I agree with everything you wrote, but it stands the EVERY report Freeh has ever been commissioned for has gone in favor of the entity that paid him to write it. It is unbelievable that he is still deemed credible by anybody. They are all disproven after the smoke clears. Even his DUI and the mysterious government official that happened to be the first on the scene has been covered up. Freeh is a joke and nobody but everyone on this board will call him out on that.
BREAKING: Court orders Freeh documents be released to alumni-elected trustees
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
I agree with everything you wrote, but it stands the EVERY report Freeh has ever been commissioned for has gone in favor of the entity that paid him to write it. It is unbelievable that he is still deemed credible by anybody. They are all disproven after the smoke clears. Even his DUI and the mysterious government official that happened to be the first on the scene has been covered up. Freeh is a joke and nobody but everyone on this board will call him out on that.
Good post. I hereby confer to you an honorary Penn Stare degree.
I doubt it. It would be saying I took a payday to destroy some people's reputation. I don't see that working.
What is the significance of the confidentiality order? Does this handcuff the alumnai trustees at all, or does this just mean that they can't leak names to the press?
Kinda like how the freeh loyalists hitched their wagon to a couple of extremely vague emails to sell a pre-conceived outcome?
Such is.
Eff that. Give the man a Penn State medal.
Only the attorney general can leak names and fake "facts" to the press. Duh.
Honest Louie:
JACKPOT!
Administration releases statement regarding court decision on Freeh materials
November 19, 2015
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- Penn State's administration has issued a statement following a decision by the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County with regard to a lawsuit filed by seven alumni-elected trustees. The suit sought certain materials generated as a result of the Freeh investigation. Leadership has consistently pledged that the University would work to protect individual anonymity of the people interviewed. The judge's decision grants the trustees' request to review the Freeh documents, subject to a confidentiality order and the threat of sanctions for noncompliance. The administration is pleased with the outcome.
DOWNLOAD: Click here to read the judge's opinion.
Statement:
"We are pleased with the court’s recognition of the university’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the materials, particularly the names and identities of those who were interviewed for the Freeh Report. The seven alumni elected trustees’ continuing demand to know 'who said what?' is contrary to the university's efforts to create a climate where people feel safe in reporting possible wrongdoing. The university offered repeatedly to provide essentially all of the approximately 3.5 million documents collected by the Freeh firm with no redactions whatsoever and all of the Freeh firm’s work product and interview memoranda with redactions of personally identifiable information, all under the conditions of a confidentiality agreement. This legal action was an unnecessary and wasteful expense."
"While we would have hoped that a confidentiality agreement would have been sufficient to protect the university’s interests, the court’s order provides additional protection from any breach of the court’s confidentiality requirements."
To recapitulate Honest Louie (from a web blog):
"Freeh failed to act on a mountain of evidence pointing towards 9/11, i.e. an April 2001 memo sent to him by his assistant director that cited “significant and urgent” intelligence of “serious operational planning” for terrorism attacks by Islamic radicals linked to Osama bin Laden. He also botched cases involving Richard Jewell, Wen Ho Lee, and Robert Hanssen.
Freeh resigned from the FBI two months before 9/11. When he worked there he was making an annual salary of $145,000 and lived “in a heavily mortgaged house in Great Falls, a Virginia suburb,” according to an old and admiring New Yorker profile. He and his wife now own at least four lavish estates worth many millions of dollars, including a residence in Wilmington, Delaware, a six-bedroom summerhouse worth more than $3 million in Vermont, and a beachfront penthouse at 100 Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, Florida, which was bought for $1.4 million and now has an estimated value of $3 million.
How’d that happen? Well, Freeh is one of many former U.S. officials who got paid big speaking fees (reportedly up to $50,000 a pop) by a creepy Iranian group called the People’s Mujahedin, also known as Mojahedin-e-Khalq, or MEK, to successfully advocate for its removal from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. He also opened up a consulting firm whose clients have included Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar, who the U.S. Department of Justice accused of taking massive bribes from a British defense contractor. That’s right, Freeh represented a prince from America’s old pal Saudi Arabia, home to fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, and whose export of Wahhabism is credited with giving rising to the Islamic State.
Freeh is also hired to conduct investigations, like the controversial report he produced about Penn State’s football program. Nasser Kazeminy, a Minnesota businessman who in 2008 was accused of bribing former Senator Norm Coleman, also hired Freeh to conduct a “thorough investigation” of the allegations against him in the hopes of clearing his name.
In 2011, Freeh issued a public statement saying that his investigation had “completely vindicated” both Kazeminy and Coleman. Sure, Kazeminy had bought Coleman $100,000 worth of presents, but, Freeh said at a press conference, “There was no quid pro quo in the gifts. There was no wrongdoing.” Freeh also met with the Justice Department – which was investigating the bribery charges but declined to bring a case—on Kazeminy’s behalf.
Oh yeah, about Freeh’s Palm Beach penthouse. As I discovered through Florida property records, Freeh’s wife co-owns it with Kazeminy, which kind of makes you wonder about just how thorough and impartial his investigation was. The quit claim deed giving Freeh’s wife one-half ownership of the penthouse was signed nine days after Freeh’s vindication of Kazeminy."
