"Court hears arguments in appeal in Penn State cover-up case"

[mhentz]

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".

on the board from 1995 until she resigned in 2010 to take the job as university counsel. As such, it was highly likely she knew JS was under investigation when she took the job as university counsel, for whatever that's worth. She was a governor appointee at first. I'm not sure if she was an appointee the entire time. Was chairwoman from 2004 to 2007.

 

[Obliviax]

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".

Justice Baldwin received her B.A. and M.A. from the Pennsylvania State University in English and American Literature, respectively. She served as president of its alumni association from 1989 to 1991 and was a gubernatorial appointee to the Penn State Board of Trustees from 1995 until her resignation in January 2010. Justice Baldwin was elected Chair of the Board of Trustees in January, 2004 and served until January, 2007. She is a member-emerita of the Penn State Board of Trustees. Justice Baldwin also was elected Chair of the Association of Governing Board of Colleges and Universities located in Washington, D.C., in May, 2008 after serving as its Vice Chair.​

 

[lubrano]

Thanks. Whatever this court's decision, rest assured it will be appealed by the losing party and which will further extend this sordid affair.

Agreed. Appeal is almost certain although no guarantee that the State Supreme Court would hear the case.

 

[marshall23]

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....

He will regale us with repartee such as "did you speak with her?" Sad, he does the best with what little he has left.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Was she incompetent or malicious when she failed to warn the administrators about this?

Neither IMO. It's fact that she informed C/S/S about the grand jury process and their right to be personally represented by counsel during their testimony but there is no evidence that any of C/S/S entered into a personal services contract with her for personal representation. That's prima facie evidence that she never represented them personally. If anyone was incompetent it was C/S/S for not recognizing this.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

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?

Yes to both. She was on the BOT from 1995 until 2010. She resigned in 2010 to become the Vice President and General Counsel of PSU -- a role she had until July 2012.

 

[Misder2]

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.

So when she banned people from talking to the investigators you weren't included in that ban?

 

[marshall23]

Justice Baldwin received her B.A. and M.A. from the Pennsylvania State University in English and American Literature, respectively. She served as president of its alumni association from 1989 to 1991 and was a gubernatorial appointee to the Penn State Board of Trustees from 1995 until her resignation in January 2010. Justice Baldwin was elected Chair of the Board of Trustees in January, 2004 and served until January, 2007. She is a member-emerita of the Penn State Board of Trustees. Justice Baldwin also was elected Chair of the Association of Governing Board of Colleges and Universities located in Washington, D.C., in May, 2008 after serving as its Vice Chair.​

Looks to me like she was invested (by her service) in controlling the investigation.

 

[Aoshiro]

Neither IMO. It's fact that she informed C/S/S about the grand jury process and their right to be personally represented by counsel during their testimony.

They explicitly stated that Baldwin was providing that personal representation.

 

[marshall23]

Yes to both. She was on the BOT from 1995 until 2010. She resigned in 2010 to become the Vice President and General Counsel of PSU -- a role she had until July 2012.

So she was a pioneer, Judas followed in her footsteps.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

He will regale us with repartee such as "did you speak with her?" Sad, he does the best with what little he has left.

It's simple questions like that which impeaches the credibility of the poster and lack of an answer tells the tale.

 

[marshall23]

Was Feudale hard of hearing as well? How about Fina?

 

[marshall23]

It's simple questions like that which impeaches the credibility of the poster and lack of an answer tells the tale.

Look carefully..........it isn't a question.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

They explicitly stated that Baldwin was providing that personal representation.

Well they were wrong and judge Hoover agreed. Where is the personal service contract?

 

[Aoshiro]

Well they were wrong and judge Hoover agreed. Where is the personal service contract?

Judge Hoover is an idiot (or on the take). If they were wrong Baldwin a) had a duty to speak up and b) had no right to be in that room.

 

[Ceasar]

Well they were wrong and judge Hoover agreed. Where is the personal service contract?

Don't want to get in the middle of this but if an individual believes a lawyer is representing them then the attorney client relationship exists even if that is not the lawyer's intent and even if there is no agreement.

 

[bwifan]

It's simple questions like that which impeaches the credibility of the poster and lack of an answer tells the tale.

We all notice how he still avoids the people whose knowledge is much greater than his and shown him to be wrong on so many fronts and won't answer or reply to them. Just hopes no one seems him avoiding the answers showing him to be wrong once again...

