FC: Judge gives NCAA permission to file new response in Paterno lawsuit(updated w/ new NCAA filing)

[Aoshiro]

Go read the F***en deposition again in its entirety before you make more of an ass out of yourself. And yes I know what an UpJohn Warning is. Why don't you tell me what your understanding of it is first.

Hey @$$hole, here is the deposition.

According McNeill, the members of his team (NOT THE INTERVIEWEES) signed confidentiality agreements (Page 147).
THE INTERVIEWEES were given Upjohn Warnings, which specifically warns them that there is no guarantee of confidentiality (Page 148).
McNeill never claims that INTERVIEWEES signed confidentiality agreements, and Paterno et al have an affidavit from an INTERVIEWEE specifically refuting that there was any promise of confidentiality.

The problem with you and your evil $hithead lying friends is that you think that you can get away with bullshitting Penn Staters. YOU CAN'T.

Now stick your tail between your legs and go run back to mommy.

 

[BobPSU92]

How can someone of pedigree and stature like jim carnes have the time and inclination to wallow with lowbrow unfortunates like us?

 

[ralpieE]

Hey @$$hole, here is the deposition.

According McNeill, the members of his team (NOT THE INTERVIEWEES) signed confidentiality agreements (Page 147).
THE INTERVIEWEES were given Upjohn Warnings, which specifically warns them that there is no guarantee of confidentiality (Page 148).
McNeill never claims that INTERVIEWEES signed confidentiality agreements, and Paterno et al have an affidavit from an INTERVIEWEE specifically refuting that there was any promise of confidentiality.

The problem with you and your evil $hithead lying friends is that you think that you can get away with bullshitting Penn Staters. YOU CAN'T.

Now stick your tail between your legs and go run back to mommy.

You don't know how many times I've pointed this out to this Bozo and his aliases, and he keeps coming right back to the BS.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

I did read it tool. Nowhere does he say anyone or everyone was guaranteed confidentiality. I've seen this same crap posted by your Philadelphia Phool buddy.

 

[bjf1984]

Well then, if you read the deposition then you should be able to instantly provide me with the link to it. If by chance did read it I doubt it was today because 1) you had no need to, 2) it's156 pages long.

Oh, and you still haven't told me what your understanding of an Upjohn Warning is which I requested in my previous post.

He licks the shit stained boots of tyrants.......
He idolizes soulless scumbags.......
He derives his self-esteem by serving as a lap dog........

He is.......the most ethically vacuous man in the world

"I don't always lick boots....but, when I do, I prefer to lick the boots of Scoundrels"

"Stay swarmy my friends"

 

[WeR0206]

Hey @$$hole, here is the deposition.

According McNeill, the members of his team (NOT THE INTERVIEWEES) signed confidentiality agreements (Page 147).
THE INTERVIEWEES were given Upjohn Warnings, which specifically warns them that there is no guarantee of confidentiality (Page 148).
McNeill never claims that INTERVIEWEES signed confidentiality agreements, and Paterno et al have an affidavit from an INTERVIEWEE specifically refuting that there was any promise of confidentiality.

The problem with you and your evil $hithead lying friends is that you think that you can get away with bullshitting Penn Staters. YOU CAN'T.

Now stick your tail between your legs and go run back to mommy.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that CR66 isn't going to respond to your post Aoshiro. Every time someone calls out his bullshit he simply just never responds and tries to slink away...only responding to other posts that are about trivial matters.

We'll see if he proves me wrong....

 

[91Joe95]

What a load of crap! NCAA officials admitted in deposition that they never even read the Freeh report .

Details, details. Forget the details, don't you know they worked with and knew Freeh, so they can vouch for his objectivity? Heck, Freeh was so objective he let the NCAA tell him what to do.

 

[ralpieE]

Aoshiro got to it before me and called you CR. Like I've done dozens of times before. No confidentiality was guaranteed pal. So how about it, refute it.

 

[91Joe95]

I can buy this for many of them--but not all. I think Heinlein's quote is applicable for many in this case--and goes for Curley et al. as well. I don't think there were a lot of intentional villains in this case. Corbett and Surma, yes. They had axes to grind. Others, not so much. But we may find out differently when all the fact come to light--if they do.

