Corbett's Grand Jury Lie, Part 3

The Sandusky case was sent to a grand jury so that the investigation would die a slow, secret death

By
Ray Blehar

While the Moulton Report found no direct evidence that former Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) and one-term Governor Tom Corbett influenced the Sandusky investigation, it absolutely concluded the investigation was slow walked.  

While the report may not have used those exact words, Special Deputy AG Geoffrey Moulton and AG Kathleen Kane instead used "inexplicable" and "inexcusable,' respectively,  to describe the delays in the investigation.

Kane was right.  The delays were "inexcusable."

Moulton was wrong.  The delays were not "inexplicable."

Kane's mistake not to clean house upon taking office resulted in the evidence that would have explained the delays being excluded from Moulton's report.  

That evidence would have shown that Frank "moral responsibility" Noonan's did his best to derail the initial investigation and that when it landed in Corbett's lap, the AG was going to let the Sandusky case die a slow, secret death inside the grand jury.


The Evidence
The following evidence of the investigator's failure to follow leads and conduct routine investigative work was known to Moulton's team but not included in the report.

Failure to Find Victim 9

During the first twenty months of the investigation,  the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and OAG were completely reliant upon Aaron Fisher (Victim 1), Dawn Daniels, and Central Mountain High School officials to generate leads.  

As the investigation languished, the AG and PSP failed to investigate the first lead about other victims ever provided by Fisher, who provided the first names of two young men who had highly unusual first names beginning with the letter "S."

Fisher provided that information at his initial interview on November 20, 2008.  

It is unclear whether or not Trooper Cavanaugh included that information in his police report that eventually made its way to the OAG.  However, it is obvious that Cavanaugh didn't attempt to find Victim 9, as that would have required contacting The Second Mile (TSM) to find out the child's last name.

TSM wasn't contacted about the investigation until January 2011. 

According to the Moulton Report, the investigation went cold in March 2010 and nothing happened until October.   Typically, when an investigation goes cold, it is common practice to go back to square one and review all of the existing evidence with the hopes of uncovering something that was missed.  

That didn't happen.

In fact, the investigators did not go back to Clinton County CYS until June 27, 2011.

The search warrant Sandusky's home was approved one week before the investigators visited Clinton County CYS.   On June 22nd, the investigators finally searched Sandusky's home.

According to the trial testimony of AG Agent Anthony Sassano, a list of the names of participants of The Second Mile was found in Sandusky's home.  Victim 9's name, his mother's first name, and his phone number was on the participant list. 

Despite investigators having that considerable evidence that could have led them to Victim 9, they never followed up.

In November 2011, the assistant principal of the boy's school called the hotline after the news of the Sandusky charges hit the papers.

As it turned out, Victim 9 was repeatedly abused while the investigation lagged.  

Failure to Find Victim 10

Along those same lines, one of the lists from Sandusky's PSU office generated the name of Victim 10.  His name was  marked with an asterisk, like some of the other victims who were presented as witnesses at the trial.  

Victim 10, who had a long criminal record,  was incarcerated in at State Correctional Institution - Albion, serving 22 months for robbery until July 2009.  He had a prior arrest in 2004 for burglary. 

Apparently, Noonan's crack team of cops and Corbett's AG investigators didn't think to check for arrest records of former participants of a charity for troubled and at-risk youth.   

Four of the eight witnesses/victims presented at Sandusky trial had arrest records prior to being identified by police.

Those records were not used to find them -- and those facts were excluded from the Moulton Report.

Inexplicable delays?  Certainly not.  

This was turning a blind eye to evidence and not conducting the most basic investigative work.


The Moulton Report revealed that NO investigative activity occurred for ten of the first twenty months of the investigation.  

The Sandusky investigation was put in the grand jury to die. 

And it almost did -- until Corbett decided to use the Sandusky investigation to take out former PSU President Graham Spanier.

Until the Spanier flap, Corbett was letting the clock run out on the investigation

Coming Soon:  Keystone Corruption & Corbett's Politically Motivated Prosecutions

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."

Eckel's Protest Backfires: Reveals He May Be Compromised

Trustee Keith Eckel's protest about "being compromised" caused a second look at his background -- and the results were very unsettling.

By
Ray Blehar


It came as no surprise that Trustee Keith Eckel, who publicizes himself to the proprietor of a farm, but made a fortune in the natural gas (fracking) industry, would use dishonest arguments in an attempt to give the Board of Trustees credit for the "recovery" of Penn State.  