 

[lubrano]

Neither IMO. It's fact that she informed C/S/S about the grand jury process and their right to be personally represented by counsel during their testimony but there is no evidence that any of C/S/S entered into a personal services contract with her for personal representation. That's prima facie evidence that she never represented them personally. If anyone was incompetent it was C/S/S for not recognizing this.

Again, I must disagree with you.

The Justices made very clear that a lawyer must presume that a client, irrespective of one's level of sophistication, does not know enough to understand the legal process. Therefore, a lawyer must always presume the worst will happen.

In this case, Bsldwin could not simply wear two hats because of the inherent risk of conflict.

Finally, the Justices took notice that none of Baldwin's communications to C/S/S regarding her representation of C/S/S were in writing. Highly irregular in an attorney/client relationship.

 

[bjf1984]

Neither IMO. It's fact that she informed C/S/S about the grand jury process and their right to be personally represented by counsel during their testimony but there is no evidence that any of C/S/S entered into a personal services contract with her for personal representation. That's prima facie evidence that she never represented them personally. If anyone was incompetent it was C/S/S for not recognizing this.

"So.....Mr Curley Are you represented by counsel today?"

"Yes, Your Honor. Cynthia Baldwin....she's seated right over there."

As even a complete douche like you knows, it matters NOT whether CB even heard the statements. She coulda' been under the table taking a nap. The point is that the person giving testimony CLEARLY indicated that they thought she was THEIR counsel.

Ok, enough of that. Gotta' get back to the "RULE".....no wasting words conversing with obtuse, circle-jerking douchebags.

"Me too!!"

"I also think he's a douche!"

"It is true. A douche, he is"

"A douche of Biblical proportions!"

"Yes, indeed, a douche"

(If only I could speak....I would concur. Douchebag!!)

 

[WeR0206]

Neither IMO. It's fact that she informed C/S/S about the grand jury process and their right to be personally represented by counsel during their testimony but there is no evidence that any of C/S/S entered into a personal services contract with her for personal representation. That's prima facie evidence that she never represented them personally. If anyone was incompetent it was C/S/S for not recognizing this.

Umm...Baldwin may very well have told CSS that they could get represented by counsel of their choice (which is exactly what Joe did) but did she tell them that she wasn't representing them personally but only the entity of PSU? You already admitted there was a COI, did she, as a lawyer, make CSS aware of this COI as she's REQUIRED to do via a signed letter/statement? If so she should easily be able to provide that documentation.

So now you've been reduced to saying that no evidence of a personal services contract is prima facie evidence she didn't represent them....WOW.....IOW there's NO evidence she wasn't representing them personally. Thanks for making our argument for us! Prima facie evidence has to be something real (such as hard evidence or testimony under oath, etc.), not the lack of something. You really are bad at this.

Also, if the clients are misunderstood about their counsel's role (they think counsel is representing them but that person is representing their company and not them personally) that's ALWAYS on the counsel, not the clients (this is first year law school stuff). Regarding the law, since the clients are laymen and the counsel is an expert why would the laymen be to blame? You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[spud358]

Well they were wrong and judge Hoover agreed. Where is the personal service contract?

I recently called you a coward and you have proven that true by not correcting your COMPLETELY FALSE LIE with regard to why Baldwin did not represent Paterno. You clearly made that up, thinking it sounded legit, without realizing that some people on this board are actually attorneys or have knowledge of the US legal system. Even worse, it's easily disproven by the single fact that the subpoena for Paterno was served to PSU and BALDWIN!! Boy do you look silly. What you posted could be debunked by a pre-law student (or anyone with internet access), let alone a practicing attorney. Can you man up and admit that you were making stuff up? I didn't think so.

Here's another question... EVERY corporate counsel has a nuanced understanding of who they represent and the issues in representing employees as "agents of the institution/company". The legal system has a very simple solution called an upjohn warning that was derived from the litigation of such issues a long time ago. What is your excuse for Baldwin failing to provide an upjohn warning, something a 2nd year law student would know to do? Incompetence? I don't think so.

Again, you know the answers to these questions, but are too cowardly to own up to an honest answer. I'm curious what lie you can spin up to explain her failure to provide an upjohn warning... what treat do you have for us next?

