Deleted
- Thread starter kharp1
- Start date
Good. Even though I don't think this will ever see the inside of a courtroom for the actual trial, I would certainly be in favor of having it happen. Let's get everybody involved under oath.
WOW! Ditka must be completely devoid of any ability to construct a logical thought
That was B R U T A L. Maybe another Widener grad (like SenateDon)
I wouldn't want to prognosticate one way or the other on how the judge will rule - - - but unless that gal was just the one who drew the short straw and had to sign that crapola, she must be dumb as a bag of hair
Baffling filing by the State given that PSU clearly reported the incident to TSM, who had an AGENCY RELATIONSHIP with DPW under applicable PA Child Protective Services Law and were therefore MANDATORY REPORTERS under the law and any report to them is considered the same as reporting to DPW & their County-Level CYS Office! The two highest ranking executives at TSM, CEO Jack Raykovitz and his wife, the President, Kitty Genovese, as well as multiple Board Members including Poole, Heim, etc... have testified that the incident WAS REPORTED TO THEM contrary to the State's claims in this filing. The State's claims are LAUGHABLE relative to the clearly delineated requirements of what qualifies as a legitimate report to DPW which INCLUDES reports to parties who hold an AGENCY RELATIONSHIP with DPW and its County-Level CYS Office! Not to mention that both Gary Schultz and its General Counsel at the time, Wendell Courtney, have both consistently maintained that the incident was not only reported to TSM, who had an AGENCY RELATIONSHIP with DPW, but was also reported to the "same authorities as the 1998 Incident" (i.e., DPW/CYS via Child Line - you know the Reporting Line run by DPW that has been proven to have not investigated thousands upon thousands of reports on an every year basis!!!).
Again, the State's filing here is so laughably without merit under the actual applicable PA Code, the PA Child Protective Services Law, it isn't even funny! The fact that the OAG would even make such a laughable filing with zero legal basis under the law demonstrates how corrupt and desperate the PA OAG truly is!!!
Deep thought: How can one be charged for not reporting abuse if no one told you abuse occurred?
It is just amazing how The Second Mile doesn't get mentioned by the state in any of this. And I don't believe the conspiracy theories involving Corbett or others.
Even the prosecutor's in the Sandusky case don't know the alleged "Victim #2" or didn't find him credible. I have no doubt that McQuery only reported horseplay and he changed his story as many others believe. They didn't report it because they weren't told it IMO. Get McQuery on the stand and make him crack.
Last edited:
Sorry - until Dr. Dranov, all members of the McQueary family, Dr. Jack Raykovitz, Katherine Genovese, Bruce Heim, Robert Poole - and to follow their logic - going back to 1998, Dr. Chambers & her professional peers, State College & UPPD law enforcement officials, CYS caseworkers and all the others are ALSO charged - then I fail to see why the State can be so selective and try to nail just these 3 men.
Their logic of failing to report a child sexual offender and not keeping vigilant watch over the offender HAS TO APPLY TO EVERYONE then.
It's all or nothing.
I am so absolutely disgusted with the ongoing conduct in my AG's Office that has destroyed so many lives over this- and I've told that directly to AG Castor and Josh Shapiro - who most likely inherits this shitshow.
I completely give up. Castor will be booted out, Beemer will step in and the Centre County community will NEVER get answers about the Second Mile. Which tells me that any predator can easily set up their own grooming charity in my state - because the AG won't care!
So it was never "about the children", was it?
Their logic of failing to report a child sexual offender and not keeping vigilant watch over the offender HAS TO APPLY TO EVERYONE then.
It's all or nothing.
I am so absolutely disgusted with the ongoing conduct in my AG's Office that has destroyed so many lives over this- and I've told that directly to AG Castor and Josh Shapiro - who most likely inherits this shitshow.
I completely give up. Castor will be booted out, Beemer will step in and the Centre County community will NEVER get answers about the Second Mile. Which tells me that any predator can easily set up their own grooming charity in my state - because the AG won't care!
