Conference Scheduled-Trustee Lawsuit Over Freeh Report Access

[step.eng69]

Thank you Wendy

“ #PSU Attorneys are a funny bunch. http://t.co/uTOEgZKW3V KEN FRAZIER THE PLACE http://t.co/8eNASD7KSg” (12:00 )
Twitter / wensilver

 

[simons96]

the alumni trustees might use the information in the Freeh report in a manner that would violate their duties to the University

hahahahaha

Frazier is a bona fide comedian . . . can't believe that was said with a straight face

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

the alumni trustees might use the information in the Freeh report in a manner that would violate their duties to the University

hahahahaha

Frazier is a bona fide comedian . . . can't believe that was said with a straight face

And still they would not have killed anybody, unlike Frazier.

 

[Obliviax]

Thank you Wendy

“ #PSU Attorneys are a funny bunch. http://t.co/uTOEgZKW3V KEN FRAZIER THE PLACE http://t.co/8eNASD7KSg” (12:00 )
Twitter / wensilver

This is, to me, one of the more egregious issues with this entire mess. How can new members of the BOT do their jobs without access to information? Freeh gave us a lot of opinions without divulging the source of those opinions. Isn't having that source data key to the report? of course it is.

how anyone can argue this is, to me, unbelievable.

 

[psunovaluvr]

"Before the trustees went to court, Penn State had already agreed to give the trustees access to the Freeh Report materials if they signed a confidentiality agreement. The trustees refused to sign the agreement, and instead filed their court petition to force Penn State to turn over the documents."

Is the above information correct? I seem to recall the Alum Trustees were willing to sign confidentiality agreements, but wanted identifiable information/documents(who said what) for purposes of context/motivation and this was the issue.

 

[NittPicker]

the alumni trustees might use the information in the Freeh report in a manner that would violate their duties to the University

That is a ridiculous position to take and offers a glimpse into what Masser and Co. really think of the alumni elected trustees. Masser and Co. apparently think the elected trustees and too stupid to perform their duties honestly and faithfully which is the epitome of hypocrisy and irony considering how Masser and Co. have screwed the pooch with every important decision they've made.

 

[psu1969a]

Thank you Wendy

“ #PSU Attorneys are a funny bunch. http://t.co/uTOEgZKW3V KEN FRAZIER THE PLACE http://t.co/8eNASD7KSg” (12:00 )
Twitter / wensilver

Question, have other BoT members been granted access and/or have they had the opportunity to read the Freeh Report and supporting documents?

 

[bjf1984]

Question, have other BoT members been granted access and/or have they had the opportunity to read the Freeh Report and supporting documents?

Answer: If they haven't....and have not even requested the OPPORTUNITY to review the documents, and still voted to authorize the hundreds of millions of dollars squandered as a result of "accepting" the Freeh report.....they all should be charged with failure to uphold their responsibilities as fiduciaries. Right?

 

[Obliviax]

That is a ridiculous position to take and offers a glimpse into what Masser and Co. really think of the alumni elected trustees. Masser and Co. apparently think the elected trustees and too stupid to perform their duties honestly and faithfully which is the epitome of hypocrisy and irony considering how Masser and Co. have screwed the pooch with every important decision they've made.

Agree. One would think that the fiduciary responsibilities of the new board members, both for and against the freeh report, is its own governance. I am sure a confidentiatlity agreement is part of their Board engagement.

 

[bjf1984]

"Before the trustees went to court, Penn State had already agreed to give the trustees access to the Freeh Report materials if they signed a confidentiality agreement. The trustees refused to sign the agreement, and instead filed their court petition to force Penn State to turn over the documents."

Is the above information correct? I seem to recall the Alum Trustees were willing to sign confidentiality agreements, but wanted identifiable information/documents(who said what) for purposes of context/motivation and this was the issue.

It is not correct.