While I intend to eventually debunk those arguments, the one thing that really struck me as odd was Eckel's protest to Al Lord's challenge to the trustees to remove resign if the feel compromised in any way.

Here is the statement from Lord:

"My own view, if you feel compromised, if you feel at all compromised, by the various things going on in the legal world and you're on this board and concerned that you can't do the right thing, or that your decisions are effected by that and I'm not suggesting necessarily that they are, but it is certainly an element, I would suggest to you that you resign. 

Eckel's statement follows:

"Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me indicate to Trustee Lord that I'm not compromised in any way, that I stand behind of and am proud of each decision I have made on this board. I hope that you examine your position as you have urged everybody other trustee to make certain that your views do not compromise your fiduciary responsibilities to the board. 

This caused me to take a second look at Eckel's background -- and the findings revealed his association with an individual with possible ties to organized crime.

As I wrote in this op-ed, Keith Eckel is not just "some simple farmer."  When Keith last ran for the Board of Trustees in 2013, he offered this biography, noting his experience on the Board of Nationwide Insurance, for his agricultural constituents' consumption.  Apparently, he wanted his agricultural friends to understand he wasn't just a "simple farmer."

Eckel:  Dishonest about his
background and being
compromised?

However, after being elected, his official Board of Trustees biography did not mention his experience at Nationwide nor his directorships its subsidiaries, Allied Group and the Gartmore Global Asset Management Trust.  Apparently, he didn't want the PSU constituency to be aware of his corporate background - let alone his vested interest in natural gas.  

However, just this past October, Eckel was also named to the Board of First National  Community Bancorp,  whose Chairman is Dominick DeNaples.  

DeNaples is the brother of former Mt. Airy casino owner Louis DeNaples, who also serves as a director and sits on the loan committee with Eckel.  

Louis DeNaples was forced to give up his casino to avoid perjury charges in 2009.  DeNaples, who also owns the Keystone Landfill, was charged with perjury for denying any connection to former Northeast PA crime boss, Russell Bufalino.   

It is highly unlikely that Eckel was unaware of the background of Louis DeNaples, as his alleged connections to organized crime have been well publicized over the last five to ten years.  

Why would Eckel associate with DeNaples?  

The Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District may have the answer.

Sex Trafficking

Typically, organized crime is involved loan sharking, racketeering, gambling, construction, garbage hauling/waste management, drugs, prostitution, and human (sex) trafficking.  The latter is particularly troubling given the many unanswered questions in the Sandusky scandal.

Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan referred to The Second Mile (TSM) as a "victim factory."  Are we to believe Sandusky was the only child molester who abused the TSM participants or were there others?  Were some of the others rich TSM donors who also happened to be PSU alumni?  If the latter is true, and the board knew about it or were actually involved in some way, it would provide a not so far-fetched explanation why Eckel and his cohorts voted against completing the Freeh investigation -- and why they hired Freeh in the first place.  

As the evidence shows, Freeh was hired to provide the appearance of a thorough investigation.  As Frazier and Corbett touted the 267-page report, it was strictly a matter of quantity over quality.  Freeh's investigation omitted key evidence and steered clear of taking a hard look at TSM.  

As I pointed out in this blogpost, several members of the TSM Board were distinguished alumni and big fundraisers for Penn State -- a fact not in the Freeh Report's chapter on TSM.   If it was found that TSM was a front for a child prostitution ring, the embarrassment to Penn State would have been far worse than the negative publicity generated by the Sandusky scandal.    

The child prostitution/sex abuse angle also might explain why the former PA Office of Attorney General had "inexcusable delays" investigating Sandusky (and The Second Mile).  It appears the hesitancy on pursuing the Sandusky's case wasn't unprecedented. Then AG Corbett also refused to investigate 2005 allegations of a pedophile sex ring in York County.

Note that this is just one scenario, among many, that has yet to be ruled out in terms of explaining the actions of the Board. 

Untouchables?

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District, Gordon Zubrod, "the connection between organized crime and public corruption...is very real in this district" and that there are pockets of "people who think they can't be touched."

Are Keith Eckel, select members of the BOT, Tom Corbett, Ron Tomalis, and others part of this group who thinks they can't be touched?

According to a source close the the PA Department of Agriculture, Eckel nominated the top four picks for the Secretary of Agriculture to Governor Corbett.  Eckel also kicked off Corbett's 2014 gubernatorial campaign in Wilkes-Barre.  

Relationships between the PSU trustees and government officials can be quite useful.  At the same time, they can also be quite damaging when loyalties are not prioritized.  

