FC: CSS Failure To Report charge thrown out by judge

[wensilver]

So you're still peeved that I stood in the Rotunda and expressed my concerns about the conduct of my public officials in this entire mess and that I asked for due process for Kane.

She had her due process. It is what it is.

Frank Fina and his fellow porn-addled gunslingers ripped open a constitutional crisis in our state - you can support his anal rape photos - I can't. But I guess you're into that sort of shit.

If you're so angry about Kane - YOU write a Letter to the Editor using your name & town and express your thoughts. Plenty of us here have expressed our opinions in such a way.

Posting anonymously on a message board & trolling takes a certain level of cowardice.

Please put me on ignore and stay away from me. Thank you.

Oh, I'm staying and will continue to remind everyone of your support for the person who didn't investigate TSM, Kathleen Kane.

 

[lionlurker]

I agree, but how about this:

A third person report that would reveal the CSS and/or Paterno know that Sandusky was pedophile prior to McQueary's report in 2001? Thoughts.

While you're at it, maybe you can suggest that this third person has photos of Joe and Jerry in the basement. That would definitely be a problem. Anybody can play this game.

At any rate, pretty sure that the defense isn't concerned about this possibility.

 

[JmmyW]

What were tossed was Perjury , Conspiracy to Commit Perjury (both F3) and one Obstruction charge (M2).

What is left are Endangerment (F3, two counts each), Conspiracy to Commit Endangerment (F3), and Obstruction (M2).

Spanier, alone, was charged with Failure to Report (summary), which was dropped.

So Curley and Schultz each had 5 felonies and 2 misdemeanors. They now have 3 felonies and 1 misdemeanor.

Spanier had 5 felonies, 2 misdemeanors, and a summary offense. Now he has 3 felonies and 1 misdemeanor.

Most of the charges remain.

You are wrong.

 

[psudukie]

Jimmy would you mind listing exactly what is left, if you have time.

 

[Stufftodo]

So you're still peeved that I stood in the Rotunda and expressed my concerns about the conduct of my public officials in this entire mess and that I asked for due process for Kane.

She had her due process. It is what it is.

Frank Fina and his fellow porn-addled gunslingers ripped open a constitutional crisis in our state - you can support his anal rape photos - I can't. But I guess you're into that sort of shit.

If you're so angry about Kane - YOU write a Letter to the Editor using your name & town and express your thoughts. Plenty of us here have expressed our opinions in such a way.

Posting anonymously on a message board & trolling takes a certain level of cowardice.

Please put me on ignore and stay away from me. Thank you.

If you chose to engage in a public forum, expect the public to respond.

What does upset me is your total hypocrisy regarding Kane and TSM. You know what, I agree that TSM needed investigation. I won't, however, campaign for the person who effectively dropped that investigation, and then complain about TSM not being investigated.

And, don't worry, at the appropriate time, possible in about 6-7 weeks, I will abandon my anonymity.

 

[lionlurker]

Why not now? What difference will it make? Or are you planning on buying a gallon of raw courage off of the Deep Web?

 

[Stufftodo]

You are wrong.

Here is a link to the docket: https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-22-CR-0003614-2013

Here is what it shows:

Proceed to Court
09/19/2013 Not Final
Information Filed
1 / Endangering Welfare Of Children
Proceed to Court

F3

2 / Obstruct Admin Law/Other Govt Func
Proceed to Court

M2

3 / Conspiracy - Endangering Welfare Of Children
Proceed to Court

F3
4 / Endangering Welfare Of Children
Proceed to Court

F3
5 / Conspiracy - Obstruct Admin Law/Other Govt Func
Withdrawn Pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 561(B)

M2
6 / Conspiracy - Perjury
Withdrawn Pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 561(B)

 

[Stufftodo]

Why not now? What difference will it make? Or are you planning on buying a gallon of raw courage off of the Deep Web?

Tell me, what will be happening about 6-7 weeks. You would me to to poison the jury pool, would you?

Oh, and is your real name LionLurker?

 

[Bob78]

I agree, but how about this:

A third person report that would reveal the CSS and/or Paterno know that Sandusky was pedophile prior to McQueary's report in 2001? Thoughts.