"They" (the OG Cabal, and their errand boy Bloviator Barron) offered access only to redacted and limited (ie "worthless") documents.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

"Before the trustees went to court, Penn State had already agreed to give the trustees access to the Freeh Report materials if they signed a confidentiality agreement. The trustees refused to sign the agreement, and instead filed their court petition to force Penn State to turn over the documents."

Is the above information correct? I seem to recall the Alum Trustees were willing to sign confidentiality agreements, but wanted identifiable information/documents(who said what) for purposes of context/motivation and this was the issue.

Sloppy reporting. The alumni-elected trustees have indicated a willingness to sign confidentiality agreement regarding how they use the info they review, especially the the names linked with any interview.

What the university wants is confidentiality agreements regarding the use of the information AND the redaction of any identifiers on the data that indicates who was being interviewed. The alumni-elected trustees feel that without knowing who stated what to Freeh's team (and thus able to track that versus what Freeh claimed), that it's impossible to perform a proper review of the Freeh data.

 

[doctornick]

"Before the trustees went to court, Penn State had already agreed to give the trustees access to the Freeh Report materials if they signed a confidentiality agreement. The trustees refused to sign the agreement, and instead filed their court petition to force Penn State to turn over the documents."

Is the above information correct? I seem to recall the Alum Trustees were willing to sign confidentiality agreements, but wanted identifiable information/documents(who said what) for purposes of context/motivation and this was the issue.

Correct. The Trustees were willing to sign a confidentially agreement (and specifically drafted one and offered it), they just weren't willing to sign the confidentially agreement that "PSU" required. The article is basically aping Masser's BS about them being obstinate in this regard. No one is asking to be able to release private information.

 

[simons96]

Correct. The Trustees were willing to sign a confidentially agreement (and specifically drafted one and offered it), they just weren't willing to sign the confidentially agreement that "PSU" required. The article is basically aping Masser's BS about them being obstinate in this regard. No one is asking to be able to release private information.

outside the usual BS CR66 likes to push on behalf of his masters, most people paying attention understand who the BoT is trying to protect:

themselves

they want NO ONE to read the interviews Freeh did with THEM. they know if they let the alumni trustees read who said what . . . well someone would probably get punched repeatedly

 

[Wesauking Lion]

I would imagine there are members of the Cabal that specifically talk about Joe, C/S/S and PSU Football ....I would also imagine the Cabal discussing the direction and expected end point of the investigation.

If the alumni trustees read it, confidentiality or not, it would be impossible to keep quiet. I just cant believe someone has not leaked the complete version. We need to hack into their computers and get the document...

 

[step.eng69]

the alumni trustees might use the information in the Freeh report in a manner that would violate their duties to the University

hahahahaha

Frazier is a bona fide comedian . . . can't believe that was said with a straight face

"Frazier is a bona fide comedian"
Only if you look like him or whatever the hell meant at the board meeting. That was directed to Kluck, wasn't it?

 

[step.eng69]

outside the usual BS CR66 likes to push on behalf of his masters, most people paying attention understand who the BoT is trying to protect:

themselves

they want NO ONE to read the interviews Freeh did with THEM. they know if they let the alumni trustees read who said what . . . well someone would probably get punched repeatedly

Seriously, I will not die peacefully until the truth is discovered.

This immense suppression by the BOT, Freeh, Corbett, etc. has taken over my life since 2011 and I am sure the majority on this board also. Sometimes when some positive news is discovered, I get so excited I don’t know where to stick myself. Not trying to be humorous, but I Can’t work, can’t eat, can’t function, …..only bourbon is the short time cure for celebrating.

 

[Aoshiro]

"Before the trustees went to court, Penn State had already agreed to give the trustees access to the Freeh Report materials if they signed a confidentiality agreement. The trustees refused to sign the agreement, and instead filed their court petition to force Penn State to turn over the documents."

Is the above information correct? I seem to recall the Alum Trustees were willing to sign confidentiality agreements, but wanted identifiable information/documents(who said what) for purposes of context/motivation and this was the issue.

You are correct. The university is deliberately (and dishonestly) conflating "confidentiality" with "anonymity."