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Don't want to get in the middle of this but if an individual believes a lawyer is representing them then the attorney client relationship exists even if that is not the lawyer's intent and even if there is no agreement.

Baldwin did represent C/S/S but as an agent of the university not personally. I suggest you go the following link and specifically to page 27 to read Hoover's decision. http://onwardstate.com/2015/01/14/judge-rules-cynthia-baldwin-acted-properly-in-defense-of-curley-spanier-schultz/

 

[Pardlion]

Well they were wrong and judge Hoover agreed. Where is the personal service contract?

LOL, you dumbass. You mean the engagement agreement? It's right there, you know, when they said "Cindy Baldwin is my lawyer," and she continued to stand there without objection.

BTW, who are the idiots who decided to hire this woman? Notwithstanding her political appointment as a fill-in on the Supreme Court, she had no credentials to do this job, and on top of that, was completely incompetent as proved by her horrendous handling of every single thing having to do with this whole sorry affair.

 

[nits74]

His point is, then why wasn't Baldwin there representing the university?

Yep, later came to that realization.

 

[Raffycorn]

The term is astroturfing and interestingly a PR firm named Edelman has been accused of doing it:

LINK

LINK2

If astroturfing is a common practice, I wonder how often Matthew Hiltzik does it. Does anyone know if he's still on retainer? We know that the money certainly hasn't dried up.

 

[PennSt8er]

Thanks. Whatever this court's decision, rest assured it will be appealed by the losing party and which will further extend this sordid affair.

There is zero chance the Prosecutors will appeal a loss here.

 

[nits74]

There is zero chance the Prosecutors will appeal a loss here.

I agree. This may be exactly what they're looking for.

 

[NittPicker]

Even worse, it's easily disproven by the single fact that the subpoena for Paterno was served to PSU and BALDWIN!! Boy do you look silly. What you posted could be debunked by a pre-law student (or anyone with internet access), let alone a practicing attorney. Can you man up and admit that you were making stuff up? I didn't think so.

To add to that, Baldwin claimed she was unable to give the subpoena to Paterno because she hadn't had the opportunity. Well, they reportedly stayed at the same hotel during a bowl trip but Cindy was still unable to find him? Sure.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

I recently called you a coward and you have proven that true by not correcting your COMPLETELY FALSE LIE with regard to why Baldwin did not represent Paterno. You clearly made that up, thinking it sounded legit, without realizing that some people on this board are actually attorneys or have knowledge of the US legal system. Even worse, it's easily disproven by the single fact that the subpoena for Paterno was served to PSU and BALDWIN!! Boy do you look silly. What you posted could be debunked by a pre-law student (or anyone with internet access), let alone a practicing attorney. Can you man up and admit that you were making stuff up? I didn't think so.
SPUD, lets get one thing straight up front. I don't like being called a liar and especially from people who fashions their screen name after potatoes, I don't have time to play gotcha games. If you don't like what I say or don't think it's factual and not well thought out then don't read my posts. But I know you will because you just can't help yourself and you're a gotcha person. The subpoena to JVP was served to JVP THROUGH PSU and communicated to him THROUGH Baldwin. Same for C/S/S in their role of PSU's administrators. PSU (the entity) was served with its own subpoena for documents relating to the case.

Here's another question... EVERY corporate counsel has a nuanced understanding of who they represent and the issues in representing employees as "agents of the institution/company". The legal system has a very simple solution called an upjohn warning that was derived from the litigation of such issues a long time ago. What is your excuse for Baldwin failing to provide an upjohn warning, something a 2nd year law student would know to do? Incompetence?

Will these do?

1) Because PSU wasn't at the time conducting its own investigation and
2) she wasn't obligated because questions were being asked by a state grand jury not the corporation and
3) she had previously informed C/S/S/P that they had the right to be PERSONALLY represented by counsel

Again, you know the answers to these questions, but are too cowardly to own up to an honest answer. I'm curious what lie you can spin up to explain her failure to provide an upjohn warning... what treat do you have for us next?

 

[kentuckycb]

I recently called you a coward and you have proven that true by not correcting your COMPLETELY FALSE LIE with regard to why Baldwin did not represent Paterno. You clearly made that up, thinking it sounded legit, without realizing that some people on this board are actually attorneys or have knowledge of the US legal system. Even worse, it's easily disproven by the single fact that the subpoena for Paterno was served to PSU and BALDWIN!! Boy do you look silly. What you posted could be debunked by a pre-law student (or anyone with internet access), let alone a practicing attorney. Can you man up and admit that you were making stuff up? I didn't think so.