So that is what you've turned over to the OAG? Proof that these guys knew JS was a pedophile?

I just have to believe that either that would have been exposed by now or that since these three guys know that also, their whole approach to this would be on a different track. Just cannot imagine them going this far down this road if they knew it could be proved that they knew this.
Further, I cannot believe that if they knew this, that they would not have done more to turn JS over properly. These are caring, smart men, who understood the bigger picture.
Unless they based the info they had on the charges that were investigated and cleared in '98. Then I can see them simply believing it was more of a baseless accusation. The '98 thing worked against understanding who JS was in a big way, imo.

 

[lionlurker]

Tell me, what will be happening about 6-7 weeks. You would me to to poison the jury pool, would you?

Oh, and is your real name LionLurker?

You give yourself too much credit, pal. Nobody is paying any attention to the rants of some anonymous guy like you.

 

[Stufftodo]

So that is what you've turned over to the OAG? Proof that these guys knew JS was a pedophile?

I just have to believe that either that would have been exposed by now or that since these three guys know that also, their whole approach to this would be on a different track. Just cannot imagine them going this far down this road if they knew it could be proved that they knew this.
Further, I cannot believe that if they knew this, that they would not have done more to turn JS over properly. These are caring, smart men, who understood the bigger picture.
Unless they based the info they had on the charges that were investigated and cleared in '98. Then I can see them simply believing it was more of a baseless accusation. The '98 thing worked against understanding who JS was in a big way, imo.

Both, there have been complaints about "poisoning the jury pool." That is not my intent.

I would very much like to believe that "these are caring, smart men, who understood the bigger picture," but the picture was one that it looks like was hidden behind a curtain. I would like to believe that everyone was an upright citizen, but even the evidence out there, it does not look good. I hope that Paterno was only ill served by those around him. I would not be happy with the alternative, but I realize it may exist.

You give yourself too much credit, pal. Nobody is paying any attention to the rants of some anonymous guy like you.

Lionlurker, somebody just complained about "poisoning the jury pool." As I said, I dislike hypocrisy.

Oh, and I must assume you are a "nobody," since you are paying attention.

 

[Obliviax]

Both, there have been complaints about "poisoning the jury pool." That is not my intent.

I would very much like to believe that "these are caring, smart men, who understood the bigger picture," but the picture was one that it looks like was hidden behind a curtain. I would like to believe that everyone was an upright citizen, but even the evidence out there, it does not look good. I hope that Paterno was only ill served by those around him. I would not be happy with the alternative, but I realize it may exist.

I have to say I don't believe you. The information is all out there. It is going to come down to whom you believe; MMs story about that night and the following days from 2001 or the stories he told in 2010. And there are going to be a lot of lapses in memory since it is now 15 years ago. Then, in a criminal matter, get a unanimous jury. I have to think CSS are likely to prevail.

 

[lionlurker]

Both, there have been complaints about "poisoning the jury pool." That is not my intent.

I would very much like to believe that "these are caring, smart men, who understood the bigger picture," but the picture was one that it looks like was hidden behind a curtain. I would like to believe that everyone was an upright citizen, but even the evidence out there, it does not look good. I hope that Paterno was only ill served by those around him. I would not be happy with the alternative, but I realize it may exist.



Lionlurker, somebody just complained about "poisoning the jury pool." As I said, I dislike hypocrisy.

Oh, and I must assume you are a "nobody," since you are paying attention.

I'm definitely a nobody. Unlike you, I'm pleased to admit it.

 

[LafayetteBear]

If you chose to engage in a public forum, expect the public to respond.

What does upset me is your total hypocrisy regarding Kane and TSM. You know what, I agree that TSM needed investigation. I won't, however, campaign for the person who effectively dropped that investigation, and then complain about TSM not being investigated.

And, don't worry, at the appropriate time, possible in about 6-7 weeks, I will abandon my anonymity.

I do not understand why Kane did not investigate TSM, and I DO fault her for it. But she is only one of many who share the blame for not doing that. No AG before or after her has done so, either. No county DA, either. So I can only presume you are unhappy about her going after the porn dogs. Their hypocrisy is rank, IMO. But perhaps you have some reason for wanting to defend Frank Fina and his conduct?