Last edited:
Thanks for laying it out, Lafayette. You were both articulate and reasoned, and probably wasted your time trying to reason with the quasi-troll, Michnittwit, who either can't comprehend or more likely chooses not to comprehend the truth. That being said... stop by any old time!!!
The light is beginning to return to PSU and the BOT rats and toadies will soon be scurrying for cover.
The light is beginning to return to PSU and the BOT rats and toadies will soon be scurrying for cover.
Today was a very good day. Thank you all for your support.
Thanks goes to you and the others, Anthony.
I've criticized actions of other BoT members before. Maybe you've missed those points. I'm not going to go off on that tangent here, listing all those actions I've critcized, given that this is tangential to this thread's topic.
Anyway, a re-iteration of my main point. People have gotten the "review of Freeh documents" which they have been clamoring for. I do not view this as a negative. I view this as a "put up or shut up time, in terms of showing tangible proof" opportunity.
This "review of Freeh documents" needs to show some tangible proof that either (1) the Freeh Report's conclusions were predetermined, or (2) the Freeh Report manufactured some of the evidence used to make his conclusions. If neither (1) or (2) happen, it will be time for a significant number of "Paterno Loyalists" to admit they were wrong.
Casey. He lives in marshcreek. I think he gives financial advice. He used to publish a very public Penn State football newsletter with his name on it. He hated Tiger Woods and declined Lubrano's very cordial invitation to lunch to discuss things.
You got what you wanted. But today's ruling also puts you on the clock.
This "review of Freeh documents" needs to show some tangible proof that either (1) the Freeh Report's conclusions were predetermined, or (2) the Freeh Report manufactured some of the evidence used to make his conclusions.
If neither (1) or (2) happen, it will be time for you to admit you were wrong.
The proof is there. The bullshit we saw spewing from Freeh's mouth and the subsequent hunker down and move along narrative didn't come from nowhere. Remember that some of Freeh's group has already turned.
It's not put up or shut up time....no matter what happens just getting access to the info so we can understand the full truth is a win
Lol, the only thing the Freeh report needs to do is show its conclusions were substantiated. Anything short of that and things get very, very ugly no matter what you say.
I'm pleased both that that Lubrano, Lord and two other trustees will review Freeh's work product and that the confidentiality of "who said what" will apparently be protected by the Court. If I also correctly understand that Freeh will have to directly answer questions from the four trustees, then that's also great news and a long-overdue event.
However, I have to question whether the results will deliver as much as is hoped here.
First, what are the chances that Lubrano and Lord will deliver one opinion of Freeh's work and the two Masser-appointed trustees publicly release a dissenting opinion, diluting the impact of the findings?
Second, even if the four trustees announce that the Freeh findings were pre-ordained, will anyone outside of Penn State alums really care at this point?
Third, many expect "The Truth" to emerge from this exercise. Perhaps the truth about Freeh's integrity and that of a few OG trustees will emerge, but Freeh never had the legal power to conduct a criminal investigation and this vetting exercise of the Freeh Report is unlikely to tell us much about who did or did not screw up in 2001, which is what the public cares about. I think it unlikely that any clarity about the roles of C/S/S or TSM, etc., will emerge from this exercise. Freeh's Report, after all, is mostly a compilation of interviewee opinions, from which Freeh purportedly drew "reasonable conclusions."
However, I have to question whether the results will deliver as much as is hoped here.
First, what are the chances that Lubrano and Lord will deliver one opinion of Freeh's work and the two Masser-appointed trustees publicly release a dissenting opinion, diluting the impact of the findings?
Second, even if the four trustees announce that the Freeh findings were pre-ordained, will anyone outside of Penn State alums really care at this point?
Third, many expect "The Truth" to emerge from this exercise. Perhaps the truth about Freeh's integrity and that of a few OG trustees will emerge, but Freeh never had the legal power to conduct a criminal investigation and this vetting exercise of the Freeh Report is unlikely to tell us much about who did or did not screw up in 2001, which is what the public cares about. I think it unlikely that any clarity about the roles of C/S/S or TSM, etc., will emerge from this exercise. Freeh's Report, after all, is mostly a compilation of interviewee opinions, from which Freeh purportedly drew "reasonable conclusions."
Great job! If you need any help coming up with some questions to ask Freeh, just let us know. We might have a few ideas.
"substantiate" = to establish via competent evidence.
Unless one is saying that the various exhibits in the Freeh Report were doctored or made up, the Freeh Report already substantiated its conclusions.
That's different from saying it "proved its conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt."
Of course, Freeh is not operating in a courtroom, and he never claimed to. Freeh was never subject to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
My money's on, they have been working on this since legal action was taken. It's well under way or completed.
I am hoping at least, that the questions asked will *not* be allowed to be covered by "ACP" or "confidentiality" and can be released as long as the names of those questioned are kept confidential. If there was bias or an agenda on the part of Freeh, the questions asked are likely to show that. pretty quickly in fact.