 

[Bushwood CC]

Thank you Wendy

“ #PSU Attorneys are a funny bunch. http://t.co/uTOEgZKW3V KEN FRAZIER THE PLACE http://t.co/8eNASD7KSg” (12:00 )
Twitter / wensilver

Would seem that the "Executive Committee's" sense of what information Trustees are entitled to have is at odds with the what PSU's Founding, and current, Charter specifically states the Trustees are entitled to as legally liable "Fiduciaries". Keep in mind that the PSU Charter is literally Pennsylvania Law as it is the product of legislation enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature - it therefore carries sovereign power and authority. Given that the "Executive Committee's" power and authority is completely "self-imbued" and was not contemplated by the Charter (e.g., the Charter does not create a "multi-class" system of Trustees where some Trustees have more rights, power and authority than others), I don't see how it is even remotely possible that a Pennsylvania Court is going to rule against a piece of Pennsylvania Law (which the PSU Charter is as it was created and enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature) in favor of the fabricated "jurisdiction" of the "Executive Committee" which has literally hijacked the ownership of the University (made it their own personal playground) in contravention of State Law (e.g., the PSU Charter) which clearly says ALL TRUSTEES are entitled to this type of material information -- beyond that, how on earth was the Freeh Report "accepted" by the Board when the Charter (again Pennsylvania Law) clearly says that the only way such a report could be accepted by the University is via a VOTE OF THE FULL BOARD OF TRUSTEES (e.g., this type of matter would be required to be put to the vote of the full board)??? The Trustees attempted to make these same inane arguments in regards to contravening the CLEAR SUNSHINE PROVISIONS (and therefore PA Law) that exist within PSU's Charter (e.g., the Executive Committee attempted to say PSU was exempt from "Sunshine Laws" that apply to state-related entities and agencies despite PSU's own Charter saying it is not exempt....essentially the EC of PSU BOT said, "We've hijacked the University and have decided that we are exempt from State Sunshine Laws regardless of what the Charter says.") -- they took that one into court and promptly lost making themselves look like the hubris-filled, arrogant, pompous morons they are. I expect this is heading in the same direction.

 

[simons96]

Seriously, I will not die peacefully until the truth is discovered.

This immense suppression by the BOT, Freeh, Corbett, etc. has taken over my life since 2011 and I am sure the majority on this board also. Sometimes when some positive news is discovered, I get so excited I don’t know where to stick myself. Not trying to be humorous, but I Can’t work, can’t eat, can’t function, …..only bourbon is the short time cure for celebrating.

just remember it took the good people of Hillsborough over 20 years to uncover the truth. we must stay patient and vigilant.

 

[Art]

"Much of the debate centers around a question of confidentiality. Penn State has repeatedly said that faculty and staff who were interviewed by Freeh were promised confidentiality in order to protect their identities and encourage honest answers."

Interesting concept here. Is an individual more or less inclined to be truthful when his or her identity is concealed and is, thus. less likely to be directly challenged? The U.S. Constitution has an interesting take on that question.

 

[lionlurker]

Once again, just demonstrating that something is very, very wrong here.

I wonder how many people they really interviewed? Probably an embarrassingly small number.

 

[Obliviax]

"Much of the debate centers around a question of confidentiality. Penn State has repeatedly said that faculty and staff who were interviewed by Freeh were promised confidentiality in order to protect their identities and encourage honest answers."

Interesting concept here. Is an individual more or less inclined to be truthful when his or her identity is concealed and is, thus. less likely to be directly challenged? The U.S. Constitution has an interesting take on that question.

LOL...I hope they don't disclose the interviews they had with Obliviax, LionJim, PSU1956 and Secret Asian Man.

 

[jerseylion109]

the alumni trustees are going to win this easily imo. I don't understand how the old guard as any legal standing here..makes no sense

 

[bjf1984]

the alumni trustees are going to win this easily imo. I don't understand how the old guard as any legal standing here..makes no sense

Well....these things are decided by a Judge, right? What could go wrong?