 

[Zenophile]

Both, there have been complaints about "poisoning the jury pool." That is not my intent.

I would very much like to believe that "these are caring, smart men, who understood the bigger picture," but the picture was one that it looks like was hidden behind a curtain. I would like to believe that everyone was an upright citizen, but even the evidence out there, it does not look good. I hope that Paterno was only ill served by those around him. I would not be happy with the alternative, but I realize it may exist.



Lionlurker, somebody just complained about "poisoning the jury pool." As I said, I dislike hypocrisy.

Oh, and I must assume you are a "nobody," since you are paying attention.

Well I'm no attorney, but if I had this case and it was "air tight" based solely on evidence, my next move would absolutely be to risk everything by attempting to flip the attorney present for the grand jury testimony of my defendants.

So yeah. I find the speculation of our resident newbie to be totally convincing.

 

[Stufftodo]

I have to say I don't believe you. The information is all out there. It is going to come down to whom you believe; MMs story about that night and the following days from 2001 or the stories he told in 2010. And there are going to be a lot of lapses in memory since it is now 15 years ago. Then, in a criminal matter, get a unanimous jury. I have to think CSS are likely to prevail.

You give yourself too much credit, pal. Nobody is paying any attention to the rants of some anonymous guy like you.

I can pretty much guarantee that far from everything is out there. We've seen things coming out over the past year, claims that other staffers saw things, claims about Paterno, what Courtney advised.

I welcome the upcoming trial, because I think it will lead us to the truth, though we may not like it.

I do not understand why Kane did not investigate TSM, and I DO fault her for it. But she is only one of many who share the blame for not doing that. No AG before or after her has done so, either. No county DA, either. So I can only presume you are unhappy about her going after the porn dogs. Their hypocrisy is rank, IMO. But perhaps you have some reason for wanting to defend Frank Fina and his conduct?

The OAG has jurisdiction, I think. They were looking under Kelly, but it stopped in 2013. Kane, for whatever reason, did not pursue it. Like with the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese case. She had, in the campaign, complained about using a grand jury in abuse cases, but after several years, she used a grand jury. I think it was incompetence rather than something sinister.

As for the so called "porn," as a supervisor she can restrict the uses of her employees computers. That is an employment issue (though she should have treated her sister as everyone else). When they are not her employees, nor was there any illegality, it is no business of any AG. (I will note that some of the "porn" included things for breast cancer awareness and off color jokes.)

 

[Bob78]

Both, there have been complaints about "poisoning the jury pool." That is not my intent.

I would very much like to believe that "these are caring, smart men, who understood the bigger picture," but the picture was one that it looks like was hidden behind a curtain. I would like to believe that everyone was an upright citizen, but even the evidence out there, it does not look good. I hope that Paterno was only ill served by those around him. I would not be happy with the alternative, but I realize it may exist.



Lionlurker, somebody just complained about "poisoning the jury pool." As I said, I dislike hypocrisy.

Oh, and I must assume you are a "nobody," since you are paying attention.

@JmmyW tweeted recently that Schultz's atty has stated in court that all the evidence has already been presented in the 3 days of prelim hearings.
So this evidence that you're talking about is newly uncovered, or newly shared?

 

[Stufftodo]

@JmmyW tweeted recently that Schultz's atty has stated in court that all the evidence has already been presented in the 3 days of prelim hearings.
So this evidence that you're talking about is newly uncovered, or newly shared?

It is not newly shared, but I will refer you to the 11/1/12 presentment. It spent 5 pages recounting what happened in 1998. CSS are not charged with any crime committed in 1998. Perhaps you might be curious as to why that is.

 

[JmmyW]

Here is a link to the docket: https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-22-CR-0003614-2013

Here is what it shows:

Proceed to Court
09/19/2013 Not Final
Information Filed
1 / Endangering Welfare Of Children
Proceed to Court

F3

2 / Obstruct Admin Law/Other Govt Func
Proceed to Court

M2

3 / Conspiracy - Endangering Welfare Of Children
Proceed to Court

F3
4 / Endangering Welfare Of Children
Proceed to Court

F3
5 / Conspiracy - Obstruct Admin Law/Other Govt Func
Withdrawn Pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 561(B)

M2
6 / Conspiracy - Perjury
Withdrawn Pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim.P. 561(B)

I'll say it again - you are wrong.

