Breaking from Pennlive Curley and Shultz plead guilty.
- Thread starter OXLion
- Start date
My goodness... you know that C&S were arrested right away, right? Do you think the BOT could have prevented them from being charged and ultimately pleading guilty?
I'm not sure what I believe about this case anymore. But I do know that had the administration listened to Paterno about his objection to allowing Sandusky to bring kids into PSU facilities, none of this would have hit PSU.
From being charged? No.
From pleading guilty? Probably. I believe that the main reason they pled guilty (to a greatly reduced, very minor charge) was that the jury pool was exceptionally polluted, partially because the BOT didn't stand up for wrongfully accused employees.
Stop. They pled guilty because they were guilty. They were screwed because of their own (in)actions.
Spanier filed a sealed entry. Let's see what happens. I know , it's another plea due to russian hacking Chinese counterfeiting global warming jury pollution.
For God's sake they did it. They knew Mike was talking about abuse and covered it up.
For God's sake they did it. They knew Mike was talking about abuse and covered it up.
You stop.
Please go read the language for EWOC. Here is the link:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...ype=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=43&sctn=4&subsctn=0
No seriously. Go read it. I'll wait.
Based on the way the law is written and given the facts that we all know now, there is no way they are guilty under that statute. If you disagree, please explain to me based on the legal language.
The only way the are guilty is if there was some new evidence that we haven't seen (and if that is the case then I seriously doubt the state would have offered such a generous plea deal) or if the jury is too biased to rule on the law properly.
Because of the very real fear of the latter, they took a slap on the wrist plea deal.
Why is that so hard for people to wrap their mind around?
Ah, I see you have recovered from your meltdown.
Nobody is trying to implicate Paterno, though we want the truth to come out.
Precisely. Regardless of the precise "liability" of bringing children to the football building that Joe was concerned about when discussing Jerry's retirement in 98/99, the favorable retirement package given to Jerry by Curley, Spanier and Schultz and ignoring Joe's concern has proven to be an extraordinarily poor decision.
No, Rodney noted that it was a peculiar request to make JS a coach emeritus but Spanier allegedly pushed for it.
Somebody please show me where their pensions are at risk. My understanding was that the only crime that the were charged with the entailed possible forfeiture was the perjury charge. Once that was dropped, their pensions were secured.
You're lying again Strap. The comments are filled with drivel regarding Joe from you imbecile cabal. That isn't seeking truth, it's called trolling.
That's not correct for a few reasons. First, the it was Jerry's retirement agreement signed on June 29,1999 by Curley and Schultz that allowed him complete access to football facilities and gave him an office on campus. There's no indication that Erickson or anyone else was involved in that negotiation other than Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Paterno to a lesser extent. Granting Jerry access to facilities was not part of the emeritus designation, which did not occur for two more months on August 31, 1999.
Second, regardless of whether Erickson formally approved the emeritus request (which, as I stated before, had no effect on Jerry's access to facilities), Spanier had full authority to grant emeritus status to anyone he wished on an exception basis under University policy. It was exclusively Spanier's call who was given emeritus status, and he had the sole authority to grant it to whoever he wished.
Here's a list of crimes that entail possible pension forfeiture. Note endangering the welfare of a child is not on the list (perjury is)
Pennsylvania crimes covered by Act 140 are found in 43 P.S. Section 1312. Federal crimes that are substantially the same as the Pennsylvania crimes are also covered by Act 140.
To paraphrase, they are:
- Any of the criminal offenses set forth in Subchapter B of Chapter 31 (relating to definition of offenses) when the criminal offense is committed by a school employee as defined in 24 Pa. C.S. Section 8102 (relating to definitions) against a student
- Section 3922 (relating to theft by deception) when the criminal culpability reaches the level of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher
- Section 3923 (relating to theft by extortion) when the criminal culpability reaches the level of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher
- Section 3926 (relating to theft of services) when the criminal culpability reaches the level of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher
- Section 3927 (relating to theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received), when the criminal culpability reaches the level of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher
- Section 4101 (relating to forgery)
- Section 4104 (relating to tampering with records or identification)
- Section 4113 (relating to misapplication of entrusted property and property of government or financial institutions) when the criminal culpability reaches the level of misdemeanor of the second degree
- Section 4701 (relating to bribery in official and political matters)
- Section 4702 (relating to threats and other improper influence in official and political matters)
- Section 4902 (relating to perjury)
- Section 4903(a) (relating to false swearing)
- Section 4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities)
- Section 4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement authorities)
- Section 4909 (relating to witness or informant taking bribe)
- Section 4910 (relating to tampering with or fabricating physical evidence)
- Section 4911 (relating to tampering with public records or information)
- Section 4952 (relating to intimidation of witnesses or victims)
- Section 4953 (relating to retaliation against witness, victim or party)
- Section 5101 (relating to obstructing administration of law or other governmental function)
- Section 5301 (relating to official oppression)
- Section 5302 (relating to speculating or wagering on official action or information)
- Article III, act of March 4, 1971 (P.L. 6, No. 2), known as the "Tax Reform Code of 1971"
The large number of victims and eye witnesses are not enough for you? What do you need? Video tape? If the standards that you are requiring for Sandusky were applied to all child molesters, there would be no child molesters in jail. Stop with your BS. You are embarassing yourself.