So it was never "about the children", was it?
Jack Raykovitz, Katherine Genovese and Bruce Heim are quietly trying to hold in their laughter.
You're correct, it's not about any children, it never has been. They have more important people to worry about, themselves.
It's almost as if the State didn't even bother to read the law these men are being charged under - the PA Child Protective Services Law! First of all, none of the three are "Mandatory Reporters" under the actual Applicable Law, secondly the incident was clearly REPORTED OUTSIDE PSU to TSM who has a defined AGENCY RELATIONSHIP under the applicable code (and therefore a report to TSM is considered a report to DPW via their Agency Relationship and "Mandatory Reporter" status), third the SoL has expired even if they were "Mandatory Reporters" (which they clearly aren't under the code....and oh yea, they did "Make a Report" under the code) and lastly, both PSU's General Counsel and #2 Exec, Schultz, have consistently maintained that a phoned in report was made to DPW/CYS (i.e., "same way 1998 Incident was reported") & DPW/CYS cannot disprove this especially given that they have been proven to not investigate many thousands of reports per year that are made to phoned into DPW/CYS!!!
There is absolutely no basis for any of their claims under the actual law that they have charged C/S/S under - PA CPSL!!! It's as if the State is just ignoring that the facts demonstrate that these charges are complete horse$hit under the ACTUAL PA CODE these parties have been charged under!?!? This is the most comical legal brief ever filed and will get sliced and diced by C/S/S's lawyers.
Last edited:
...and the MEDIA!!! Not just national media like the 4 letter and CNN, but the local media!!! WTH?!?!?! No one does investigative reporting anymore? Not even IR, just ask a question or two, don't just let this stuff pass!!! Disgusting....
The Second Mile Owns the OAG and the PSU BOT... notice I o anynot say OGBOT. The BOT new or old is still ball-less. This is about the power of money in politics plain and simple.
She went to Duquesne per LinkedIn. I don't know anything about her relative intelligence, but we all know there's no good basis for keeping these charges going yet the OAG can't just drop the charges so they have to pull a Hail Mary and hope the judge buys it. I absolutely hate the argument that every day constitutes a new offense to extend the SoL. With that logic there is no SoL. I think the argument has worked in some cases.
Seems to be able to work a case with bonified
evidence......this should be fun. Cat fights in the court.
...
Longtime prosecutor leaves Allegheny County DA's office
May 27, 2013 4:00 AM
By Paula Reed Ward Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Moments after the jury returned a verdict of not guilty against a man deputy district attorney Laura Ditka was trying to send to prison, she wrapped her arms around the accuser -- who by that time was 29 years old -- and swept him from the courtroom.
It was surely meant to shield the man who said he'd been sexually abused between the ages of 10 and 17 from media gathered outside the courtroom, but also as a symbol of the woman's fierce protective instincts for the victims she represented.
After 25 years with the Allegheny County District Attorney's office, Ms. Ditka, 50, of McCandless, last week joined the office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General. She will serve in the newly created role of senior deputy attorney general in Western Pennsylvania
Ms. Ditka will continue to try cases while also serving in a supervisory role over six criminal prosecutors in Pittsburgh.
"We wanted her, primarily, because she's one of the pre-eminent trial lawyers in Western Pennsylvania," said Bruce Beemer, chief deputy attorney general.
Ms. Ditka started at the county DA's office in 1988 and was chosen by District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. to lead the new Child Abuse and Crimes Against Persons unit in the late 1990s. She supervised nine attorneys and one paralegal.
In joining the AG's office, Ms. Ditka will participate in the ongoing prosecution of three former administrators at Penn State University stemming from the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
"It's a challenging case, and it's a really important case," she said.
Ms. Ditka ranks among her best cases in the DA's office one she tried against what she called a real-life bogeyman, Michael Lipinski.
He was convicted in 2010 of kidnapping and raping two children, ages 3 and 9, in 2002 and 2005, and raping another girl, who was 17, in 1998.
