaborator, informer, mole, snitch, double agent; Judas, Benedict Arnold, quisling;

informal:  snake in the grass, two-timer, rat, scab, fink

usage:  "convicted traitors will be executed"

Isn’t TRAITOR the proper word for the members of The PSU Board of Trustees in their handling of the all out attack on the university they are "trusted" to manage on behalf of its students, employees, and alumni?

This particular Board of Trustees – particularly the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, John Surma, Karen Peetz, Ira Lubert, and Kenneth Frazier, to name only a few – has “served” Penn State University by abandoning the President they hired, Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz, and Athletic Director Tim Curley, and condemning them as guilty along with the world famous icon and Coach Joe Paterno on the basis of a Presentment, a document that makes the best case for an indictment by a grand jury without any cross examination of witnesses, exculpatory evidence, or questioning by defense counsel. 

They fired Coach Joe Paterno – a man who had brought nothing but honor to the job for which he was hired and praise for the manner in which he conducted himself and the successful football program that brought honor and positive recognition to the university he served. No single individual was more the well regarded  face of Penn State or such an asset in terms of positive recognition.  Joe Paterno is worth 100 John Surmas, Karen Peetzes, or Ken Fraziers.   

Their capitulation to the media and fear of “bad publicity” led them to make disastrous decisions concerning the financial well being of the University by paying out millions of dollars to victims of Jerry Sandusky that had nothing to do with anything involving Penn State

On the advice of the Governor, they hired his feckless hitman, Louis Freeh, and accepted a report blaming their administrators and football coach for a conspiracy to cover up for Jerry Sandusky on “evidence” that anyone with minimal cognitive ability would reject out of hand. The Freeh investigators never even questioned Mike McQueary, Coach Paterno, Gary Schultz, or Tim Curley. The Board accepted this report in total without any review or question within hours of its release. They did not even read it.

That's unbelievable and unforgivable.