which I'll try to post. Some good stuff in their filing.
Tom
Tom
Alumni Trustees file response to PSU in Freeh Review...
- Thread starter Tom McAndrew
- Start date
Ooh, a teaser.
Be sure to check in at 6 with Jim Gardner and Tom McAndrew!
Be sure to check in at 6 with Jim Gardner and Tom McAndrew!
Ugh, not trying to tease; not at all. Just trying to inform. Alas, I have PDFs of the filing, but they must be protected as I can't copy the text to file it. Also, I can't find the filings on the court's web site.
Hopefully, PennLive or Onward State will post the PDFs on their sites and we all can access them.
Hopefully, PennLive or Onward State will post the PDFs on their sites and we all can access them.
More challenging than you might think. The filing is 64 pages, and the exhibits are 1,194 pages. That's a lot to summarize.
(Calmly sits eating popcorn, waiting for CR66 to bring a flawed opinion)
Suck up.
It's true. Sometimes my wife even wants me to pretend I'm him when we, you know, are alone.
Actually, it's not. I have a clip from what I believe is a spokesman for the Alumni Trustees that summarizes their response to the Penn State power elite quite nicely. (The sound quality is poor so it is subtitled).
While we wait, here's this throw-back nugget to chew on: http://onwardstate.com/2013/07/17/psu-bot-chairman-keith-masser-calls-freeh-report-speculation/
so offline discussing the filing with a good friend of ours who has reviewed the filing. Should get me a copy by tomorrow, I'll protect her identity for now, but here were her observations (just to pique our interest!)
So highlights from the response filed by the trustees
They take issue with the notion that the Freeh report isn't relevant to current university business citing the many pending lawsuits and also the fact that the PA legislature is contemplating action to restructure the board
They also take issue with privilege on different levels. First, they are trustees and are therefore entitled to the documents. They also cite the several incidences where privilege has been waived, including with the OAG, the NCAA and B1G.
The issue of confidentiality is addressed. PSU maintains they promised confidentiality to those interviewed by Freeh. They use Omar McNeill's deposition in the Corman case to disprove that. They also make reference to the many times that people are individually named in the report, i.e. Graham Spanier said, Cynthia Baldwin said, Steve Garban said. They also have deposition testimony from a PSU employee who said they were not promised confidentiality
Then they start to rip apart the notion that they have already made clear that they will make the information public by explaining the context behind certain statements and vowing to use the information only to carry out their fiduciary duty to the university.
Oh, and they use Masser's, Barron's, Peetz's and Frazier's remarks to make their case. That part is rather enjoyable.
Very well written and logical.....of course, I would think that.
here's me:
here's Carnes:
So highlights from the response filed by the trustees
They take issue with the notion that the Freeh report isn't relevant to current university business citing the many pending lawsuits and also the fact that the PA legislature is contemplating action to restructure the board
They also take issue with privilege on different levels. First, they are trustees and are therefore entitled to the documents. They also cite the several incidences where privilege has been waived, including with the OAG, the NCAA and B1G.
The issue of confidentiality is addressed. PSU maintains they promised confidentiality to those interviewed by Freeh. They use Omar McNeill's deposition in the Corman case to disprove that. They also make reference to the many times that people are individually named in the report, i.e. Graham Spanier said, Cynthia Baldwin said, Steve Garban said. They also have deposition testimony from a PSU employee who said they were not promised confidentiality
Then they start to rip apart the notion that they have already made clear that they will make the information public by explaining the context behind certain statements and vowing to use the information only to carry out their fiduciary duty to the university.
Oh, and they use Masser's, Barron's, Peetz's and Frazier's remarks to make their case. That part is rather enjoyable.
Very well written and logical.....of course, I would think that.
here's me:
here's Carnes:
This is a perfect example of an ass-clown suggesting that somehow a football coach and admins should have known better than what law enforcement (UPPD/CC CA) and child protective services (PA DPW and CC CYS) were telling them re: 1998, if they knew anything at all. Which is a completely ridiculous and non logical argument.