Lipinski was captured only after his DNA was collected following another sexual assault conviction and was run through the national database.
"I was convinced these were random acts -- that they were unrelated," Ms. Ditka said. "When the DNA came back, you could have knocked me over with a feather. It proved I didn't know everything -- that I was still learning."
What made that case especially important, though, Ms. Ditka said, was that it truly made the county safer, "because this lunatic lurking in the night was gone. We gave closure to those people who never knew who did this to them."
In addition to the passion she shows for the victims she represents in court, Ms. Ditka is well-known in legal circles for her ability to command a courtroom.
"You rarely find someone who has such a persuasive way to present her opinion," Mr. Beemer said. "She's able to give the victims a voice, and that's not easy."
Ms. Ditka attributes that to knowing her cases inside and out.
"If you don't, then when you're in trial, you're worried about the facts. If you know it cold, you can worry about all the nuances and emotion."
For Ms. Ditka, what leads to success at trial is finding something that the jury can use to relate to the case.
In the Lipinski case, she took to calling him "the bogeyman." In the recent case of the convicted North Hills rapist, Arthur Henderson, Ms. Ditka repeatedly talked about his "wickedness."
"Every case has something average citizens can relate to," she said.
Henderson was convicted of attacking three women over two days in January 2012 in their own homes.
He represented himself at trial, which allowed him to cross-examine his own victims. For Ms. Ditka, the difficulty in that was trying to show self-restraint in how she handled him.
The victims, though, held their own -- even when he asked questions like, "Were you scared?" Or when he insinuated it was consensual sex.
"Those women were fantastic from the outset," Ms. Ditka said. "He picked poorly. He picked women that were strong, determined, intelligent and who were not going to let him victimize them."
Alison Hall, the executive director of Pittsburgh Action Against Rape, has worked with Ms. Ditka for nine years.
She touted the woman's passion, straightforwardness and sense of fairness.
"I think she's a phenomenal person and a phenomenal prosecutor," Ms. Hall said. "She never loses sight that victims are people, and that it's sometimes a bumpy and very scary process."
Ms. Ditka is known for supporting a team approach in criminal prosecution -- from investigators, to victim advocates, to counselors and prosecutors.
"I think she's a great champion for victims," Ms. Hall said. "She's a great collaborator."
David Spurgeon, Allegheny County's deputy district attorney, said Ms. Ditka was the best person to lead her unit because of her passion for children. He also called her one of the best trial lawyers in the area.
"She has the best skills of cross-examination," he said. "She's amazing."
Without hesitation, Ms. Ditka calls cross-examination her favorite part of a case.
"People lie, and when they lie, they're easy to trip up," she said. When a defendant starts to show a reaction and get mad, Ms. Ditka continued, "That's when it's fun."
A flashy dresser who favors bright colors and big jewelry, Ms. Ditka enjoys going up against tough adversaries in the courtroom.
"I always want to be with somebody who's smarter than me or more experienced than me, because then you raise to that level," she said.
Calling herself someone who likes to argue, Ms. Ditka can be more feisty than anyone in the courtroom.
But when the session ends, she's just as happy to joke and chat with the attorneys she just moments earlier was doing battle with.
"It's never been personal with me," she said. "We're there to do a job."
Looking back over her career, Ms. Ditka is proud of what she's been able to accomplish.
"I feel you can change somebody's life -- giving someone a voice who didn't have it before," she said.
Sometimes, she said, it's as simple as letting a child know an adult believes in him and will help him -- when a mother or teacher didn't.
One of the great lessons the veteran prosecutor learned over the years was a child's capacity for love.
When Ms. Ditka won a case convicting Arthur R. Calabrese of 88 counts including rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, corruption of minors and child endangerment, it netted the defendant 125 years to 250 years in prison.
There were 11 victims in that case, ages 3 to 14, whom Calabrese befriended by paying off their drug-addicted mothers.