Also, from the BOT standpoint, everyone continues to look at the situation like Curley and Schultz didn't do anything wrong. Given the fact that they just plead guilty to child endangerment, the BOT's actions should be looked at from the point of view that Curley and Schultz failed to appropriately report what was told to them and their failure was criminal. If that in fact occurred, and we have no reason to believe it did not since they just admitted to it, what do you believe the BOT should have done?
Last edited:
I think it's very possible that a reasonable jury could be convinced that Curley and Schultz in their official capacity prevented or interfered with the making of a report of suspected child abuse to child protective services in violation of 4304(a)(2). All that would require is (1) establishing that McQueary made a report of suspected child abuse - and Courtney's billing record and McQueary's testimony would likely establish that; (2) that a report was not made to child protective services; and (3) that Curley and Schultz were the parties responsible for preventing that report, which could be established through the change of plans to not report to DPW.
I really don't think it would be too complicated or difficult at all to convict Curley, Schultz, or Spanier on that charge.
Edit: now that I'm looking at the text of the statute, I could very well see the prosecution trying to prove the felony of establishing a "course of conduct" to endanger the welfare of children by not putting any safeguards in place to actually prevent Sandusky from using the facilities again. Curley and Schultz may well have made the decision to take the misdemeanor plea rather than face the risk of the prosecution pushing for the upgraded felony under the same statute by proving a course of conduct. It'd be more difficult to prove that, but I'd be willing to guess that the state was planning on trying.
This is about PSU to him(and a few others stuck in denial). I'm sure he's standing by ready to fight for Nasser too...oh wait, no Curley or Joe there so he might have done it!!!
Last edited:
For starters, wait until the judicial process has finished before presuming guilt of your employees and telling the world that you were going to open up the checkbooks?
No other incident in history, that I know of, had a school or company immediately assume guilt and start handing out checks BEFORE anyone had plead guilty or was proven guilty, etc.. It made ZERO fiduciary sense to take that stance unless you didn't want people to peel back any layers of the onion, start poking around about any PSU BOT/TSM BOT connections, etc..
I'm actually shocked that freeh was allowed to publicly release his report considering the massive impact it had on further tainting the jury pool. In the Nassar case all lawyers were just told to STFU and not speak to the media anymore b/c they're alreayd worried about a tainted jury due to the media coverage. Can you imagine the impact of freeh's nationally televised press conference then the ensuing NCAA sanctions had on the jury pool???
Basic PR 101 is to take a neutral stance and place all involved people on admin leave until due process has run it's course. Somehow the crack lawyers and titans of industry running our BOT in 2011 didn't know that and collectively crapped their pants all over a one sided prosecutorial document, the GJP.
The case you are waiting for happened 5 years ago. Where were you?
I thought I'd read that it was Rodney that pushed the retirement agreement. I'll stand corrected if it's otherwise.
The problem with what you wrote this this part of the law:
"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,"
None of those three (C/S/S) fit under that description which makes this a non-starter.
Read the statute again. You're quoting subsection (1) of 4304(a), which is entirely separate from subsection (2), which is what I quoted.
Under the law, an offense occurs for endangering the welfare of children in two either/or circumstances: either (1) if a parent, guardian, or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or knowingly supervises such a person knowingly endangers the welfare of a child by violating a duty of care, protection or support; OR (2) if a person in an official capacity prevents or interferes with the making of a report of suspected child abuse under the child protective services law. Both are first degree misdemeanors, but both can also become felonies if a course of conduct is established.
I do not believe that any of them could plausibly be convicted under 4304(a)(1) - which is the language you're quoting. That's not the same as them plausibly being convicted under 4404(a)(2) - which I am arguing would not be too difficult.