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity".--Robert A. Heinlein

At some point actions override claims of good intentions.

 

[ralpieE]

He licks the shit stained boots of tyrants.......
He idolizes soulless scumbags.......
He derives his self-esteem by serving as a lap dog........

He is.......the most ethically vacuous man in the world

"I don't always lick boots....but, when I do, I prefer to lick the boots of Scoundrels"

"Stay swarmy my friends"

Too funny!

 

[91Joe95]

You don't know how many times I've pointed this out to this Bozo and his aliases, and he keeps coming right back to the BS.

Liars lie.

 

[psudukie]

All these posts are beyond ridiculous till more information becomes public. Some may have more insight to the truth than others but everyone is just rehashing same stuff.

There will be surprised and disappointments for some that is for sure.

 

[OldTiredLion]

All these posts are beyond ridiculous till more information becomes public. Some may have more insight to the truth than others but everyone is just rehashing same stuff.

There will be surprised and disappointments for some that is for sure.

What surprises' are in store for us, Dukie? Could you expand on your statement?

 

[lein]

Because accepting the Freeh Report --- AFTER it became the news story of the day on that Thursday in July and everybody in America was talking about it --- was the 100% correct play.

It was never accepted. The BOT simply paid Freeh and left the report in the in basket, mostly untouched.

 

[91Joe95]

All these posts are beyond ridiculous till more information becomes public. Some may have more insight to the truth than others but everyone is just rehashing same stuff.

There will be surprised and disappointments for some that is for sure.

You're free to share more. No one here will stop you.

 

[psudukie]

I wish I had those answers.... Again most all of us are in for surprises and disappointments.

I do know and believe strongly that js should of been taken care of long before 01 and certainly if you include 01 should of been locked up a long time ago.

 

[Aoshiro]

I wish I had those answers.... Again most all of us are in for surprises and disappointments.

I do know absbelueve strongly that js should of been taken care of long before 01 and certainly if you include 01 should of been locked up a long time ago.

Yeah, well, 1998 was a massive screw-up and remarkably none of the people involved have been held accountable.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

You don't know how many times I've pointed this out to this Bozo and his aliases, and he keeps coming right back to the BS.

Hey @$$hole, here is the deposition.

According McNeill, the members of his team (NOT THE INTERVIEWEES) signed confidentiality agreements (Page 147).
THE INTERVIEWEES were given Upjohn Warnings, which specifically warns them that there is no guarantee of confidentiality (Page 148).
McNeill never claims that INTERVIEWEES signed confidentiality agreements, and Paterno et al have an affidavit from an INTERVIEWEE specifically refuting that there was any promise of confidentiality.

The problem with you and your evil $hithead lying friends is that you think that you can get away with bullshitting Penn Staters. YOU CAN'T.

Now stick your tail between your legs and go run back to mommy.

Hey numb nuts. In most cases oral agreements are as valid as written ones. In McNeil's Upjohn representation he places the interviewee on notice that what is said to him will not be divulged to any other party except PSU under the confidentiality agreement he has with the university. He is essentially telling the interviewee that your communications with me are protected by the attorney-client privilege but the attorney-client privilege belongs solely to the university, not you. That means the university alone may elect to waive the attorney-client privilege and reveal our discussion to third parties. PSU alone may decide to waive the privilege and disclose this discussion to such third parties as federal or state agencies, at its sole discretion, and without notifying you. Accordingly, confidentiality existed between McNeil and the interviewee and it existed between the interviewee and PSU subject to the waiving of the privilege which appears PSU has no intention of ever doing.

Who gives a shit if one isolated interviewee says he wasn't promised confidentiality. Goes to materiality if 299+ says they were.

 

[ralpieE]

Hey numb nuts. In most cases oral agreements are as valid as written ones. In McNeil's Upjohn representation he places the interviewee on notice that what is said to him will not be divulged to any other party except PSU under the confidentiality agreement he has with the university. He is essentially telling the interviewee that your communications with me are protected by the attorney-client privilege but the attorney-client privilege belongs solely to the university, not you. That means the university alone may elect to waive the attorney-client privilege and reveal our discussion to third parties. PSU alone may decide to waive the privilege and disclose this discussion to such third parties as federal or state agencies, at its sole discretion, and without notifying you. Accordingly, confidentiality existed between McNeil and the interviewee and it existed between the interviewee and PSU subject to the waiving of the privilege which appears PSU has no intention of ever doing.