Afterward, one of the young victims approached Ms. Ditka and told her that Calabrese had signed him up for Little League, attended his parent-teacher conferences, took him to Kennywood and made him do his homework. " 'I didn't like the sex stuff, but he was the best dad I ever had,' " the boy told her.
"It puts everything into perspective," Ms. Ditka said. "People can really do horrible things to kids, but children want to feel somebody knows they exist."
Even if she loses a case, the victims will still take away some victory, Ms. Ditka said. "You've won [because] you've let this person know 'you have a voice, and you stood up to them.' "
Last edited:
Those attorneys working for the Commonwealth are either morons or servient to the point of venality. Their argument stretches the concept of vicarious liability beyond all recognizable bounds. An employer or a parent can clearly be held vicariously liable. A former (as in ten years prior) employer? Uhh, no.
They should just admit defeat and drop the remaining charges.
They should just admit defeat and drop the remaining charges.
Especially when PSU and PSU's employees did not have PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY for the "Care and Custody" of the children AND TSM did have PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY for the "Care and Custody" of the child who was participating in a TSM Program at the time ("Friends Fitness Program").......AND the incident was reported to TSM, who had an "Agency Relationship" with DPW under PA CPS Law (i.e., making everyone who knew at TSM a "Mandatory Reporter" under PA CPSL and a report to TSM the same as a report to DPW/CYS)......and prosecutors have taken no action against TSM and do not give a hoot that PSU REPORTED THE INCIDENT CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH ITS OCCURENCE TO TSM outside of PSU contrary to the OAG's claims in their filing!!!
OAG ties Jerry Sandusky cover-up prosecution to Catholic church sex-abuse case
Here we go my fellow siblings...the new OAG "play" is in motion.
“I'll have grounds
More relative than this—the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King”.
Attorney General ties Jerry Sandusky cover-up prosecution to Catholic church sex-abuse case
Gary Schultz, left, is Penn State's former vice president; Graham Spanier, center, is the university's former president; and Tim Curley is the former director of athletics. (AP File Photo)
By Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com The Patriot-News
Follow on Twitter
on August 24, 2016 at 5:54 PM, updated August 25, 2016 at 6:40 AM
comments
Penn State and Jerry Sandusky
State prosecutors are asking a trial judge to proceed with child endangerment charges against three former Penn State administrators charged as a result of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
The state's response, filed last Tuesday under seal, was made public Wednesday by Dauphin County court officials.
Prosecutors say the remaining counts against former Penn State President Graham Spanier and two of his top aides are justified by precedents set in the 2012 conviction of a high-ranking Catholic church official in Philadelphia.
In that case, former Msgr. William Lynn was found guilty of child endangerment because he had reassigned priests who'd had credible sexual abuse allegations lodged against them to new jobs where they could continue to prey on children.
Lynn's conviction was seen as a landmark in sexual abuse cases, because he was the first high-ranking church official in the United States to be convicted based on the actions of his subordinates.
But the monsignor, the Penn State defendants argued in motions to kill their cases last month, was, by virtue of his duty to investigating misconduct by priests and decide on their punishment and/or treatment, directly responsible for the actions of those priests.
That nexis, the defendants' attorneys have argued, doesn't necessarily apply to the former Penn State leaders, who had no direct role in investigating allegations of child abuse.
Spanier, former Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Senior Vice President Gary Schultz also did not have the same level of supervision over Sandusky, who at the time in question was a retiree with access to campus facilities, the defense attorneys said.
Chief Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka, however, pointing to February 2001 emails threads that show the three men collaborating on a plan to not report an eyewitness's report against Sandusky to police or child welfare officials, argued they had a direct opportunity to catch a predator right then, and passed.
Sandusky went on to sexually abuse several more boys after 2001, and his access to Penn State teams, athletic events and facilities is considered a major factor in helping to lure them in.
When the administrators decided to handle the Mike McQueary report in-house, Ditka wrote, "they assumed the duty to ensure the matter was handled thoroughly and correctly and cannot now shrug off the responsibility that they chose to assume."