It's the Criminal Informations and Court Orders that govern what charges remain.

And if you want to look at docket sheets, you've got to look at all of them. Note that there are two each for Curley & Schultz. The 2011 docket sheets list the Perjury and FTR charges. Those charges are gone - but it is not reflected in the summary of charges at the front.

Curley, Docket: CP-22-CR-5165-2011
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-22-CR-0005165-2011
Curley, Docket: CP-22-CR-3614-2013
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-22-CR-0003614-2013
Schultz, Docket: CP-22-CR-5164-2011
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-22-CR-0005164-2011
Schultz, Docket: CP-22-CR-3616-2013
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-22-CR-0003616-2013
Spanier, Docket: CP-22-CR-3615-2013
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-22-CR-0003615-2013

Jimmy would you mind listing exactly what is left, if you have time.

Sure thing. But I'm not gonna clean up the formatting on my notes.

Two counts of EWOC (felony 3) remain for each. That much is certain. The conspiracy to commit EWOC (felony 3) might be re-instated, but it and all other charges are gone.

That's 2 remaining counts out of 6 for each of CSS.

The conspiracy count is confusing. You cannot look at the docket sheet by itself to figure it out. You have to look at the Criminal Information that was filed 9/19/2013 which consolidated all the conspiracy charges into one (for each of CSS). The Superior Court dismissed that single conspiracy count on 1/22/2016. The commonwealth filed a motion on 10/12/2016 to get the the conspiracy to commit EWOC amended back onto the Criminal Information. Judge Boccabella has not directly addressed that commonwealth motion. And I have not seen an amended Criminal Information posted yet.

----- notes & links to follow


Note - the docket sheet never reflected the single consolidated conspiracy charge

Even as various charges have been dismissed - the docket sheet is not updated in the front matter; it still reflects original charges/counts.


### The 9/19/2013 criminal information was never made public as a single file. However, it was apparently included as an exhibit in later omnibus motions.

See Curley omnibus motion Exhibit D, 7/1/2016, for the 9/19/2013 Criminal Informations
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...2016 Curley Exhibits A - I to Omnibus PTM.pdf

Exhibit D, at page 112, **Curley Criminal Information 9/19/2013**
- 4 new counts

Exhibit D, at page 107, **Schultz Criminal Information 9/19/2013**
- 4 new counts

Exhibit D, at page 101, **Spanier Criminal Information 9/19/2013**
- 6 counts


### Original Criminal Information, 1/19/2012, Curley & Schultz, 2 charges each

**Curley Criminal Information, 1/19/2012**
- 2 counts
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...Schultz/Curley-AG-Information-Jan-19-2012.pdf

**Schultz Criminal Information, 1/19/2012**
- 2 counts
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...chultz/Schultz-AG-Information-Jan-19-2012.pdf



### Curley Criminal Informations
1/19/2012
Count 1 - Perjury (Felony 3)
Count 2 - Failure to Report (Summary)

9/19/2013
**Count 1 - EWOC (Felony 3)**
Count 2 - Obstruction (Misdemeanor 2)
Count 3 - Conspiracy (Felony 3)
- consolidates 3 (Conspiracy: Obstruction and/or Perjury and/or EWOC)
**Count 4 - EWOC (Felony 3)**

1/22/2016 - Obstruction & (related) Conspiracy dropped in appeal to Superior Court - due to violations of the attorney-client privilege
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-3136/file-4931.pdf?cb=083406

10/13/2016 - Perjury dropped - due to violations of the attorney-client privilege
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...ctober 13, 2016 - Order of Court - Curley.pdf

2/1/2017 - Failure to Report Dropped - barred by statute of limitations
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...ary Charles Schultz, Graham Basil Spanier.pdf


### Schultz Criminal Informations
1/19/2012
Count 1 - Perjury (Felony 3)
Count 2 - Failure to Report (Summary)

9/19/2013
**Count 1 - EWOC (Felony 3)**
Count 2 - Obstruction (Misdemeanor 2)
Count 3 - Conspiracy (Felony 3)
- consolidates 3 (Conspiracy: Obstruction and/or Perjury and/or EWOC)
**Count 4 - EWOC (Felony 3)**