Who gives a shit if one isolated interviewee says he wasn't promised confidentiality. Goes to materiality if 299+ says they were.

More of your drivel. Took you long enough to dream that one up. Or rather, resurrect it.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

More of your drivel. Took you long enough to dream that one up. Or rather, resurrect it.

Laughing at you!

 

[simons96]

Yeah, well, 1998 was a massive screw-up and remarkably none of the people involved have been held accountable.

that isn't true. "Coach" lost his job. we just don't know who or when.

 

[Aoshiro]

Hey numb nuts. In most cases oral agreements are as valid as written ones. In McNeil's Upjohn representation he places the interviewee on notice that what is said to him will not be divulged to any other party except PSU under the confidentiality agreement he has with the university. He is essentially telling the interviewee that your communications with me are protected by the attorney-client privilege but the attorney-client privilege belongs solely to the university, not you. That means the university alone may elect to waive the attorney-client privilege and reveal our discussion to third parties. PSU alone may decide to waive the privilege and disclose this discussion to such third parties as federal or state agencies, at its sole discretion, and without notifying you. Accordingly, confidentiality existed between McNeil and the interviewee and it existed between the interviewee and PSU subject to the waiving of the privilege which appears PSU has no intention of ever doing.

Who gives a shit if one isolated interviewee says he wasn't promised confidentiality. Goes to materiality if 299+ says they were.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

No.

 

[Misder2]

Hey numb nuts. In most cases oral agreements are as valid as written ones. In McNeil's Upjohn representation he places the interviewee on notice that what is said to him will not be divulged to any other party except PSU under the confidentiality agreement he has with the university. He is essentially telling the interviewee that your communications with me are protected by the attorney-client privilege but the attorney-client privilege belongs solely to the university, not you. That means the university alone may elect to waive the attorney-client privilege and reveal our discussion to third parties. PSU alone may decide to waive the privilege and disclose this discussion to such third parties as federal or state agencies, at its sole discretion, and without notifying you. Accordingly, confidentiality existed between McNeil and the interviewee and it existed between the interviewee and PSU subject to the waiving of the privilege which appears PSU has no intention of ever doing.

Who gives a shit if one isolated interviewee says he wasn't promised confidentiality. Goes to materiality if 299+ says they were.

You Sir are once again lying. Confidentiality was not promised, written or implied. I would argue that it should have been but it wasn't. You're just lying to create drama. You and your ilk will eventually be found out, of that I have no doubt. It's just a matter of time and the clock is still ticking.

I'm still here and I'm still watching.

Yours truly,
The Pain in the Ass

 

[ralpieE]

Laughing at you!

"Laugh Clown Laugh"

 

[WeR0206]

Hey numb nuts. In most cases oral agreements are as valid as written ones. In McNeil's Upjohn representation he places the interviewee on notice that what is said to him will not be divulged to any other party except PSU under the confidentiality agreement he has with the university. He is essentially telling the interviewee that your communications with me are protected by the attorney-client privilege but the attorney-client privilege belongs solely to the university, not you. That means the university alone may elect to waive the attorney-client privilege and reveal our discussion to third parties. PSU alone may decide to waive the privilege and disclose this discussion to such third parties as federal or state agencies, at its sole discretion, and without notifying you. Accordingly, confidentiality existed between McNeil and the interviewee and it existed between the interviewee and PSU subject to the waiving of the privilege which appears PSU has no intention of ever doing.

Who gives a shit if one isolated interviewee says he wasn't promised confidentiality. Goes to materiality if 299+ says they were.

So.....IOW there is NO written confidentiality agreement between the interviewer and interviewees....which is exactly what Aoshiro pointed out.

There was no oral agreement either. Communication isn't covered by ACP when the person the attorney is communicating with ISN'T the client (the interviewee isn't the client, PSU BOT is). Hence the reason for the Upjohn warning.