Whether Sandusky was still an employee at Penn State or not, she added, the administrators collectively "still had the duty to ensure that the allegations of sexual improprieties... were fully investigated and that sexual predators were excluded from the facilities for which they were responsible."
(The Lynn conviction, ironically, has since been reversed on other grounds, though state Supreme Court findings that Lynn as a supervisor could be held criminally liable for the actions of his subordinates are still intact.)
The prosecution also argues that it doesn't matter that Pennsylvania's child endangerment statute did not include supervisors of those who have committed bad acts until 2006, five years after the McQueary report.
Because the 2001 charge against Sandusky was never reported and Sandusky still enjoyed access to Penn State facilities after the law was broadened, the endangerment was ongoing and the defendants are properly charged, Ditka argues.
On a third point, the prosecution asserts a companion count of failure to report suspected child abuse is not time-barred - even if the triggering event occurred in 2001 - because if the report is never made, the failure to report is also an ongoing course of conduct.
The court can make these findings, the prosecution asserts, because of precedents holding that laws concerning child abuse are protective in nature, and should be applied in the context of their "broad purpose of sheltering children from harm."
In her latest filing, Ditka is trying to preserve what's left of a long-running case that took a major blow this winter, when a Superior Court panel tossed perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Spanier, Curley and Schultz, ruling that mistakes made during the 2012 grand jury testimony of the Penn State officials violated attorney / client privilege rules.
Then, in a decision that rankled several prosecutors who had worked on the Penn State probe, then-Attorney General Kathleen Kane's Solicitor General, Bruce Castor, opted not to appeal the Superior Court decision to the state Supreme Court.
The remaining child endangerment and failure to report counts, however, are still significant to all sides in the Sandusky case.
Spanier and his former aides are doing everything they can to be completely exonerated from criminal liability in the sordid Sandusky scandal.
They've maintained they had no idea about the scope of Sandusky's alleged abuses, and believe the record shows they made a thoughtful attempt to deal seriously with a bad situation.
Meanwhile many of Sandusky's victims, and victim's right groups more generally, are interested in seeing that anyone with direct responsibility for Sandusky's long run as a serial predator is held accountable.
The next set of decisions in the case is up to a new face in the Sandusky case, retired Berks County Judge John Boccabella. Boccabella was appointed to the Penn State administrators' case earlier this summer after Dauphin County judges recused themselves.
Link: http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/08/attorney_generals_office_hinge.html
Here we go my fellow siblings...the new OAG "play" is in motion.
“I'll have grounds
More relative than this—the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King”.
Attorney General ties Jerry Sandusky cover-up prosecution to Catholic church sex-abuse case
Gary Schultz, left, is Penn State's former vice president; Graham Spanier, center, is the university's former president; and Tim Curley is the former director of athletics. (AP File Photo)
By Charles Thompson | cthompson@pennlive.com The Patriot-NewsFollow on Twitter
on August 24, 2016 at 5:54 PM, updated August 25, 2016 at 6:40 AM
comments
Penn State and Jerry Sandusky
- Attorney General ties Jerry Sandusky cover-up prosecution to Catholic church sex-abuse case
- Jerry Sandusky gets empathy from case prosecutors over leaks, but not answers
- Former Jerry Sandusky prosecutor insists he still doesn't know Penn State shower victim
- Suspecting Sandusky leak, AG's office set trap for a mole, hearing reveals
- Jerry Sandusky case prosecutors are scheduled to testify in appeals hearing Tuesday
State prosecutors are asking a trial judge to proceed with child endangerment charges against three former Penn State administrators charged as a result of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
The state's response, filed last Tuesday under seal, was made public Wednesday by Dauphin County court officials.
Prosecutors say the remaining counts against former Penn State President Graham Spanier and two of his top aides are justified by precedents set in the 2012 conviction of a high-ranking Catholic church official in Philadelphia.
