"Court hears arguments in appeal in Penn State cover-up case"
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
Really? I was told that Joe ran the entire university. Hell, he was in charge of State College and most of Central PA too
Josh Locke was JVP's attorney. Why was Scott allowed in the GJ room? Was he also representing JVP?
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Did Cynthia tell you first hand that she was hurt that JVP selected outside counsel or is this the impression of JVP himself or the family as told to you? I can't imagine her asking to personally represent any of those subpoenaed which clearly would have been a conflict of interest. Maybe speaks to your reference to the words misplaced and competent.
I won't ask you for any details.....and I'm not even sure if there are any to discuss.....but I would certainly find it VERY odd if C Baldwin never (from the time of the initial requests to go before the GJ) reached out to talk with Mike.
I don't even know exactly what to make of that....if that is indeed what did(didn't) happen. But it is worthy of some thought - for sure.
Certainly could raise some real red flags....which I expect have spent more than a few seconds crossing your mind
Sounds like it. And if Baldwin "represented the university" then shouldn't she have been there for Mike's testimony too? There's just no logic here.
According to whom? Baldwin? So now you're saying that CSS were told that Baldwin wasn't representing them individually and they still went on to testify before the GJ without personal legal counsel (and according to the state these are the masterminds behind a 14 year cover up of JS)? Baahahahahah!! That's funny....
And even with that in mind when asked to ID THEIR counsel, they all still said Baldwin....it's on the record pal, there's no disputing this. If what you said above is true they wouldn't have ID'd Baldwin as THEIR counsel when asked if they were represented. There's a reason why courts have to ask this question... it's to avoid the mess we find ourselves in today re: Baldwin and CSS.
This Andrea DiMaggio is quite the character. I guess professional trolls have replaced the professional mourners of the old days. The latter got free drinks. What do the former receive?
Well, it was Scott who was there when Sassano interviewed Joe just prior to his GJ appearance. If there was someone from Locke there they were not identified.
I won't ask you for any details.....and I'm not even sure if there are any to discuss.....but I would certainly find it VERY odd if C Baldwin never (from the time of the initial requests to go before the GJ) reached out to talk with Mike.
I don't even know exactly what to make of that....if that is indeed what did(didn't) happen. But it is worthy of some thought - for sure.
Certainly could raise some real red flags....which I expect have spent more than a few seconds crossing your mind
Perhaps Baldwin didn't think Mike had any relevance to her objectives.
That's been "well-documented". The President, the Athletic Director, the Governor? Mere puppets.
So you say....may or may not be true. What we DO know is that both Curley and Schultz identified her as their legal council in court when asked by the judge if they were represented. IIRC
The story has been told before by people present at the interaction of Baldwin and Paterno over this. It was not 3rd person. At least you recognize Baldwin's conflict of interest and impropriety in this matter.
Cruising, the arguments made today by the OAG and counsel for the defendants clearly dispels the notion that Baldwin had a clue with respect to the concept of conflict.
The fact that Fina asked Baldwin questions regarding the privileged information she learned from C/S/S might well prove fatal for the state's case.
The three Justices today were hyper focused on the issues at hand-- conflict of interest and privilege.
By the way, Jeff Wall argued on behalf of Spanier today. He's a young, highly accomplished lawyer having argued before the U.S. Supreme Court no less than ten times in spite of his relative youth (under 40).
My personal view based on today's proceedings-- some if not all of Baldwin's testimony will be tossed.
The Justices were troubled by Baldwin's apparent representation of both PSU and the defendants.
The fact that Fina asked Baldwin questions regarding the privileged information she learned from C/S/S might well prove fatal for the state's case.
The three Justices today were hyper focused on the issues at hand-- conflict of interest and privilege.
By the way, Jeff Wall argued on behalf of Spanier today. He's a young, highly accomplished lawyer having argued before the U.S. Supreme Court no less than ten times in spite of his relative youth (under 40).
My personal view based on today's proceedings-- some if not all of Baldwin's testimony will be tossed.
The Justices were troubled by Baldwin's apparent representation of both PSU and the defendants.
Yup. And neither was corrected upon expressly identifying Ms. Baldwin.
TC drove his car. Baldwin was in the front passenger seat. JVP was in the back seat.
GS followed them in his car.
Baldwin did not want them to ride together as she did not want them to talk to each other about their upcoming GJ testimony.
Baldwin would not allow them to review their files prior to giving their GJ testimony.
Competent counsel Cruising? I think not.
Thanks for the info! Astroturfing - I like it.
Interesting....so if she wasn't their personal counsel, what power did she have to keep them from reviewing their records? And why wasn't she concerned about TC and Paterno being in the same car? just gets weirder and weirder.
Probably because Corbutt and the band of BOT slugs told her not to, they would handle the case.I won't ask you for any details.....and I'm not even sure if there are any to discuss.....but I would certainly find it VERY odd if C Baldwin never (from the time of the initial requests to go before the GJ) reached out to talk with Mike.
I don't even know exactly what to make of that....if that is indeed what did(didn't) happen. But it is worthy of some thought - for sure.
Certainly could raise some real red flags....which I expect have spent more than a few seconds crossing your mind
bwifan
Well-Known Member
I am never surprised when Jim/Cruisin avoids rebuttals like this and hopes no one reads them when he is shown to be a BOT shill when confronted with facts.... Come on Jim we await your witty lines to try and debunk this... Once again he will just avoid answering....
I think it is equally "interesting" if she indeed did NOT try to involve herself in any way with MM's testimony.
I'm not saying that is for sure.....but given what was posted today, it sounds like that may very well be the case.
Baldwin WAS the University GC at the time of MM's testimony.....wasn't she? (that's not a hypothetical, anyone who knows the time frames involved for sure....please chime in)
So now CB has a hearing loss? CBs PRIMARY purpose in assuming the GC position was to keep the scandal from reaching her BOT blood brothers/sisters. If she could aide PSU so be it. Clearly the Cartel didn't trust Wendell to act as their shield. In addition to her momentary auditory disability, CB can get disoriented. Seems she could not locate JVP while staying in the same hotel in Tampa?
I can assure you never once did CB ever reach out or talk to Mike about anything until Sunday after Nebraska in 2011 in which the university put him on leave. Fact. As a matter of the only individual to offer any support or backing of Mike involved in this was Coach Joe.
Was she incompetent or malicious when she failed to warn the administrators about this?
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Thanks. Whatever this court's decision, rest assured it will be appealed by the losing party and which will further extend this sordid affair.
Hmmm....well, she wasn't PSU attorney in 2001 IIRC. However, one would think that she'd have immersed herself when she became aware of the GJ work. MM did, after all, work for PSU at the time.
There clearly is a cover up at PSU. It does not involve Tim, Gary and Graham.
A question to all.....was CB a Trustee at the time of the 98 investigation? Would she have been a trustee when Sandusky was granted emeritus status?
I'm pretty sure she was an appointed member, not elected - by the governor - prior to 1998 - 1995 or 96? I think the answer is yes.
I'm not sure about 1998 but Baldwin was definitely a trustee in 2001, she may have even been chair of the BOT at the time as well. She was a chair of the BOT during her tenure but I don't know the exact dates. My diploma from 12/2006 has Baldwin's signature (yuck!) on it as "President of the Board of Trustees".