1/22/2016 - Obstruction & (related) Conspiracy, & Perjury & (related) Conspiracy dropped in appeal to Superior Court - due to violations of the attorney-client privilege
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-3138/file-4930.pdf?cb=22541d

2/1/2017 - Failure to Report Dropped - barred by statute of limitations
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...ary Charles Schultz, Graham Basil Spanier.pdf


### Spanier Criminal Information
9/19/2013
Count 1 - Perjury (Felony 3)
**Count 2 - EWOC (Felony 3)**
Count 3 - Obstruction (Misdemeanor 2)
Count 4 - Conspiracy (Felony 3)
- consolidates 3 (Conspiracy: Obstruction and/or Perjury and/or EWOC)
**Count 5 - EWOC (Felony 3)**
Count 6 - Failure to Report (Summary)

1/22/2016 - Perjury, Obstruction & (related) Conspiracy dropped in appeal to Superior Court - due to violations of the attorney-client privilege
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-4310/file-4932.pdf?cb=b97324

2/1/2017 - Failure to Report Dropped - barred by statute of limitations
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...ary Charles Schultz, Graham Basil Spanier.pdf




### Judge sets March trial for 3 Penn State ex-administrators
2/1/2017, Mark Scolforo; partial extract; says it best on the conspiracy charge
https://apnews.com/1864ea6e87654a78ad44941544bf2668

*The attorney general's office had sought to add a conspiracy charge related to the child-welfare accusation. The judge did not directly address that request, but he declined to dismiss that conspiracy charge based on time limits.*


### Note that the commonwealth made motions 10/12/2016 to amend criminal information to add the conspiracy to commit EWOC.
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...ion Pursuant to PA.R.Crim.P. 564 - Curley.pdf

The fact that the Commonwealth made this motion acknowledges the fact that the original, single, consolidated Conspiracy count (for each of CSS) was dismissed by the Superior Court.


### The judge did not formally address that motion in his 2/1/2017 order.
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...ary Charles Schultz, Graham Basil Spanier.pdf


### 234 Pa. Code Rule 561. Withdrawal of Charges by Attorney for the Commonwealth.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter5/s561.html

Rule 561. Withdrawal of Charges by Attorney for the Commonwealth.

(A) After a case is held for court, at any time before the information is filed, the attorney for the Commonwealth may withdraw one or more charges by filing notice with the clerk of courts.

(B) Upon the filing of the information, **any charge not listed on the information shall be deemed withdrawn** by the attorney for the Commonwealth.

(C) In any case in which all the misdemeanor, felony, and murder charges are withdrawn pursuant to this rule, any remaining summary offenses shall be disposed of in the court of common pleas.

 

[Zenophile]

It is not newly shared, but I will refer you to the 11/1/12 presentment. It spent 5 pages recounting what happened in 1998. CSS are not charged with any crime committed in 1998. Perhaps you might be curious as to why that is.

I'm curious as to why you don't want to discuss this ~>

ell I'm no attorney, but if I had this case, and it was "air tight" based solely on evidence that my next move would absolutely be to risk everything by attempting to flip the attorney present for the grand jury testimony of my defendants

 

[bjf1991]

If you chose to engage in a public forum, expect the public to respond.

What does upset me is your total hypocrisy regarding Kane and TSM. You know what, I agree that TSM needed investigation. I won't, however, campaign for the person who effectively dropped that investigation, and then complain about TSM not being investigated.

And, don't worry, at the appropriate time, possible in about 6-7 weeks, I will abandon my anonymity.

You are not part of a "public forum"

You are an anonymous, obtuse, willfully-ignorant jackass
Pissing all over a board - either to satisfy your own auto-erotic fixation...... Or in some lame attempt to bootlick for some perceived master


Either way - you are pathetic.

But you are MOST CERTAINLY NOT a participant in a public forum

 

[bjf1991]

Both, there have been complaints about "poisoning the jury pool." That is not my intent.

I would very much like to believe that "these are caring, smart men, who understood the bigger picture," but the picture was one that it looks like was hidden behind a curtain. I would like to believe that everyone was an upright citizen, but even the evidence out there, it does not look good. I hope that Paterno was only ill served by those around him. I would not be happy with the alternative, but I realize it may exist.