In that case, former Msgr. William Lynn was found guilty of child endangerment because he had reassigned priests who'd had credible sexual abuse allegations lodged against them to new jobs where they could continue to prey on children.
Lynn's conviction was seen as a landmark in sexual abuse cases, because he was the first high-ranking church official in the United States to be convicted based on the actions of his subordinates.
But the monsignor, the Penn State defendants argued in motions to kill their cases last month, was, by virtue of his duty to investigating misconduct by priests and decide on their punishment and/or treatment, directly responsible for the actions of those priests.
That nexis, the defendants' attorneys have argued, doesn't necessarily apply to the former Penn State leaders, who had no direct role in investigating allegations of child abuse.
Spanier, former Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Senior Vice President Gary Schultz also did not have the same level of supervision over Sandusky, who at the time in question was a retiree with access to campus facilities, the defense attorneys said.
Chief Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka, however, pointing to February 2001 emails threads that show the three men collaborating on a plan to not report an eyewitness's report against Sandusky to police or child welfare officials, argued they had a direct opportunity to catch a predator right then, and passed.
Sandusky went on to sexually abuse several more boys after 2001, and his access to Penn State teams, athletic events and facilities is considered a major factor in helping to lure them in.
When the administrators decided to handle the Mike McQueary report in-house, Ditka wrote, "they assumed the duty to ensure the matter was handled thoroughly and correctly and cannot now shrug off the responsibility that they chose to assume."
Whether Sandusky was still an employee at Penn State or not, she added, the administrators collectively "still had the duty to ensure that the allegations of sexual improprieties... were fully investigated and that sexual predators were excluded from the facilities for which they were responsible."
(The Lynn conviction, ironically, has since been reversed on other grounds, though state Supreme Court findings that Lynn as a supervisor could be held criminally liable for the actions of his subordinates are still intact.)
The prosecution also argues that it doesn't matter that Pennsylvania's child endangerment statute did not include supervisors of those who have committed bad acts until 2006, five years after the McQueary report.
Because the 2001 charge against Sandusky was never reported and Sandusky still enjoyed access to Penn State facilities after the law was broadened, the endangerment was ongoing and the defendants are properly charged, Ditka argues.
On a third point, the prosecution asserts a companion count of failure to report suspected child abuse is not time-barred - even if the triggering event occurred in 2001 - because if the report is never made, the failure to report is also an ongoing course of conduct.
The court can make these findings, the prosecution asserts, because of precedents holding that laws concerning child abuse are protective in nature, and should be applied in the context of their "broad purpose of sheltering children from harm."
In her latest filing, Ditka is trying to preserve what's left of a long-running case that took a major blow this winter, when a Superior Court panel tossed perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Spanier, Curley and Schultz, ruling that mistakes made during the 2012 grand jury testimony of the Penn State officials violated attorney / client privilege rules.
Then, in a decision that rankled several prosecutors who had worked on the Penn State probe, then-Attorney General Kathleen Kane's Solicitor General, Bruce Castor, opted not to appeal the Superior Court decision to the state Supreme Court.
The remaining child endangerment and failure to report counts, however, are still significant to all sides in the Sandusky case.
Spanier and his former aides are doing everything they can to be completely exonerated from criminal liability in the sordid Sandusky scandal.
They've maintained they had no idea about the scope of Sandusky's alleged abuses, and believe the record shows they made a thoughtful attempt to deal seriously with a bad situation.
Meanwhile many of Sandusky's victims, and victim's right groups more generally, are interested in seeing that anyone with direct responsibility for Sandusky's long run as a serial predator is held accountable.
The next set of decisions in the case is up to a new face in the Sandusky case, retired Berks County Judge John Boccabella. Boccabella was appointed to the Penn State administrators' case earlier this summer after Dauphin County judges recused themselves.
Link: http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/08/attorney_generals_office_hinge.html
A "bag of pubic hair" works for meYou use yours......ill use mine.
I definitely like "bag of hair"
Ladies & Gentleman Isn't the MSM all about misdirection and deflecting?
