FC: Judge releases Schultz emails to MM's attorneys Whistleblower suit/emails not included- link
- Thread starter mn78psu83
- Start date
mn78psu83, ring the stadium cowbell for a round table meeting of the B/W board's attorneys....
we need some pro bono professional interpretation
From the article:
"The crux of the argument was that Powers copied university attorney Cynthia Baldwin on the communications "to essentially allow her and the other recipients to chime in," according to Gavin's ruling from July 20."
Right out of the ncaa playbook. Copy an attorney. Privilege! Or did the ncaa copy the Penn State bot's playbook? Isn't it interesting that the ncaa and Penn State are taking similar legal "strategies"?
That one is a keeper!mn78psu83, ring the stadium cowbell for a round table meeting of the B/W board's attorneys....
we need some pro bono professional interpretation
A couple years ago the university reluctantly had to release some documents. Our buddy Eckel made a semi joking comment that in the future the university should "cc" everything to their counsel and thus gain ACP. It shows the mindset of those people. Fortunately Eckel is too dumb to know the requirements of ACP.
What an informative and thrilling read...... without the emails.... it's like taking a sleeping pill!
Thank You I thought maybe I was missing a link or something.
and I said "missing a link" not that I was a missing link.
Good news all the way around.
Essentially - as I read it - the Judge had the freakin' common sense to say "cc'ing an Attorney - and then claiming PRIVILIGE - does NOT make it so".
This is a concept which should be clear from the statute. Clear to a "Week 1" law student.....but, like so many aspects of these cases, appears to be incredibly complex - for some unknown reason (wink wink) - to every Judge involved (except for Covey).
The quote from the PSU spokesperson is so very telling......and couldn't be ignored by any Judge with an ounce of integrity.
The freakin' unmitigated gall of this band of Scoundrels is just un-freakin' real (btw, yes, I am having trouble keeping my language from becoming more colorful). Finally we have a GD Judge in one of these cases with an iota of integrity and intelligence to not abet these bastards.
Hopefully this may have some carry-over effect on the remainder of this cornucopia of legal proceedings.
" Fortunately Eckel is too dumb to know the requirements of ACP"
Yep....but - amazingly - he possesses the necessary wisdom to sit (along with his buddy Ernie Salvino - Kay's partner) on the Board that recommends Judicial candidates. Not that they would ever use that power to reward/punish Judges (LOL.......Judge Covey must want to send Frank S to paint the house of that pile of donkey spunk).
You couldn't make this sh&t up.
________________________________
FWIW:
The truly AMAZING act of stupidity was that Eckel made that "cc the Attorneys" comment during an OPEN SESSION of the BOT. It was a "jaw-dropping" moment for those in attendance. Even his organized crime BFFs (Denaples and crew) would know enough to not broadcast their malfeasance.
"Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking"
Last edited:
I Certainly hope so. The tools that are administering PSU at the very top.... from behind the BOT curtain.... hopefully have to drop their drawers completely....ya know the ones complying with transparency and getting gold stars from Mitchell for it on their report cards while blocking every act for information they can in court .
How do you spell S-H-A-M or for that matter Shame?
The report says MM is charging wrongful termination. I was under the impression that Red was suing because he felt he was denied all of the serverance benefits that he was entitled to because of his involvement in the JS scandal.
Going from memory (i.e., no time to look it up), but I'm pretty sure that it's Jay Paterno & Bill Kenney that claimed that as part of their lawsuit, and not Big Red.
Tell me what the emails say and then we can see whether we can guess what meaning it has, but until we know what's in 'em, it seems that it would be even more guesswork than usual.mn78psu83, ring the stadium cowbell for a round table meeting of the B/W board's attorneys....
we need some pro bono professional interpretation
Last edited:
As others have said, what's the point of writing this article if you're not going to include the damned emails. Ughh...
Sorry to tell you, but every company takes that approach. You are inventing conspiracies where none exist.
Hey dip$hit, PSU is not a "company", its a "Non-Profit Public Trust" there is a huge difference in many standards including the fact that a corporation has the concept of a "corporate veil" that must be pierced, but no such thing exists in a "Trust" which is supposed to be perfectly transparent and run for the best interests of the beneficiaries. Companies have "Directors" who are also typically shareholders - Trusts have "Trustees" who are legally liable to "Fiduciary Standards" including "Prudent Man" and "Prudent Expert" as well as other aspects of "Trust Law" and do not have shareholders. Trusts are Regulated and subject to the authority of the Pennsylvania OAG, corporations are not unless you are capable of "piercing the corporate veil" and they not only broke the law but set out to break the law (a very difficult thing to do as it is equivalent to the standards of proving fraud), but again no such thing needs to be proven by the OAG to open a case on fraud regarding a Trust, especially a Public Trust (e.g., not a "private Non-profit Trust", but rather a Non-Profit Trust Owned by the Public) -- OAG can investigate a NPO Trust whenever and for whatever reason it desires.
It was Keith Eckel that made that comment, but I'm not sure he was joking. This was back in November 2013 when the board was choosing among candidate governance experts to hire. "Trustee Keith Eckel has said the hope was to hire an attorney so that attorney-client privilege would apply to the discussions." This comment was made before the board meeting where board voted on which consultant to hire. Eckel recommended Vendor C, and that's who the board voted for and hired. Lubrano spoke at the meeting prior to the vote and "suggested that Vendor C, in a previous setting, discussed marginalizing dissenting trustees and was unresponsive in providing him follow-up information." As we know now, Vendor C was Holly Gregory. While she may be an expert in corporate governance, she was not an expert in university governance. In fact, Eckel "stressed that he was looking for not for an expert in the field, but a facilitator." It seems Eckel only wanted to try to keep communications, with whatever consultant they hired, private and hidden.
http://www.centredaily.com/2013/11/15/3889384_penn-state-trustees-to-consider.html?rh=1
http://www.psu.edu/trustees/pdf/november152013minutesglrp.pdf
http://pennstatermag.com/2014/01/17/the-bots-governance-consultant-speaks/
Quite frankly, Eckel should have known better. Indeed, Ken Frazier definitely should have known better. If you recall, Frazier was chosen specifically to head the SITF because he had experience managing a crisis. In fact, one question at that board meeting was, "Has anyone handled Vioxx before?" Gee, that's exactly the crisis Frazier managed for Merck.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/merck_ceo_decided_to_head_penn.html
This quote (from an August 2008 article, link below) explains why Frazier should have known better: "A recent case articulated a "primary purpose" test requiring that the primary purpose of the communication be legal. In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 501 F. Supp. 2d 789 (ED. La. 2007). In Vioxx, Merck & Co. asserted privilege over approximately 30,000 documents during the course of discovery, the majority of which were electronic communications. Merck claimed that extensive regulation of corporations created potential legal issues in virtually all its communications with legal and non-legal departments, requiring a collaborative effort protected under the attorney-client privilege. The court disagreed. It recognized that some tasks that do not appear to be legal can be legal in nature; however, a corporation must establish a primary legal purpose for each communication to obtain the benefits of the privilege."
http://www.robinskaplan.com/resources/articles/attorney-client-privilege-and-the-in-house-counsel
This next article has an interesting point by point presentation of Merck's various attempts to assert ACP in the Vioxx case and the explanation the judge offered in rejecting those arguments. It is definitely worth a read. However, the most ironic thing - it was authored by a lawyer with Pepper Hamilton, Louis Freeh's firm.
http://www.martindale.com/products-liability-law/article_Pepper-Hamilton-LLP_559318.htm