If there was one media person sticking a mic in his face that actually knew the basic facts around the 1998 and 2001 incidents, they could have asked him why would PSU admins/football coach think JS was a pedo when CYS didn't even so much as revoke JS's clearance to work with kids after 1998 and LE said nothing criminal happened??
Just once I'd LOVE to see one of these scumbags answer that question....but nope...no one ever asks
It's always good when the Board of Trustees lies are shown. Plus it's icing on the cake when Barron's, Frazier's, Masser's, and Peetz's own words are used to undercut their own argument.
Say fellas, how's Surma doing these days?
I hope to hell he's not slithering away. He needs to pay dearly....his dominant role in the early days of this debacle hasn't been forgotten, has it?
I hope to hell he's not slithering away. He needs to pay dearly....his dominant role in the early days of this debacle hasn't been forgotten, has it?
Has anyone documented the number of times this group has been caught telling outright lies in the short span of time between November of 2011 and now?
(And just to be clear: "lying" and "being factually inaccurate" may be similar, but they are not the same.)
So the industry and ag groups are filled with top executives and they are purportedly doing what is in the best interests of the University. Then why in the hell are they fighting the alumni trustees and have forced their hands to rip them in this filing? It is clear that they are trying to have it both ways. Share info. with some, waive privilege with some, but deny others and try to withhold information from the public at all costs. In doing so they have had to twist logic through doublespeak, pay off people, and fight at every turn. If doing so is in the best interests of the University, there has to be a lot of bad hidden away.
Last edited:
None of our beloved Ship of Fools would ever lie. Except when they lie in the "best interest of the university." Of course we know what these misanthropes interpret as the best interest of PSU.
Is this at a point where the judge can make a ruling? If the judge rules in favor of the alumni trustees, will this finally force the hand of the Old Guard?
Does this have a chance from a legal perspective?
Does this have a chance from a legal perspective?
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Ha! Clearly you haven't been paying attention. Almost 4 years in and in all material respects moi hasn't been wrong yet. Just sitting here peaceful and content with a Cheshire cat grin pondering the possibility of an in camera court presentation that will expose certain alumni elected trustees of breach of confidentiality and privilege. Should be a lot of fun.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Oh come now Jim... someone of your stature making fun of the little people makes you look just silly
Really? Didn't you predict that both the Corman and Paterno suits would be thrown out?
Just put him on ignore. Problem solved.
Oh, no. He's too much fun. I do so hope he sticks around for the duration.Just put him on ignore. Problem solved.
I have him on ignore, but he is constantly giving away pages of his team's playbook.
funny thing is, he is so full of himself, the damage he is doing to his masters will never register.
and even me saying that people read what he posts and use it against his masters WILL NOT MAKE HIM STOP.
that's the dangerous combination of loyal idiot and narcissistic suck up he exudes. it is delicious
Your choice.
. Don't know whether you are trying to do some early penance for "time served" or if you just have the patience of Job. .
Last edited:
Any legitimate court judge will rule in favor of the alumni trustees and mandate access. It is their right. That is not negotiable. However, the real concern is whether the PA court judges are compromised. One has to believe that folks involved on the dark side of this have a web of compromised friends in high places. Freeh certainly does.
Wow so Voldemort really is on the BOT. Ewww that guy is just creepy looking. Maybe someone should check his computer for....uhhh "images".
FWIW, that "image" was captured immediately after the "Corman Betrayal" was approved at the January BOT meeting. (the photo was taken by a person sitting right in front of me). That image was burned in my mind, and I have to suppress my desire to projectile vomit every time I see it.From that article:
How to caption that photo?
Frazier and his Co-Scoundrels were SOOO pleased with themselves for pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with that back-stabbing move......the were so damn jolly they made their way around the table glad-handing the elected trustees. It was SICKENING!
I wanted to jump up there and beat the smug right out of those bastards.
"We" played right into those Scoundrels hand that day.......but - so long as the newly appointed Judge doesn't go deep into the pockets of Eckel and Company - the last laugh will be on the Scoundrels when the Freeh file documents are made available.