Also, why weren't the interviewees allowed to have their own counsel during these interviews? Why weren' they provided an audio/video tape of the interview or allowed to take notes, etc? Why weren't the interviewees given a transcript of the interview to verify there weren't any errors, mistakes, etc.???

Yeah, that sounds like a reaaaaaal legit process......what a freaking joke! All of those limitations were applied so freeh and his goons on the BOT could control and manipulate the information and basically just make stuff up if they wanted to. There'd be no way to verify it since they didn't let the interviewees look over transcripts, etc.. How convenient!

 

[ralpieE]

So.....IOW there is NO written confidentiality agreement between the interviewer and interviewees....which is exactly what Aoshiro pointed out.

There was no oral agreement either. Communication isn't covered by ACP when the person the attorney is communicating with ISN'T the client (the interviewee isn't the client, PSU BOT is). Hence the reason for the Upjohn warning.

Also, why weren't the interviewees allowed to have their own counsel during these interviews? Why weren' they provided an audio/video tape of the interview or allowed to take notes, etc? Why weren't the interviewees given a transcript of the interview to verify there weren't any errors, mistakes, etc.???

Yeah, that sounds like a reaaaaaal legit process......what a freaking joke! All of those limitations were applied so freeh and his goons on the BOT could control and manipulate the information and basically just make stuff up if they wanted to. There'd be no way to verify it since they didn't let the interviewees look over transcripts, etc.. How convenient!

Because I believe many of these 400 interviews were BS.

 

[Misder2]

Because I believe many of these 400 interviews were BS.

To be honest it's the list of people who were NOT interviewed that I find most telling

 

[NittPicker]

Because I believe many of these 400 interviews were BS.

I believe there were 400 interviews but notice how Freeh never said he interviewed 400 people. For example, there may have been an initial interview with someone and that person may have been contacted a few times afterward for "clarification". Even a two minute telephone conversation a few days later could be considered a separate interview. Freeh could easily pad his interview numbers in this way and claim there were 400 "interviews" when the actual number of people interviewed was much lower. Normally I wouldn't suspect someone of fudging numbers like that but I think most of us have come to know Freeh isn't exactly the ethical type.

 

[colt21]

Tell me your definition of character.

How about you tell me yours .... And the. Justify your comment that all those listed have it......ah nevermind ✊✊

 

[Cruising Route 66]

He licks the shit stained boots of tyrants.......
He idolizes soulless scumbags.......
He derives his self-esteem by serving as a lap dog........

He is.......the most ethically vacuous man in the world

"I don't always lick boots....but, when I do, I prefer to lick the boots of Scoundrels"

"Stay swarmy my friends"

So you are refusing to accept my bet for charity are you? Is that because you know you'll lose? Afraid to put your money where your mouth is?

C'mon Fenchak, lay a thousand down if you're so cock sure I'm someone named Jim Carnes. Better yet lets make it five thousand. I'm sure whoever this Mr Carnes is he would love to know that you've been posting his pictures in this forum without his knowledge and mocking him. This private citizen might be so mad that he considers taking legal action against you and BWI.

Well what do you know. I just found his reach information. Should I make him aware of it? How you behave going forward will determine what I do. I suggest you take this very seriously because I'm not playing around.

Oh, and BTW don't waste your time deleting your pics and references of him, I've already memorialized them.

 

[marshall23]

Let's be honest. The Freeh report is based on the testimony of 2 or three trustees a former general counsel and a former employee. There is no other testimony to protect. Everything that entered into Freeh's reasonable conclusions came from those poison tongues. Those are the liars that were assured their contributions to the vendetta would never be revealed. Anyone recall how "the woman who stood up to Paterno" squirmed when she received a subpoena ? Sorry, I may have omitted a dentist. If the boys from Merck..........eh I mean Pepper Hamilton really interviewed 300 people, they got nothing and merely tried to justify the theft of 8 million.

 

[bjf1984]

So you are refusing to accept my bet for charity are you? Is that because you know you'll lose? Afraid to put your money where your mouth is?