Clearly, the BOT followed Tom Corbett's lead in the firing of Paterno and Spanier -- and just look at the reputation and financial damage that has caused PSU.

Misplaced Loyalty and Fiduciary Responsibility
At the October 28th meeting, Trustee Anthony Lubrano fired this "warning shot" across the bow of the 17 trustees who would eventually vote against Lord's resolution:

Mr. Chair, I would like to submit for the record this handbook for charitable non-profit organizations, Tom, I'll get you an electronic copy of it. There are several points in that handbook that are very relevant. As a board member we have a duty of loyalty. As board member we have a responsibility to verify the veracity of information provided to us. As a board member we have the right to receive all information that's necessary and relevant to assist us in performing our duties. 

By and large, Mr. Chair, because I believe that there's no more damning document than the Freeh Report with respect to the institution that I have a duty of loyalty and for who's resources I have the responsibility to steward l chair, we have yet as board to actually evaluate the Freeh Report ever, from my very first meeting July 12th we were quick to accept recommendations but we really had no interest in exploring the basis for those conclusions. I have an obligation I believe, Mr. Chair, to verify the veracity of the information that was reached to -- made to reach those conclusions. 

Mr. Chair, as pointed out by several of my colleagues already, Judge Pellegrini, the judge wrote the dissenting opinion in the case, he wrote something in his opinion that should make us all pause. 

He wrote the majority appears to arrive at this outcome, referring to the six colleagues, because it is bewildered, as am I, by how the board of trustees of PSU could approve or allow to be executed a "consent decree" involving the expenditure of 60 million of PSU funds when the consent decree states that the matter "ordinarily would not be actionable by the NCAA." If as the majority suggests the NCAA did not have jurisdiction over conduct because it did not involve the regulation of athletics, then the expenditure of the funds is problematic given that PSU is a non-profit corporation and being tax exempt as a charitable organization and the boards of directors of non-profit charitable corporations has a -- that's important -- a fiduciary duty to ensure that funds are only used for matters related to the charitable purpose, in this case, the students of PSU. 

Mr. Chair, if ever there was a time for us to undertake this it would be now.
Going back to Eckel's October 28th statement, he had a very different view on his decisions that were in stark contrast to Judge Pelligrini's and Lubrano's:

At the end of the day my responsibility, my fiduciary responsibility is to our students and our constituents. My votes have been since that fateful day in November, they'll continue to be to this day, I urge the defeat of this resolution and the moving forward with this University. 

Who is right?

As is the case with all the outstanding questions in the scandal, current and future court cases, and pending investigations will decide a number of outcomes -- possibly including a case about fiduciary responsibility at Penn State. 

Yesterday's revelations on the NCAA emails caught the PSU administration flat-footed, judging by their official response.

Part of the truth was revealed and things are moving in the right direction.

Eckel and his cohorts days are numbered, though I believe they will continue to believe they are untouchable -- up until the day they are forced out.

TAKE BACK PENN STATE NOW. An Opportunity to Reclaim Penn State for the Open TRUTH -

Take back Penn State from those who caused the damage and now want to hide the TRUTH. 

PENN STATE OPPOSES PATERNO FAMILY REQUEST TO SEE FREEH DOCUMENTS.

WE ARE PENN STATE - SAYS THE SLOGAN 

WHAT PENN STATE OPPOSES THAT REQUEST?  

Penn State via its legal counsel, speaking for the administration and Board of Trustees, is opposing open display of the TRUTH by opposing the release of documents related to the Freeh Report. It is believed that such materials are not only being withheld from public view but are also being withheld from some members of the Board of Trustees themselves. Yet Penn State has repeatedly argued for transparency and open disclosure, as represented by the alumni who voted for new Trustees who advocate such transparency and responsibility. The motion filed by Penn State's counsel makes it seem like Penn State wants to hide the TRUTH.  

Make no mistake – Stephen Dunham, the University General Counsel and Vice President for the last two years, is opposing the revelation of the TRUTH in your name. He acts at the behest of the Board of Trustees.

Do Penn State's Alumni Elected Trustees oppose the release of these documents? No.

Do Penn State Alumni oppose the release? No.  Does the student body? No. 

Why would Penn State want to hide the TRUTH about the Freeh Report?

Is Dunham afraid the actual documents will show that the Freeh Report was fatally flawed? Would the documents show that Freeh manufactured his damning evidence that Penn State administrators were involved in some cover up of Sandusky's activities?