Lionlurker, somebody just complained about "poisoning the jury pool." As I said, I dislike hypocrisy.

Oh, and I must assume you are a "nobody," since you are paying attention.

Just STFU already

 

[Stufftodo]

JimmyW, It does one of the Obstruction charges removed, but there is another one listed; there were originally two. Likewise, it shows the perjury and related conspiracy removed. It does show four offenses (though two of them are Endangerment), three felony and one misdemeanor. I'll see if it changes.

You are not part of a "public forum"

You are an anonymous, obtuse, willfully-ignorant jackass
Pissing all over a board - either to satisfy your own auto-erotic fixation...... Or in some lame attempt to bootlick for some perceived master


Either way - you are pathetic.

But you are MOST CERTAINLY NOT a participant in a public forum

This is a public forum., as the public can view it and view your nonsensical tirades. People disagree with you, and you just go off on them.

I've already indicated. I'm posting information; maybe that bothers you, because the facts bother you.

You want you words out there, but don't want other people's out there unless they agree with you and stroke your ego.

 

[Stufftodo]

I'm curious as to why you don't want to discuss this ~>

There is actually an entire thread on it, that I didn't start.

Actually, because I'm expecting some of this to play out at trial and I've been waiting for that.

Part of it is not an attempt to sway a jury (though they shouldn't be reading these things) but of it is trying to prepare the way for what is coming.

 

[Bob78]

It is not newly shared, but I will refer you to the 11/1/12 presentment. It spent 5 pages recounting what happened in 1998. CSS are not charged with any crime committed in 1998. Perhaps you might be curious as to why that is.

I'm not one who enjoys the cute little 'perhaps you wonder why...' stuff. Just say what you have to say.

I think I know why CSS were not charged with any crimes in '98, but then again, it never occurred to me that anyone except JS should even be considered for a charge. CSS had no part in any crime at all.
My assumption is that CSS are not / were not charged for '98 because it was thoroughly investigated by LE and no one was charged, for whatever reason.

Now, without the little clues or innuendo, just tell me why, in your opinion, that assumption is wrong and what the answer is.

 

[LundyPSU]

I'm sure they have yours.

It might be to "poison the jury pool" as much as to prepare the people like you for what is coming.

Somebody mentioned a hypothetical "bombshell." What would be your definition of a "bombshell?"

Seems that any bombshell would have come out already.

It is not newly shared, but I will refer you to the 11/1/12 presentment. It spent 5 pages recounting what happened in 1998. CSS are not charged with any crime committed in 1998. Perhaps you might be curious as to why that is.

Why they were not charged re: 1998 or why the 11/12 presentment noted so much from 1998?

 

[PSU Dave]

I can pretty much guarantee that far from everything is out there. We've seen things coming out over the past year, claims that other staffers saw things, claims about Paterno, what Courtney advised.

I welcome the upcoming trial, because I think it will lead us to the truth, though we may not like it.



The OAG has jurisdiction, I think. They were looking under Kelly, but it stopped in 2013. Kane, for whatever reason, did not pursue it. Like with the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese case. She had, in the campaign, complained about using a grand jury in abuse cases, but after several years, she used a grand jury. I think it was incompetence rather than something sinister.

As for the so called "porn," as a supervisor she can restrict the uses of her employees computers. That is an employment issue (though she should have treated her sister as everyone else). When they are not her employees, nor was there any illegality, it is no business of any AG. (I will note that some of the "porn" included things for breast cancer awareness and off color jokes.)

Unlike myself you obviously have some skin in this game. The fact you've come here claiming to have information detrimental to those we believe are innocent is interesting. If you were that confident, which you proclaim to be, why even come here at all? I'd think someone with your belief would relish waiting patiently in the background yet you choose the spotlight. I do think you're here with an agenda just not sure what it is yet. Pay attention to what they do rather than what they say.

 

[bjf1991]

JimmyW, It does one of the Obstruction charges removed, but there is another one listed; there were originally two. Likewise, it shows the perjury and related conspiracy removed. It does show four offenses (though two of them are Endangerment), three felony and one misdemeanor. I'll see if it changes.



