Breaking: Spanier files defamation suit against ...

[CDW3333]

That would be a good enough reason in itself.

But reading the actual engagement letter would assist, specifically the last paragraph of section 7 provides indemnity for Freeh for any "investigation, civil or criminal action, adminstrative proceeding, or any other action arising out of this matter."

Seems suitably broad.

http://progress.psu.edu/assets/content/FreehSporkinSullivanEngagementLetter.pdf

 

[Pardlion]

Re: That would be a good enough reason in itself.

There is no language they can put in the engagement letter that can overcome a public policy exclusion prohibiting indemnification for ones own intentional torts. Freeh is an idiot.

 

[ericstratton-rushchairman]

Dem...question/opinion

If a judge/jury were to ever find in favor of a conspired effort to defame GS would such a ruling put Freeh in danger of being disbarred?

 

[bkmtnittany1]

Re: That would be a good enough reason in itself.

Blehar is so correct...it is truly unbelievable how effing corrupt the state of PA truly is...don't tell me these judges weren't aware of what was coming down the pike...

 

[thecoolestfish]

We've learned over the past 2-3 yrs that if it's legal in nature, and CDW..

...has offered an opinion and prediction, good chance the opposite is going to happen.

Sorry CDW, but it's true.

 

[Obliviax]

Probably, but such clauses typically come with ethics or legality

clauses as well. In other words, if Freeh didn't fulfill his obligations to the contractor, broke the law or did something unethical, the indemnification clause would be mute.

 

[Pardlion]

Re: Probably, but such clauses typically come with ethics or legality

Based on the allegations of malicious conduct in the complaint, the BOT may have a fiduciary obligation to refuse any demand by freeh for indemnity. Probably why he crashed his car.

 

[CDW3333]

A claim of defamation based on "recklessness" wouldn't

constitute an intentional tort, since recklessness is akin to gross negligence. For the defamation to be an intentional tort you would have to show that Freeh intended to injure Spanier and that would be exceedingly difficult to prove.

Looking at the indemnity agreement, however, there are other someother issues that might make it unenforcable.

 

[pmjoe]

I knew the BOT's vague "firing" of Spanier (and Paterno) would come back to haunt the university, and I've been saying that since day one. The BOT allowed the media to perpetuate a false narrative about Spanier being "fired" and took no action to provide factual, correct information. The BOT still to this day is incapable of giving a straight answer on the "firings" - you'd think some lawyer would've set them straight, but they apparently had incompetent Baldwin guiding them on this stuff at the time.

And then of course, there is this, which I have also been saying for a long time:
136. According to the Freeh Report, on May 4, 1998, a State College woman called the University Police Department ⎯ the police agency for the Penn State campus - to report that Sandusky had apparently showered with her 11-year-old son in an athletic facility on the Penn State campus following a workout. The mother did not allege that Sandusky sexually abused or assaulted her son.

When was Sandusky accused of child sexual abuse in 1998? As far as I have seen - NEVER until 2011. Yet Freeh and the NCAA blamed and punished Spanier and the others, as well as the entire university, for an alleged coverup dating back to 1998.

This kind of stuff is going to make a judge's head spin in disbelief.

I hope Spanier wins. Unfortunately, I suspect it'll fall on Penn State to cover the damages caused by Freeh and the BOT. But maybe that will be the final straw to get rid of these corrupt BOT execs.

 

[Pardlion]

Re: A claim of defamation based on "recklessness" wouldn't

Spanner is a public person. Believe he has to prove that freeh acted with malice, which is what the complaint says. I think this will qualify as an intentional tort for which freeh can't be indemnified.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Re: Because CDW333 said so *

The old move on crowd quit once they saw the witch hunt ended. Only a select few are dumb enough to continue on.

 

[CDW3333]

Re: A claim of defamation based on "recklessness" wouldn't

The actual malice standard for defamation includes recklessness. See Sullivan v. NY Times.

You're not a lawyer are you?

 

[NittPicker]

Re: Why is it unlikely that Spanier will be successful in this suit? *

Good question. The people who say Spanier has no chance are the same people who said Corman/McCord were wasting their time and that the Paterno suit would go absolutely nowhere.

 

[Pardlion]

Re: A claim of defamation based on "recklessness" wouldn't

Did I say actual malice doesn't include recklessness?

You can't read, can you?

Btw, when I first got here, you had a hard on that psu was going to have to indemnify freeh. Now you have brown stains in your shorts. So who's the lawyer?

