^Send in CDW/Reinforcement BOT-bots^
CR66 is winded
CR66 is winded
"Court hears arguments in appeal in Penn State cover-up case"
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
It's not limited solely an internal investigation and should be used for pending litigation as well:
http://us.practicallaw.com/5-501-8808
Thanks for the clarification. Appreciate it.
One other question; have there been any Circuit Court opinions applying Upjohn to pending litigation or GJ proceedings? If not, how about District Court cases? Thanks.
Last edited:
^Send in CDW/Reinforcement BOT-bots^
CR66 is winded
So would you like to take a crack at responding to Judge Hoover's legal analysis of AC privilege?
It could be easily argued that Baldwin began an internal investigation in December 2010 into January 2011. According to the Freeh Report:
After receiving the subpoenas for Curley, Schultz and Spanier, Baldwin "meets with Schultz, Paterno and Curley to discuss Sandusky; and calls former University outside counsel Wendell Courtney about his knowledge of Sandusky."
Sounds like an internal investigation was started to me.
Hoover was the preferred judge of Louis Freeh...........all anyone needs to know.
Some would say judge hoover's clerk wrote that as the judge was not in any condition to write a complex opinion.
I'm convinced that opinions and actions regarding justice in the Commonwealth are determined by a "higher" authority.
Perhaps, but the involvement of CB with the defendants was not related to any internal investigation that Penn State was conducting but rather the GJ proceedings..
I guess there is no case law then expanding the holding in Upjohn to pending litigation.
One other question. Hoover's opinion references the failure of the defendant's to meet their burden of proof to establish the 5 factors in Upjohn. Is it possible that the appellate court will feel bound by the facts (or lack of facts) as set forth in the record? Or is the record deficient in supporting Hoover's findings of fact?
I haven't read the record but I'd be interested in your position on this.
Let's just stick to the facts; Baldwin, the 2011 BOT, and all associated with this railroading are f*cked. You know it, they know it, and we know it.
Amazing, isn't it Lurker?! They've no pride, integrity, honor or sense of the present.
Actually that is a conclusion at this point and not a fact. Now it may turn out to be a fact but you are a bit premature at this point.
I have "reasonably concluded" that it is true.
Well that figures. Joe is going down fast and he's worried about everyone else. Typical.
Correct; that you have reached a reasonable conclusion that it is true is a fact. That does not mean, however, that what you have concluded to be true is a fact.
Any one else find it odd or at the very least "ironic" that all 66 likes of Cruisin's posts come from some douche named joe pa thetic? Just saying.
That's precisely why she was NOT at Joe's testimony - if she was representing the University she would not be permitted in the SWIGJ Room. The only lawyer permitted to be in the room is the party testifying's own personal counsel - no one else.
Whoaaa, you need a 'time out' so that you can remove your left eyeball from your a$$ and get some bearings, man. (You can deal with the right one later.)
Thanks Bushwood! A lot of mental masturbation has occurred without this crucial rule of law being brought up!
Blood coming from......wherever"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!!)
Would have been nice if people had remembered that about the "reasonable conclusions" coming out of Louis Freeh's piehole.
Any one else find it odd or at the very least "ironic" that all 66 likes of Cruisin's posts come from some douche named joe pa thetic? Just saying.
Only the sPitters ever agree with Jimmy boy.
He's the most pathetic alum we've ever had. When this is all over, hopefully they will revoke it from him.
If you don't like being called a liar, you can always try NOT LYING. You know damn well that you made all that up in an attempt to spin something you can't explain in something that seems at least plausible. Unfortunately for you, not everyone here is a idiot.
"gotcha games"??? I'm not playing "gotcha games", I'm calling a liar a liar in a public forum where they are attempting to control a narrative through lying. Your "gotcha game" accusation is simply yet ANOTHER cowardly attempt to slink away after being caught in a blatant lie. I thought the lying was pathetic, but this post is 10x worse because it truly highlights how immature and cowardly you are. It would be great if no on e called you on your BS, but people doing so isn't a "gotcha game", it's simply correcting the record. If you don't like being caught in a lie, again, simply stop lying.... getting mad at people for simply correcting the record says a lot about you and your emotional state, but carry on.
"Just ignore my posts".... You would really like that wouldn't you? Then you would be able to continue your lies without being called on it. Sorry, you aren't getting off that easy and your attempt to paint me as the problem is painfully obvious here.
The court today didn't like your (weak attempt at) reasons for a lack of upjohn warning. It's literally law school 101 ANY TIME employees are being represented by corporate counsel. What you are doing here is shameful.
So if she represented them how can ACP not be invoked? You can't have it both ways.
We can research upjohn case law if time permits, but the one ABSOLUTELY UNDENIABLE FACT is that it was ethically warranted in this case. She had an ethical duty to inform C/S/S that Penn State held the ACP, not them. That is, they held no personal ACP and that Penn State could chose to disclose anything they said to Baldwin to anyone, at any time. This is not up for debate and the reason is obvious... because of disasters like this. There is only ONE logical reason for operating the way Baldwin did here and avoiding such a warning/disclaimer to C/S/S.... she (and her handlers) didn't want her to for a specific reason.
The basic facts are that Baldwin put her self out there as representing them, she sat with them at the GJ hearing, she was identified by the witnesses as their representation, both Freudale and Fina were well aware that CB represented "solely the university" and neither said a word or verified with the witnesses when they identified her, and at no time did CB offer an upjohn warning or any disclaimer about ACP.
AT BEST, it was a major ethical violation that someone of her expertise would have known better than to commit. The question isn't why she screwed up, the question is why did she intentionally avoid clarifying her role?
the same person who blockaded the Sandusky subpoenas, also sandbagged 3 witnesses who could have refuted Mike McQueary's testimony.
Everyone seems quite confident in today's hearings. All I know is this Baldwin stuff has appeared to the layman as an absolute violation of privlege and yet here we are 4 years later still having hearings. I'll believe it when I see it from the legal cesspool in Pa.
I agree 100% that CB should be disciplined by the Disciplinary Board for her actions at the GJ. How she could sit there and say nothing when these witnesses said that they were represented by her is beyond me.
As "officers of the court" the presiding judge and the prosecution should be held to the same standards as Baldwin. They too were well aware of the imminent conflict. Not only should CB's testimony be tossed, that of C/S/S should be as well.
It is evident from reading Judge Hoover's opinion that he was just kicking the can down the road to the Superior Court. This case has been toxic from the beginning and he didn't want to be the one to pull the plug on it. Apparently, he was (and is) quite ill.
Any one else find it odd or at the very least "ironic" that all 66 likes of Cruisin's posts come from some douche named joe pa thetic? Just saying.
The real irony is that "Joe Pa Thetic" constantly lurks here to like the delusional posts of his Pitt brethren, how pathetic is that? If I made a past that nearly all Penn Staters disagreed with, then this Pitt loser liked it... I would take that as a sign.
I'm not trying to slam Mike here, and I've taken a lot of flak defending him (and I certainly don't want to cast aspersions on his motives), but his testimony at trial just doesn't add up. Maybe he thinks he is telling the truth, and I don't think he is the horrible person others make him out to be. but objectively, his truth doesn't make sense.
Which version of his story is the truth?