I hope there are two separate reports. I wouldn't be the least surprised if the other trustees didn't ask a single question just like in March 2011. Those other two trustees really are in a no win situation, because their veil of " ignorance " will be shredded and they will have to start confronting certain issues they had hoped to ignore.
If the courts are asked to decide, and there are currently several pending without any new ones from trustees, then yes, the standard becomes much higher. BTW, his little press conference counts as some of his conclusions. Despite your protestations, Freeh and the bot have entered into some very financially dangerous territory.
(2) Tangible proof that any of the facts that Freeh laid out in the Freeh Report are fabricated.
There are not many facts in the report. It is mostly spin based on "reasonable conclusions" not based in fact. The interesting part to me is what did not make it into the report. If exculpatory evidence was suppressed any shred of credible that Freeh had is out the window.
There are not many facts in the report. It is mostly spin based on "reasonable conclusions" not based in fact. The interesting part to me is what did not make it into the report. If exculpatory evidence was suppressed any shred of credible that Freeh had is out the window.
So many questions. And the answers are-a-comin'!
You left out 3) - that Freeh reached conclusions unsubstantiated and incomplete based on:
A) a list of who was of primary importance to PSUs involvement and NOT interviewed (including investigators of 98 incident, McQ, Paterno, Curley, Spanier, Harmon and Courtney for starters....which makes up about 99.9% of the actual relevance to PSUs role in this as opposed to the hundreds of interviews and millions of emails that produced squat in terms of substance
B) what was NOT in the report such as state statutes governing reporting of abuse in 2001
A technical review of the report such as that done by Eileen Morgan in light of this would reveal 3) is already a more grounded conclusion in reality as opposed to what Freeh published. The fact that the BOT has spent millions on this and never even conducted a formal approval of its conclusions ( despite numerous chances to do so) speaks volumes about their own willingness to stand by it...and any reasonable person would say the work product they have been fighting to suppress provides ample evidence of why.
No, no, Anthony. Thank you.
DItto on that. I don't know if I could have had the patience and determination Anthony Lubrano has shown since 2011.
true Penn Stater. get his name on a building STAT!
Freeh didn't have subpoenae power and didn't talk to any of the key people yet the og bot allowed the ncaa to use his report to hammer psu and also never met as a board to ratify the report itself before allowing the ncaa to get invovled. Hmmm thats odd if everything was on the up and up don't you think? Did frazier suddenly forget all of his law school training in allowing these blunders? No, this was all planned out.
Why did peetz and frazier accept responsibility for the failures cited in the freeh report mere hours after it was released even though the bot claimed they got the report the same time as everyone else. They must be fast readers!! Also by doing this they effectively plead guilty on CSS's behalf thus exposing psu to massive liability. Did frazier forget his law school training again? I don't think so.
Nice try at attempting to spin today's news as no big deal though, you and michnitt had a rough day huh?
You need to go back and re-read the judge's order.
I haven't missed those posts in which you were critical of other BoT members. You were. You have also submitted a number of posts with which I (and likely many others here) agree. The primary area where we seem to differ is with respect to the conduct of the board majority concerning the Freeh Report and the majority's treatment of the alumi elected trustees.
As for your main point (that it is now "put up or shut up time"), my guess is that the documents the board majority and Freeh's law firm produce will not include any obvious smoking gun. Either the members of the BoT's executive committee were smart enough to confine their most explosive (some would probably use a term like "incriminating") comments to telephone conversations, or they couched their e-mails in sufficiently ambiguous verbiage. Even if they exercised no such discretion, my guess is that some of the more incendiary written communications have already been deep sixed.
More likely, any evidence of wrongdoing on the board majority's part will be of a more circumstantial nature (e.g., an abundance of e-mail communications from executive committee members to Mr. Freeh before his final Report came out, or revised drafts of the Freeh Report reflecting conclusions of increasingly improper behavior on JVP's part or C/S/S's part. Who knows?
I do believe that, with his legal training, Mr. Freeh should have known better than to go public with the kind of accusations he makes in his report without having more evidence to support them. Even if he did not have subpoena power, could he not have interviewed the major players in this saga, albeit not under oath? Also, I realize that the BoT was under considerable pressure in late 2011 to DO something, but (as so many have here noted previously) couldn't the BoT have simply suspended the major players pending some kind of meaningful investigation? Surely, suspensions accompanied by statements pointing out these folks' right to a modicum of due process would have helped considerably in calming the waters. In any event, making difficult decisions, and showing real leadership (i.e., leadership under pressure) is what these trustees were selected for. IMO, they clearly failed, and their subsequent attempts to freeze out the board minority and preclude discussion of the issue has compounded that failure
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Nothing to spin. The dissidents got nothing more than what was being offered from day one. The Joebots foolishly celebrate the release of documents they'll never set eyes on and for which the dissidents can't disclose the contents of publicly. The court affirms confidentiality which is clearly a big win for the university and a big loss for the Joebots.
Similar threads