 

[Aoshiro]

Re: A claim of defamation based on "recklessness" wouldn't

Originally posted by CDW3333:
constitute an intentional tort, since recklessness is akin to gross negligence. For the defamation to be an intentional tort you would have to show that Freeh intended to injure Spanier and that would be exceedingly difficult to prove.

I don't know about that. That email about Freeh contacting the Feds to get Spanier booted from his contract looks like pretty deliberate injury to me. Lord knows what else is in those files that Freeh and the trustees are so anxious to keep secret.

 

[simons96]

clearly you and CDW have different definitions of

Originally posted by Aoshiro:

Originally posted by CDW3333:
constitute an intentional tort, since recklessness is akin to gross negligence. For the defamation to be an intentional tort you would have to show that Freeh intended to injure Spanier and that would be exceedingly difficult to prove.

I don't know about that. That email about Freeh contacting the Feds to get Spanier booted from his contract looks like pretty deliberate injury to me. Lord knows what else is in those files that Freeh and the trustees are so anxious to keep secret.

"exceedingly easy to prove"

errr I mean "exceedingly difficult"

you have to wonder how some people can be so wrong so often, yet still earnestly believe their opinions have merit

 

[canuckhal]

I sense settlement

Wonder if there will be an apology in the settlement and by whom

 

[demlion]

Since he acted in a legal role here, and not simply as an investigator,

it is entirely possible that a finding of a knowing and intentional defamation of Spanier, especially if it involved a conspiracy with his client, could place him in some hot water with his bar association(s). could get him reprimanded, anyway. JMO.

 

[demlion]

It means he is indemnified, not that he is immune from damages.

And suppose you are right. that is count 1 of the breach of fiduciary duty suit against Freeh. Bring it on.

 

[CDW3333]

Re: A claim of defamation based on "recklessness" wouldn't

Originally posted by Pardlion:
Did I say actual malice doesn't include recklessness?

Yeah you did, you lying sack of crap.;

"Believe he has to prove that freeh acted with malice, which is what the complaint says. I think this will qualify as an intentional tort for which freeh can't be indemnified."

Sound familiar, numb nuts?

Recklessness ain't intentional.

 

[Pardlion]

Re: A claim of defamation based on "recklessness" wouldn't

Lol. Wtf are you talking about?

You have a quote that clearly doesn't say what you say it says.

Your dumb argument appears to be that psu has to indemnify freeh for his malicious slander of spanny because freeh might only have been reckless. Good luck. And btw you better hope you're not right or your bot pals have wasted the university's assets.

 

[psute]

Re: A claim of defamation based on "recklessness" wouldn't

Originally posted by Aoshiro:

Originally posted by CDW3333:
constitute an intentional tort, since recklessness is akin to gross negligence. For the defamation to be an intentional tort you would have to show that Freeh intended to injure Spanier and that would be exceedingly difficult to prove.

I don't know about that. That email about Freeh contacting the Feds to get Spanier booted from his contract looks like pretty deliberate injury to me. Lord knows what else is in those files that Freeh and the trustees are so anxious to keep secret.

Agree 100%, an overt deliberate act which produced obvious consequences...

 

[Pardlion]

Re: A claim of defamation based on "recklessness" wouldn't

Freeh is a jerkoff for calling someone's employer to get him fired. However in this case he might have some kind of noerr Pennington immunity. Idk.

 

[ericstratton-rushchairman]

That's kind of what I thought. It'll be tough to prove though*

*

 

[LafayetteBear]

Re: Freeh is indemnified by Penn State for suits related to his report.

Originally posted by CDW3333:

In the unlikely event that Spanier should be successful, Penn State would also be on the hook for an judgment.

Indemnities like that are typically of no force if the would-be indemnitee has not acted in good faith. If Freeh was conspiring with the NCAA and prejudging things, it seems to me he may have a hard time satisfying that requirement. Not sure about this, but thought I would mention it in case there is someone who has seen the actual indemnity language.

 

[Talpsu]

This is pretty minute compared to everything going on with this but Im really curious who exactly from PSU is trying block or deny Spaniers tenured professorship. Who even has that authority? I doubt our new pres is pushing for that so who else could be doing it? First thing that comes to mind is the BOT, but that needs to be a full board vote pushing for that and Ive never heard anything about that during the meetings.

 

[Aoshiro]

Personnel matters are handled in executive (closed) session.

 

[Talpsu]

yea I get the executive session stuff but the elected trustees are in on that too and doubt they would be pushing for Spaniers tenure to be revoked