C'mon Fenchak, lay a thousand down if you're so cock sure I'm someone named Jim Carnes. Better yet lets make it five thousand. I'm sure whoever this Mr Carnes is he would love to know that you've been posting his pictures in this forum without his knowledge and mocking him. This private citizen might be so mad that he considers taking legal action against you and BWI.

Well what do you know. I just found his reach information. Should I make him aware of it? How you behave going forward will determine what I do. I suggest you take this very seriously because I'm not playing around.

Oh, and BTW don't waste your time deleting your pics and references of him, I've already memorialized them.

I'll be waiting for you.....as I have been all along......still.........

In the meantime......
.

 

[BobPSU92]

All these posts are beyond ridiculous till more information becomes public. Some may have more insight to the truth than others but everyone is just rehashing same stuff.

There will be surprised and disappointments for some that is for sure.

I wish I had those answers.... Again most all of us are in for surprises and disappointments.

I do know and believe strongly that js should of been taken care of long before 01 and certainly if you include 01 should of been locked up a long time ago.

I love posts like these. "I know something, but I don't know what it is."

 

[simons96]

I believe there were 400 interviews but notice how Freeh never said he interviewed 400 people. For example, there may have been an initial interview with someone and that person may have been contacted a few times afterward for "clarification". Even a two minute telephone conversation a few days later could be considered a separate interview. Freeh could easily pad his interview numbers in this way and claim there were 400 "interviews" when the actual number of people interviewed was much lower. Normally I wouldn't suspect someone of fudging numbers like that but I think most of us have come to know Freeh isn't exactly the ethical type.

maybe when Ray gets back from his fishing trip, he can direct us to his blog post analyzing how much of the Freeh Report was based on interviews with only a few BoT members . . . and yes for all the "investigating" Freeh did, he excluded any exculpatory or complimentary testimony in regards to Paterno.

 

[Misder2]

I love posts like these. "I know something, but I don't know what it is."

I'm sure he knows a lot, I just wish he'd start sharing it

 

[roswelllion]

CR - never paid much attention to your posts in the past because it sounded like you were mouthpiece for the BoT. However you said two things in this thred recently that are mind boggling even for a BoT mouthpiece.
1. A person can be more objective when they know the person than when they don't. Think about that a minute and think about it in any other situation. Ludicrous
2. Freeh had much more information than Fina. One had supoena power, one didn't, one could and did interview the key players one didn't. One had to stand the process of cross examination [albeit pittifully weak cross] one didn't. One would have to publicly announce his witness, one won't and wouldn't let anyone record their own testimony. Again ludicrous
I always thought you were a serious representative of the BoT and not just someone [RJake] who comes on here to inflame. However if you really believe these statements the BoT better find a different spokesperson because these positions are just plain stupid.

 

[marshall23]

My guess is the torch has been passed. The misanthropes have more than one stooge.

 

[bjf1984]

My guess is the torch has been passed. The misanthropes have more than one stooge.

CR has my name,,,,,address,,,,,and an open invitation, I've been waiting months for the douchebag to either show up - or shut up,

He, however, has chosen to do what you would expect the slimy, cowardly, pretentious, boot-licking douchebag to do - continue to spew his sycophantic bullshit behind his veil of internet anonymity.

He is a spineless, soulless, POS.....and he always will be.

 

[91Joe95]

Hey numb nuts. In most cases oral agreements are as valid as written ones. In McNeil's Upjohn representation he places the interviewee on notice that what is said to him will not be divulged to any other party except PSU under the confidentiality agreement he has with the university. He is essentially telling the interviewee that your communications with me are protected by the attorney-client privilege but the attorney-client privilege belongs solely to the university, not you. That means the university alone may elect to waive the attorney-client privilege and reveal our discussion to third parties. PSU alone may decide to waive the privilege and disclose this discussion to such third parties as federal or state agencies, at its sole discretion, and without notifying you. Accordingly, confidentiality existed between McNeil and the interviewee and it existed between the interviewee and PSU subject to the waiving of the privilege which appears PSU has no intention of ever doing.

Who gives a shit if one isolated interviewee says he wasn't promised confidentiality. Goes to materiality if 299+ says they were.

Excellent, let's ask them.

 

[psudukie]

Bjf .... I will show up or you are better off coming to this side of tracks for snacks.