 

[Wesauking Lion]

Lets say...the Judge sides with the alumni trustees. Would the judge order the Cabal to turn over the documents to the alumni trustee is a certain amount of time.. say a week. How would that work?

We are talking electronic files.

 

[step.eng69]

Sloppy reporting. The alumni-elected trustees have indicated a willingness to sign confidentiality agreement regarding how they use the info they review, especially the the names linked with any interview.

What the university wants is confidentiality agreements regarding the use of the information AND the redaction of any identifiers on the data that indicates who was being interviewed. The alumni-elected trustees feel that without knowing who stated what to Freeh's team (and thus able to track that versus what Freeh claimed), that it's impossible to perform a proper review of the Freeh data.

Thanks Tom,

I’m under the impression that the alumni trustees are arguing that one reason the confidentiality agreement should be nixed because Freeh already identified several persons in his report. Also didn’t Lubrano and two other alumni trustees venture to Philly for review of Freeh’s supporting data to his conclusions.

 

[Bushwood CC]

Would seem that the "Executive Committee's" sense of what information Trustees are entitled to have is at odds with the what PSU's Founding, and current, Charter specifically states the Trustees are entitled to as legally liable "Fiduciaries". Keep in mind that the PSU Charter is literally Pennsylvania Law as it is the product of legislation enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature - it therefore carries sovereign power and authority. Given that the "Executive Committee's" power and authority is completely "self-imbued" and was not contemplated by the Charter (e.g., the Charter does not create a "multi-class" system of Trustees where some Trustees have more rights, power and authority than others), I don't see how it is even remotely possible that a Pennsylvania Court is going to rule against a piece of Pennsylvania Law (which the PSU Charter is as it was created and enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature) in favor of the fabricated "jurisdiction" of the "Executive Committee" which has literally hijacked the ownership of the University (made it their own personal playground) in contravention of State Law (e.g., the PSU Charter) which clearly says ALL TRUSTEES are entitled to this type of material information -- beyond that, how on earth was the Freeh Report "accepted" by the Board when the Charter (again Pennsylvania Law) clearly says that the only way such a report could be accepted by the University is via a VOTE OF THE FULL BOARD OF TRUSTEES (e.g., this type of matter would be required to be put to the vote of the full board)??? The Trustees attempted to make these same inane arguments in regards to contravening the CLEAR SUNSHINE PROVISIONS (and therefore PA Law) that exist within PSU's Charter (e.g., the Executive Committee attempted to say PSU was exempt from "Sunshine Laws" that apply to state-related entities and agencies despite PSU's own Charter saying it is not exempt....essentially the EC of PSU BOT said, "We've hijacked the University and have decided that we are exempt from State Sunshine Laws regardless of what the Charter says.") -- they took that one into court and promptly lost making themselves look like the hubris-filled, arrogant, pompous morons they are. I expect this is heading in the same direction.

See the following link:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/when-rules-conflict-roberts-rules-for-precedence.html

This is especially so when your Charter is the "The Law of the Land" (e.g., drafted, created and enacted by Sovereign Legislation) such as PSU's. If you don't believe me that PSU's Charter was the direct act of the Pennsylvania Legislature, maybe PSU's Board of Trustees website would help....here is what that says:

"Charter
Summary: The Charter of The Pennsylvania State University consists of the acts of assembly when the Farmers' High School was created by special act of the legislature of Pennsylvania in February 1855. Subsequent revisions enacted by the assembly are also incorporated in the document. The Charter also provides that the Board of Trustees can enact bylaws, ordinances, and rules as may be required."

Here is a link to the page:

http://www.psu.edu/trustees/charter.html

 

[step.eng69]

just remember it took the good people of Hillsborough over 20 years to uncover the truth. we must stay patient and vigilant.

Mr. Simons, you seem like a bright, young man, and specifically focused individual…
I understand the Hillsborough case was not solved for 20 years. Now, are you yanking my chain or what! The way my liver tickles me at my 5pm cocktail hour, she’s just not going to make it for another 20, i'll be 86.