Help me out here. Who would be harmed if the documentation supports the Freeh findings? Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier are already under indictment and evidently headed to trial. Joe Paterno's reputation is already in tatters. So what is the potential harm to Penn State if the documents confirm the Freeh Findings? 

Let's keep this very simple:

What SMSS wants is the TRUTH - and the release of this documentation is relevant to that search for Truth.  Isn't that something we can all agree is a good thing?

The Paterno family is obviously searching for the TRUTH in order to prove that Joe was innocent of any wrong doing. If they are correct and these documents prove their point it's a good thing for Penn State. Joe Paterno's legacy was great for Penn State and if it can be shown that Freeh was wrong and Joe did not do anything that could be construed as covering up for Sandusky his reputation could be restored and his legacy could once again become a positive aspect of Penn State's reputation of SUCCESS WITH HONOR.

The only people who stand to lose if Joe is fully exonerated seem to be the Freeh team and those people at Penn State who hired him and then chose to ratify his findings without bothering to read the report. Those people are Tom Corbett, John Surma and the BoT members who were unduly influenced to fire Joe, hire Freeh, and accept the NCAA sanctions. 

So we have a very interesting situation that should be addressed by all trustees, but undoubtedly led by the Alumni Trustees. It seems that Stephen Dunham has either taken it upon himself or has been instructed by the faction in control of the Board to oppose the release of these documents.  So as members of the Board of Trustees is it not your duty to make your opinion known to the General Counsel and any elements on the Board that support his objection to this release of documents? If you are not in favor of that move on behalf of PENN STATE you should now make that known. 

PENN STATE should want the TRUTH revealed. Is PENN STATE the Trustees who were openly elected by the Alumni? OR is PSU the cronies and appointees of Tom Corbett – the man who convened the grand jury that accused Penn State via its administrators and then became the Governor with power over so many trustees with the fiduciary duty to protect Penn State from his attack on Penn State launched as Attorney General?  

PS4RS and the other anti-"move-on" groups who helped defeat the "move-on" candidates should  encourage the trustee's they helped to elect openly oppose this move by Stephen Dunham. 

A vote on this would clearly show PENN STATE alumni and students who has the university's best interests at heart. The TRUTH is in Penn State's best interest and this is a chance to call for a vote by the Board of Trustees. A vote to instruct the General Counsel to withdraw his objections and to file a brief in favor of the release of these documents is a vote for revealing the TRUTH. Any board member who opposes it is in favor of hiding the TRUTH.

It really is that simple. You either want the TRUTH or you want to hide the TRUTH

Call for a vote and don't let those who oppose the Truth hide. 

WE ARE PENN STATE - says the slogan. 
Don't allow Dunham and Corbett to be Penn State. Neither one of them even attended PSU. They should not have the right to speak for the real PENN STATE anymore than I do. .  

WE WON - Analyzing the Result of the PSU Board of Trustee's Elections

The success of the "reform and hold responsible" PS4RS candidates for Board of Trustees is only another step for those of us who worked hard to secure their election. We now need to support them with suggestions and help consolidate the collective power of the only popularly elected members of that body. Congratulations to the new board members.

Now there are NINE -  NINE popularly elected new Penn State Trustees since the 11/9/11 Board who, under the "guidance" of John Surma and the control of Tom Corbett, voted to destroy the reputation of the great institution they had a fiduciary duty to defend.

2012  Election Results Candidate – Vote Total Winners

Adam J. Taliaferro, '05, Swedesboro, NJ -- 15,629

Anthony P. Lubrano, '82, Exton, PA -- 10,096

Ryan J. McCombie, '70, State College, PA -- 4,806

2013  Election Results Candidate – Vote Total  Winners  

Barbara L. Doran, '75, New York, NY – 15,085

William F. Oldsey, '76, Basking Ridge, NJ – 13,940

Edward "Ted" B. Brown, III, '68, State College, PA – 11,403

and NOW  2014  Election Results Candidate -- Vote Total Winners

Alice W. Pope -- 10,025

Albert L. Lord -- 9,516

Robert C. Jubelirer -- 8,101 

The Onward and Upward "MOVE ON" oriented candidates included Myers, Dan Cocco, Julie Harris McHugh, and Matt Schuyler.  UpwardState used some rather devious tactics, such as using photographs of protesting Alumni at the March4Truth, to misrepresent their position about moving forward.  The tactics didn't work.