Here's another question... EVERY corporate counsel has a nuanced understanding of who they represent and the issues in representing employees as "agents of the institution/company". The legal system has a very simple solution called an upjohn warning that was derived from the litigation of such issues a long time ago. What is your excuse for Baldwin failing to provide an upjohn warning, something a 2nd year law student would know to do? Incompetence? I don't think so.

Again, you know the answers to these questions, but are too cowardly to own up to an honest answer. I'm curious what lie you can spin up to explain her failure to provide an upjohn warning... what treat do you have for us next?

Google "Upjohn Warning" and the first article is from none other than Pepper Hamilton's website in 2011 highlighting the importance of the procedure. Haha you can't make this stuff up.

 

[Misder2]

You don't like being called a liar?

Well let's get one thing perfectly straight, FLAT OUT, you ARE a liar. You knew about all of this a long long time ago, as did most of your brethren. You can spew all the garbage you like but you will never get around that. You sir, are a liar.

 

[LundyPSU]

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.

So then Mike was not served a subpoena through PSU?

 

[LundyPSU]

Yes to both. She was on the BOT from 1995 until 2010. She resigned in 2010 to become the Vice President and General Counsel of PSU -- a role she had until July 2012.

Yes, hired as GC a month after the first JS related subpoenas were received by PSU.

 

[WeR0206]

CR said "3) she had previously informed C/S/S/P that they had the right to be PERSONALLY represented by counsel "

Yes, and CSS decided that Baldwin would represent them personally (as they stated in open court, on the record that THEIR counsel was Baldwin--to which Baldwin apparently had no objection to) and Joe decided to have someone else personally represent him. Baldwin was also giving CS PERSONAL legal advice to not talk to each other or review notes for THEIR GJ appearances.

CSS believed Baldwin was their counsel (proof of which is in the GJ transcript when they ID'd her as counsel), therefore according to the law Baldwin was their counsel and if she wasn't their personal counsel, she should have stated so during the GJ proceedings after they ID'd her as counsel and also beforehand in writing and had them sign it, you know, just to avoid any possible confusion...oh wait, she never got ANYTHING of that sort in writing oopsies!! I guess Cindy failed those classes in law school?

 

[Chris92]

Google "Upjohn Warning" and the first article is from none other than Pepper Hamilton's website in 2011 highlighting the importance of the procedure. Haha you can't make this stuff up.

Yep, I was just going to post that link: http://www.pepperlaw.com/publicatio...ions-upjohn-warnings-are-required-2011-01-07/

 

[lionlurker]

Seems to me that CR and his fellow prick-pals are starting to really feel the heat. Their time of judgment is coming, and they know it.

 

[LundyPSU]

Were C/S informed they were targets of the investigation? And why exactly would C/S be testifying as agents of the University in this matter?

 

[kentuckycb]

Does anyone know who the other two judges were other than Bowes?

 

[GTACSA]

Yep, I was just going to post that link: http://www.pepperlaw.com/publicatio...ions-upjohn-warnings-are-required-2011-01-07/

Is this applicable to a GJ proceeding and not limited to an internal investigation?

 

[GTACSA]

CR said "3) she had previously informed C/S/S/P that they had the right to be PERSONALLY represented by counsel "

Yes, and CSS decided that Baldwin would represent them personally (as they stated in open court, on the record that THEIR counsel was Baldwin--to which Baldwin apparently had no objection to) and Joe decided to have someone else personally represent him. Baldwin was also giving CS PERSONAL legal advice to not talk to each other or review notes for THEIR GJ appearances.

CSS believed Baldwin was their counsel (proof of which is in the GJ transcript when they ID'd her as counsel), therefore according to the law Baldwin was their counsel and if she wasn't their personal counsel, she should have stated so during the GJ proceedings after they ID'd her as counsel and also beforehand in writing and had them sign it, you know, just to avoid any possible confusion...oh wait, she never got ANYTHING of that sort in writing oopsies!! I guess Cindy failed those classes in law school?

I'm interested in how you would respond to Judge Hoover's legal analysis of the issue of AC privilege?