Last edited:
On thing Ziegler has pointed out and I think it is significant is that more than a few around this case have made comparisons to or reference the catholic church scandal in relation to Sandusky; however, the catholic church scandal broke in 2002 while the shower incident occurred in 2001. The specter of the catholic church scandal was not present when CSS addressed shower incident in 2001, but more than a few commentators, including judge (s) in this case, have tried to link the two but fail to understand the timeline.
quite a stretch, really. The dude in the Catholic Church was a "boss" who transferred a pedo-Priest to cover up what he was doing. JS didn't work for PSU in 2001 and had no formal ties to PSU. C/S/S didn't actively cover anything up, reported it to TSM (at least), and knew a dozen people knew of MM's claims. If anything, they are guilty of inaction, not action to cover up. (as is the case with the Priest).
As good as the prosecution could do, really, but pretty weak.
As good as the prosecution could do, really, but pretty weak.
This is what has created this scandal.....engineered verbal comparisons and associations which use negative images that are not supported by facts!!!
If you are going to use this method of manipulating the public's perceptions and establishing in the public a per-ordained "guilt" (a method of conviction by using "guilty-until proven innocent"- something far outside the constitution and any laws of the state), I would venture to point out justice would be more accurately served by linking the TSM-Sandusky Scandal with "Kids-for-Cash". In a world where there is attention to facts...not media fiction....The fingerprints of political corruption are all over state officials and courts concerning ANYONE connected with PSU. Criminality exists with the state and elected officials - not PSU!!!
There were previous very big and very public pedo scandals involving Catholic priests. Late 80s into early 90s probably among the biggest.
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: This shouldn't stop the corrupt Pa. govt from attempting to prosecute this case. These people are career prosecutors who's only goal in life must be to get a conviction. SAD!So I guess the "ex post facto" clause of the Constitution doesn't apply??
The article states that Sandusky still had access to Penn State facilities after the 2001 incident. I thought that he was told not to bring kids to campus anymore, and he did just that. Seems that charge is off base.
So I guess the "ex post facto" clause of the Constitution doesn't apply??
Although the “Latin” phrase is self explanatory, the entirety of the legal term is interesting
Thank you kgilbert78. I receive an obligatory education almost daily from my brethren. I should pull my head out of my a$$ (engineering) once in a while and take notice to the mechanics of other professions.
"Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power." continued ....http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ex+Post+Facto+Laws
I find the AG to be interested in neither accuracy or honesty.
You can't blame the OAG people. If they told the truth on these cases, nothing would happen. They have to lie, to even get the cases moving. If it weren't for the lies, these guys would have never been charged.
Its shameful really. Any schmuck can pull out the reporting requirements and see that they met them.
Based on this reasoning, I guess the Commonwealth would be okay with throwing the Governor in jail if child protective services fails to investigate/pursue a report properly, and someone subsequently ends up getting victimized.
I think the OAG is looking at "inaction" in the same way as a blatant cover up.
This will be interesting. If my comment above is correct, and they can convince a jury, C/S/S will go down on those charges.
As much as I think you are a nutjob, all of your arguments here are air tight. And it is not like there is just one argument against this, there is multiple arguments you bring up that are all equally as valid as to why this is so blatantly stupid. And that leads me to believe that either all of these prosecutors are just really stupid, which I do not believe, or the more obvious answer is that they are being forced/told they must continue on doing this by a higher power. Wolf has no reason to keep this going, and the prosecutors have on reason to keep this going as it would benefit both of them to just let this lay and die under it's own weight. So I keep going back to who has the power in PA to force the AG and prosecutors (and the govenor for that matter) to continue to prosecute a case that doesn't hold any water. Add in the continued refusal to look at anything Second Mile which is so blatantly obvious to anybody that is where the whole investigation should be, and I continue to go back that there is something way worse here than meets the eye with very, very powerful & rich people involved pulling the strings.
Similar threads