I don't doubt this, I'm just curious. Who do you think brought Baldwin in to throw roadblocks?
Erickson gets thrown around, but it's a bit of a red herring. Erickson was only involved in the formal execution of Jerry's emeritus status, but there's no indication that he had anything to do with the retirement agreement that actually gave him access to Penn State football facilities and showers.
The relevant documents here are Exhibits 3H and 3I. 3H is the retirement agreement between Penn State and Jerry, dated June 29, 1999. It was negotiated in the months prior between Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Jerry, with Joe having limited involvement. It was signed by Curley, approved by Schultz on behalf of the University, and accepted by Jerry on that date. In that retirement letter, Jerry is given, among other things, permission to use "at no charge, a locker, weight rooms, fitness facilities, and training room in the East Area locker room complex" for the rest of his lifetime. There is no indication that Erickson or anyone else was involved in negotiating or executing that agreement.
3I are emails between Erickson and Bob Secor, dated two months later on August 31, 1999. Secor says to Erickson that Spanier promised Jerry that he would grant emeritus status, and according to University policy the President has sole authority to grant emeritus status on an exception basis. Secor said that after Spanier promised this, Curley went through the College of Health and Human Services (where Jerry was technically still listed as an assistant professor) to have the dean formally submit the paperwork for approval, finally saying that "I'm not sure what our best options are at this point, maybe we need to go along with the Assistant Professor Emeritus of Physical Education/Assistant Coach recommendation" that they had received. Erickson responded "let's go ahead and grant it if Graham has already promised it. We can hope that not too many others take that careful notice. These requests would have to come through the deans in any case, and I can't imagine many deans lobbying for assistant professors."
But in any case, it wasn't the emeritus status designation that allowed Jerry to use the weight room and showers - it was the retirement agreement negotiated and executed a few months before by Curley, Spanier and Schultz.
Can you please explain how forwarding (even a watered down version) a report to the mandatory reporters at TSM who were required to look into any and all incidents constitutes "preventing or interfering with the making of a report"?? Especially when you consider the one and only witness went on the record to say no one at PSU ever told him to keep quite.
If anything, the admins "watered down" report to TSM SHOULD HAVE caused a report to be made to CYS. But it didn't, and for some reason the state feels justice is served by going after the non child care expert college admins who reported it outside of their org to child care experts and phd's in psychiatry running the state licensed charity that employed JS and provided his access to kids. smh.
The only people screwed by Baldwin were C/S/S. she didn't properly prepare or inform them about what was going to take place at the grand jury. Jeopa was fortunate enough to have Scott tell him to get his own representation and not trust Baldwin.
Quite simply: Curley told Raykovitz that the incident was investigated by Penn State and was found to be meritless and that nothing inappropriate occurred. I don't believe that the report that Curley testified to giving Raykovitz (or that we've heard unofficially from Raykovitz's testimony) would give Raykovitz "reasonable cause to suspect that a child was a victim of child abuse" under Section 6311 of the child protective services law.
And that's the core conflict, isn't it, when it comes to The Second Mile? Were they informed of anything by Curley that gave them "reasonable cause" to think that child abuse occurred in the shower? The argument for the prosecution goes that if Curley had accurately reflected what he was told by McQueary about Sandusky to Raykovitz, Raykovitz certainly would have had that reasonable cause. But because Curley gave an inaccurate story to Raykovitz about what he was told by McQueary, he prevented the report from being made.
As it has throughout this whole saga, the key item in all this is Mike McQueary and the message that he conveyed to Curley and Schultz, and whether that message gave them reasonable cause to suspect that a child was abused - that's always been the key question when it comes to Curley, Schultz and Spanier - and it takes into account all the other information and context about 1998 or otherwise that those men had at their disposal in 2001.
And, on a broader basis, all three administrators prevented a report from being made when they all determined for themselves that they were not going to file a report with DPW.
I would argue that they didn't do that in an official capacity because they weren't supervising the child, nor were they supervising Sandusky, nor is preventing child abuse a part of their routine job.
Further, there is no way they prevented a report from being made (ask MM), and I think arguing that the interfered with a report being made is a tough hill to climb. What did they do exactly to interfere with a report being made? They themselves didn't make a report, but they were not required to (hence the FTR being dropped), but there were numerous other people (starting with MM, but including JM, JD) who could have made a report. Even further, they reported it to JR (at TSM) which if anything is enabling a report, not preventing one.