Cocco and McHugh scored 3800 and 3500 votes respectively - less than half the total of Bob Jubelirer, who was smeared with negative campaign tactics.
Joel N. Myers - the sole 11/9/11 Trustee who sought re-election scored 3500 votes after spending thousands. His role in the 11/9/11 disaster was clearly repudiated by the Alumni.   

Ryan Bagwell (who is responsible for obtaining the emails that exposed the 11/9 members) and Rudy Glocker (endorsed by Sue Paterno)  scored a respectable 3400 and 2700 votes - votes that can be counted against the "move on" movement. 

Ted Sebastianelli - organizer of a group proposing a Joe Paterno statue - and obviously opposed to the "move on" agenda, scored 5700 votes in 4th place. 

So put another way Move On candidates - Myers, Cocco, and McHugh totaled roughly 11,000 votes total  or an average of 3500 votes each while reform and "HOLD RESPONSIBLE" candidates totaled roughly 43,000 votes or 14,000 voters x3 for reform and responsibility. 

Of the Penn State Alumni who cared enough to pay attention and vote on a very basic difference in position and opinion:

3,500 wanted to "move on"   

14,000 want those responsible held accountable

That's 20% vs 80% 

That isn't just a simple victory for the forces of right vs wrong - It is a MANDATE giving the reform trustees a base of support within the Alumni that is powerful and focused on an agenda holding the perpetrators of the 11/9/11 agenda responsible. 

The winning candidates won the PS4RS primary and were thus endorsed by PS4RS. The PS4RS group has spawned additional groups with some differences of opinion on details and tactics like PSU Re-BoT, March4Truth, Put the JoePa Statue Back, and PSU Alumni for Re-Organization of the BoT. But all of these groups were unanimously opposed to the "move on" agenda of the well funded Onward and Upward State groups. The Facebook Pages and websites for the various "Reform and Hold Responsible" groups see significant daily activity.  

This SMSS website is approaching 1.5 million visits this month (the 26th of active existence). That's  60,000 visits a month from Penn Staters who want the TRUTH about what was done to their Alma Mater by Tom Corbett, John Surma and their partners in crime (Ken Frazier, Karen Peetz, the Corbett appointees, etc) exposed.  We supported the "Reform and Hold Responsible" Candidates in order to sustain the 'hold responsible' agenda.  

Only NINE of the Trustees are popularly elected. They alone have a constituency of concerned Penn State Alumni who care about their University - not the interests of corporations or politicians who control their appointments. 

The next move for those who want to hold the 11/9/11 BoT responsible for the damage done - and alter the negative narrative spawned by the Corbett-conflicted 11/9/11 board - is to get actively involved in the defeat of Tom Corbett.  Our impact in damaging Corbett should convince a new Governor to consider our advice on his appointed replacements - as well as reform measures being considered to downsize the BoT and make it more responsive to students and alumni, as opposed to business interests. 

When 80% of the active concerned alumni demonstrate their support with their votes and hard work - these new trustees join the previous six with a significant power base they alone enjoy. These reform trustees were not appointed or chosen by Ag or Business groups - they were elected with a mandate to right the wrong done to Penn State by Tom Corbett and his cronies. This election demonstrates our power to effect change. We need to help set an agenda that makes the best use of that power. 

SMSS will have some suggestions that could alter the narrative during this upcoming election cycle. We herein initiate a discussion of tactics that might re-open the debate in the Commonwealth concerning Penn State's culpability in the Second Mile Sandusky Scandal. 

The election offers an opportunity to focus on Corbett's conflicted agenda that failed to investigate The Second Mile and the Dept of Public Welfare while attempting to blame Penn State. Corbett's failure to protect the children of the Commonwealth by failing to investigate TSM and DPW is a great campaign issue for us. 

A media focused on the gubernatorial election would have to cover 1) Corbett's clear Conflict of Interests concerning Penn State and 2) Corbett's part in the Freeh Fiction. 3) Corbett's clear failure to investigate TSM and DPW - the real agencies that failed the children of the Commonwealth.  Once the public sees how Corbett manipulated this crisis to harm Penn State, everything will be exposed to public view. That will be a very good thing and I think we can help make that happen with the help of the elected BoT members. 

In my view the gubernatorial election not only offers a chance for a new governor to replace a large number of 11/9 Trustees - done right, it could afford reform and responsibility forces input in who replaces them. 

But perhaps more importantly,  this election offers the last best chance to alter the narrative in the Commonwealth concerning Penn State's culpability in what should have always been known as the Second Mile Sandusky Scandal by focusing attention on Corbett's failure to protect children who were failed by The Second Mile and PA's child protection agencies.