 

[Bushwood CC]

"Much of the debate centers around a question of confidentiality. Penn State has repeatedly said that faculty and staff who were interviewed by Freeh were promised confidentiality in order to protect their identities and encourage honest answers."

Interesting concept here. Is an individual more or less inclined to be truthful when his or her identity is concealed and is, thus. less likely to be directly challenged? The U.S. Constitution has an interesting take on that question.

Given that PSU is very clearly a "State Actor" due to its very founding and Charter literally being Pennsylvania Legislation as well as being named the sole beneficiary institution of Pennsylvania under the Federal Morrill Land-Grant Act of 1862, this would make them subject to the Constitutional protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - at the very least, they egregiously violated Paterno's Individual due process rights.

 

[simons96]

Mr. Simons, you seem like a bright, young man, and specifically focused individual…
I understand the Hillsborough case was not solved for 20 years. Now, are you yanking my chain or what! The way my liver tickles me at my 5pm cocktail hour, she’s just not going to make it for another 20.

it was amazing to me that it took that long for the police to allow someone outside their inner cabal to review the police reports

and the person who instantly recognized a discrepancy happened to be the officer who had filed the initial report.

yeah some of us may not live that long, sadly our enemies rely heavily on wearing us down over the course of time

but fret not, young man, there are many of us who will continue the charge even after your glorious passing to Valhalla.

 

[sylvanialion]

I am a skilled read of people and in a conversation with a specific BOT member around this topic, his passion on protecting what people said was beyond principled, it was personal. I walked away wondering what specifically he said that he did not want others to see. This was 2 years ago. I would buy a ticket to read his interview. I suspect it would be full of pure dislike for Joe Paterno, it would wreak of bias, conjecture and opinion with a strong taste of jealousy and ego.

 

[kgilbert78]

See the following link:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/when-rules-conflict-roberts-rules-for-precedence.html

I guess the folks that run Alumni Council aren't able to figure out how to read that then--they sure don't believe in Roberts' Rules in any case.

 

[step.eng69]

it was amazing to me that it took that long for the police to allow someone outside their inner cabal to review the police reports

and the person who instantly recognized a discrepancy happened to be the officer who had filed the initial report.

yeah some of us may not live that long, sadly our enemies rely heavily on wearing us down over the course of time

but fret not, young man, there are many of us who will continue the charge even after your glorious passing to Valhalla.

I seem to remember Blehar stating in the article he wrote about Hillsborough that the Palace had subtly quashed information concerning the event.
you young bucks are all alike....do you want to arm wrestle me know?

 

[simons96]

I seem to remember Blehar stating in the article he wrote about Hillsborough that the Palace had subtly quashed information concerning the event.
you young bucks are all alike....do you want to arm wrestle me know?

of the many similarities that stick out between PSU and Hillsborough:

the police commanders were very quick to start building the narrative of drunk, overcrowded fans causing the deaths. family members at the scene testified that they were asked very leading questions by investigators.

ultimately, though, the commanders "re wrote" first hand reports by police on the scene. it is amazing that one of the officers became a strong advocate for the families, and he was allowed to read the unredacted police files. he noticed his report, and said as vivid as events had been that day, it was very clear that his report had be "re-written" to fit the narrative and a different report was submitted to the official records.

with that said, wanna arm wrestle, bro???

 

[step.eng69]

of the many similarities that stick out between PSU and Hillsborough:

the police commanders were very quick to start building the narrative of drunk, overcrowded fans causing the deaths. family members at the scene testified that they were asked very leading questions by investigators.

ultimately, though, the commanders "re wrote" first hand reports by police on the scene. it is amazing that one of the officers became a strong advocate for the families, and he was allowed to read the unredacted police files. he noticed his report, and said as vivid as events had been that day, it was very clear that his report had be "re-written" to fit the narrative and a different report was submitted to the official records.

with that said, wanna arm wrestle, bro???

Naw, those were my beer muscles looking for exercise.