This is a public forum., as the public can view it and view your nonsensical tirades. People disagree with you, and you just go off on them.

I've already indicated. I'm posting information; maybe that bothers you, because the facts bother you.

You want you words out there, but don't want other people's out there unless they agree with you and stroke your ego.

You don't "disagree" with me........in order to "disagree" you would have to present some cogent argument to some contention I made.
The next time you do that will be the first

You do NOT "present information"..... you come on here and say:

"I know something you don't know.......I'm not gonna' tell you what it is......But i'm gonna' tell you - ad nauseam - that I know it"

You - and GMJ, and GTASCA, and CDW - are the DEFINITION of a Circle-Jerker.

You are a black hole of intelligence and reason - sucking all forms of intelligent discourse into that bottomless abyss of stupid that you are so comfortable in.

That is all you are. That is all you do.

 

[Zenophile]

There is actually an entire thread on it, that I didn't start.

Actually, because I'm expecting some of this to play out at trial and I've been waiting for that.

Part of it is not an attempt to sway a jury (though they shouldn't be reading these things) but of it is trying to prepare the way for what is coming.

So the newbie's all talk.

 

[91Joe95]

I agree, but how about this:

A third person report that would reveal the CSS and/or Paterno know that Sandusky was pedophile prior to McQueary's report in 2001? Thoughts.

You're a moron. 3rd person?!? Geez, if it couldn't even be admissible, how could it be a bombshell at trial? Where have all the good trolls gone. This new batch is just dumb.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

You - and GMJ, and GTASCA, and CDW - are the DEFINITION of a Circle-Jerker. You are a black hole of intelligence and reason - sucking all forms of intelligent discourse into that bottomless abyss of stupid that you are so comfortable in. That is all you are. That is all you do.

Ahhh yes! The old communal masturbation crew is back.

 

[bjf1991]

Part of it is not an attempt to sway a jury (though they shouldn't be reading these things) but of it is trying to prepare the way for what is coming.

LOL. Who knew?

All this time - we were in the presence of the freaking Messiah!

Talk about delusions?

The real Jesus says:

 

[Stufftodo]

So the newbie's all talk.

Well, for about 7 weeks, if we stay on schedule.

You're a moron. 3rd person?!? Geez, if it couldn't even be admissible, how could it be a bombshell at trial? Where have all the good trolls gone. This new batch is just dumb.

If there was a third party (or parties) that knew that one or more of the people at PSU knew, that would be admissible, wouldn't it?

Barry, you are confusing Christ with John the Baptist.

 

[psudukie]

Thank you Jimmy.

I think I am on the same page. Hopefully this helps everyone with what is still going to court and what is not.

 

[91Joe95]

Well, for about 7 weeks, if we stay on schedule.



If there was a third party (or parties) that knew that one or more of the people at PSU knew, that would be admissible, wouldn't it?

Barry, you are confusing Christ with John the Baptist.

So now a third person report becomes a third party? Dear lord, this guy's dumber than michy. Sorry mich, but he's beating you. Badly.

 

[Stufftodo]

So now a third person report becomes a third party? Dear lord, this guy's dumber than michy. Sorry mich, but he's beating you. Badly.

I shall hold you to it. I'll try to to use shorter words so you can understand it.

 

[chrisrn1965]

So now a third person report becomes a third party? Dear lord, this guy's dumber than michy. Sorry mich, but he's beating you. Badly.

The quality of trolling on this board continues to decline as their case is falling apart.

 

[91Joe95]

I shall hold you to it. I'll try to to use shorter words so you can understand it.

Poor mich doesn't hold a chance against your idiocy.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

And, don't worry, at the appropriate time, possible in about 6-7 weeks, I will abandon my anonymity.

Wouldn't it be a shame if somebody beat you to it?

Don't come in here acting all cute and coy playing I've got a secret. Anyway, if there is someone who had first hand knowledge that Paterno and CSS "knew" that Sandusky was a pedophile before 1998 and withheld that, that would make them equally as guilty of endangering children and failure to report, wouldn't it?

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

Oh, I'm staying and will continue to remind everyone of your support for the person who didn't investigate TSM, Kathleen Kane.

How is your central air conditioning working?