ADVERTISEMENT

BREAKING: Court orders Freeh documents be released to alumni-elected trustees

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.

Casey who? The other info isn't anything new.
 
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.


Bwahahaha, well, liars lie.
 
The simple realizations are this:

1. cr66 is worried by yesterday's news because it indicates that his friends with "pedigree" cannot do what they want to put their interests above all.

2. michidiot is worried by yesterday's news because it likely will benefit the Paternos, of whom he is consumed with deep hatred.
 
Can't we stop with the cute hints? If he outed himself and some of us missed it, then why not just repeat the information?

The moderators at times have protected him so I don't think it is a great idea to just post his name. I had one of my own posts nuked a couple days ago for blasting him. The hints are there. It really isn't too tough to figure out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion
The simple realizations are this:

1. cr66 is worried by yesterday's news because it indicates that his friends with "pedigree" cannot do what they want to put their interests above all.

2. michidiot is worried by yesterday's news because it likely will benefit the Paternos, of whom he is consumed with deep hatred.

Nailed!
 
The moderators at times have protected him so I don't think it is a great idea to just post his name. I had one of my own posts nuked a couple days ago for blasting him. The hints are there. It really isn't too tough to figure out.

We have moderators?
 
First, to be clear, Michnitton we are on no one's clock but our own. We will review very methodically.

"Measure twice and cut once."

As for Cruising, you appear to have accepted the university's spin. I won't lower myself to their level except to say that yesterday's press release is patently untrue. Anyone following this case closely already knows this. Simply read the filings.

Judge Howsare adopted our position and ruled accordingly.
 
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.

Out of all of this, I might be looking forward most to the day you (and certain others on this board) are finally forced to STFU. That day came one step closer to fruition yesterday.
 
"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.

Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh this morning.

Freeh's so called "reasonable conclusions" are not even remotely supported by the evidence he provided in his report. If they had been, there wouldn't even be a need for his source materials. However, since his firm wrote a sham of a report that everyone with an ounce of intelligence can see is not based in facts, he created this mess himself. I don't even refer to his "reasonable conclusions" as such anymore. The Freeh findings are opinions, nothing more. And to think that those opinions were not influenced (either intentionally or unintentionally) by those signing Freeh's $8.5M paycheck, is naive.
 
Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh this morning.

Freeh's so called "reasonable conclusions" are not even remotely supported by the evidence he provided in his report. If they had been, there wouldn't even be a need for his source materials. However, since his firm wrote a sham of a report that everyone with an ounce of intelligence can see is not based in facts, he created this mess himself. I don't even refer to his "reasonable conclusions" as such anymore. The Freeh findings are opinions, nothing more. And to think that those opinions were not influenced (either intentionally or unintentionally) by those signing Freeh's $8.5M paycheck, is naive.

Honestly I highly doubt they even represent his opinions either. The way Freeh operates, his actual opinions are irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
Calder Way? I can't think of any other ways off the top of my head, even though I'm sure there are more.

columbo-tv-04-g.jpg
 
I thought it was interesting that CR's response was basically, well fine, they got what you wanted but they won't be able to talk about what's in there.

A lot will depend on "confidentiality". If it's just names and the like, then that's one thing. If it is *everything* PSU determines is "confidential" then it would be difficult for the trustees to issue any kind of report on the Freeh Report. My guess is that it will be the former. Can't identify anyone but can talk about what is in there.
 
What burns my ass is at one point Emmert claimed Freeh DID have subpoena power and implied Freeh's work was a real investigation. I know Emmert is a dumbass but he must have been fooled by the "Judge Freeh" label.

A lot of people were. I wonder if his judicial record was as bad....
 
It's goes back to the old anonymity vs confidentiality discussion we have had here since this quest for the source docs began. I am not sure which of those the court specified.
 
A lot will depend on "confidentiality". If it's just names and the like, then that's one thing. If it is *everything* PSU determines is "confidential" then it would be difficult for the trustees to issue any kind of report on the Freeh Report. My guess is that it will be the former. Can't identify anyone but can talk about what is in there.

Can get a list of interviewee names and then ask them what they said. Can then compare to Freeh's notes. When they don't match, can then claim fraud and demand money back. At that point, the university is stuck having to release info to defend itself. Just a potential hypothetical.
 
I want to thank everyone for their subtle clues. I won't share the results, but google provided some thought provoking and interesting results. That said, I want to give credit where credit is due. Without michy's post, none of this occurs. Thanks mich!:oops:
 
Can get a list of interviewee names and then ask them what they said.

I don't believe they can speak with those that have been interviewed given the confidentiality requirements outlined by the court, at least not those that they identify after receiving the source documents. However, there's a good chance they know some of the interviewees already through personal relationships, and those people may have already shared recollections of the interviews with the alumni trustees. With that info in mind, they will now be able to compare it to the Freeh notes and bring it up with the board if there are discrepancies.
 
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.
You and your boys are going down CR66. I'd be looking at countries where they don't have an extradition agreement with the US if I was one of your buddies. Lubrano and the good BOT are going to rip this thing wide open
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT