FC: McQueary declares impasse with Penn State in lawsuit
- Thread starter LundyPSU
- Start date
From the article:
"attorneys for the former Penn State wide receiver's coach express exasperation with Penn State"
Welcome to the club.
"attorneys for the former Penn State wide receiver's coach express exasperation with Penn State"
Welcome to the club.
That's a damn good question. He had a contract and when he was not retained by Bill O'Brien, he was paid off. So, hit the bricks, Mike.
Actually, PSU handled him differently than every other coach. They suspended him from coaching, and then withheld pay from him, all after he testified against senior officials. I'm as perplexed and critical of MM's actions as anyone, but legally they are two separate issues. On this issue PSU really screwed the pooch. And for what? As soon as MM starts scheduling depositions of the the bot PSU will pay up. MM was an employee with a contract, not a contractor.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Pfft. He's going up against the guys who fired Joe with a phone call and haven't suffered once since because of it. McQueary is nothing to them.
So, in 20 years he went from "can't pass" to "impasse"?
That was "don't pass".I guess you missed the '95 ru huge rivalry game. Ask doug graber about it.
This is a key point of info we are missing in the whole discussion (at least I haven't seen it). Are any of Courtney's notes/ report/ recommendation from 2001 released anywhere?
I think it's one of those cases where it depends which lens you look through (while ignoring the opposing points against you). He should have been suspended with pay. If PSU withheld his salary they owe that much to him IMO. MMs argument will be he was blackballed by the university in 2011- salary withheld (apparently), suspended and tarnished his reputation preventing any new coaching staff from hiring him. Now, I think most here would agree that new coaches generally bring in all new people usually and the chances of MM being retained were likely 0% even if nothing happened in 2001/ 2011. It's really going to depend on which side a judge puts more weight on.
Football coaches are fired all over the place. Once head coach is fired or resigns, assistants are often let go. I do not know if there was a contract for MM. So, they let him go. However, they must pay due compensation to all assistants, it is arrogant not to do this.
GREAT POINT!
Actually 91Joe95, I would love to have Mike do a deposition on the detectives who IMO exaggerated the case against Sandusky to get Mike to be a whistle blower. I think it is normal that Mike was sickened by hearing Jerry horse playing alone in the showers. However, I would be curious to hear what the detectives said to put Mike over the top to believe Jerry was getting off on this.
Suspending him constitutes retaliation per the law. They topped it off by withholding bonuses.
Really? 4 mil ain't nothing for a coaching career at a major institution. Look up Human Economic Value. And then Calculate yours....never mind maybe don't
I meant to comment on this back in October when it came out. Better late than never, I suppose. The most interesting part is the legal filing and what McQueary was asking for and what PSU failed to provide. It has direct applicability to the Freeh report. My notes below:
-----
McQueary Declares Impasse With Penn State in Whistleblower Lawsuit, 10/9/2015
http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...-penn-state-in-whistleblower-lawsuit,1465691/
In court documents filed Friday, attorneys for the former Penn State wide receiver's coach express exasperation with Penn State over a routine legal procedure. McQueary wants Penn State to verify the "genuineness, authenticity [and] correctness" of certain documents he wants to use in his whistleblower and defamation suit against his former employer.
But McQueary's attorneys say that Penn State's response to his request "do not fairly meet the substance of the requested admissions."
---
Here's the filing referenced in the article above:
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med... PLAINTIFFS SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS.pdf
Paragraphs 5 and 6 from the filing explain the gist of the issue McQueary has with PSU:
5. While Plaintiff seeks a judicial determination for each Request for admissions numbered 2-13, said requests generally seek an admission concerning the genuineness, authenticity, correctness, execution, signing, delivery, mailing or receipt of documents, including emails between individuals, and handwritten notes.
6. Plaintiff submits that none of the Defendant's Answers fairly meet the substance of the requested admissions, and the reiteration that the exhibit in question "is a document which speaks for itself and any characterization thereof is denied" is also contrary to Pa.R.C.P. 4014.
----------
Believe it or not, those requests for admissions refer to all 9 documents in Exhibit 5 of the Freeh report.
Also, 5 of those 9 documents were among the 8 exhibits in the 11/1/2012 Grand Jury Presentment that provided a basis for charges against Spanier, and added charges against Curley & Schultz.
McQueary's lawyer has twice tried to get PSU to provide "an admission concerning the genuineness, authenticity, correctness, execution, signing, delivery, mailing or receipt of documents, including emails between individuals, and handwritten notes."
Each time PSU has refused to provide any statement regarding the genuineness or authenticity of those Exhibits.
Mind boggling.
Here is a list of those 9 documents / exhibits, from the Freeh report:
5A: TIMESHEET, MCQUAIDE BLASKO, INC., COURTNEY, 2.1.01 TO 4.30.01
5B: EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO COURTNEY, 1.10.11; RE: JSRECE; EMAIL COURTNEY TO SCHULTZ, 1.10.11; RE: JS
5C: NOTE, SCHULTZ CONFIDENTIAL HANDWRITTEN NOTE, 2.12.01
5D: EMAIL, HARMON TO SCHULTZ, 2.12.01; RE: INCIDENT IN 1998
5E: NOTE, SCHULTZ HANDWRITTEN NOTES, 2.25.01
5F: EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO CURLEY, COBLE, 2.26.01; RE: CONFIDENTIAL
5G: EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO SPANIER, CURLEY, 2.28.01; RE: MEETING; EMAIL, SPANIER, 2.27.01; RE: MEETING; EMAIL, CURLEY, 2.27.01
5H: EMAIL, SCHULTZ TO CURLEY, 3.1.01; RE: SCHEDULE
5I: EMAIL, COBLE TO CURLEY, 3.7.01; RE: CONFIDENTIAL; EMAIL SCHULTZ TO CURLEY, 2.26.01; RE: CONFIDENTIAL
Here is a cross reference of exhibits:
{McQueary 10-9-2015 filing / Freeh report / 11-1-2012 GJP}
A / 5A / 4
B / 5B
C / 5D / 5
D / 5C / 6
E / 5E
F / 5F / 7
G / 5G / 8
H / 5H
I / 5I
Freeh Report
http://www.psu.edu/ur/2012/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf
Exhibit 5 documents start on page 214
11/1/2012 GJP - included as Exhibit A of this filing, starting on page 14:
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...estimony of Attorney Cynthia Baldwin Full.pdf
Exhibits to the GJP start on page 49
The Commonwealth/SITF shell game is in its final days. I expect a Hail Mary after the holiday from the Ship of Fools and or its allies. One last desperate attempt to hide their malfeasance.
Perhaps "the university" will throw Freeh and the SITF overboard, if any tampering of documents is revealed. Hence "the university" is hesitant to authenticate certain documents contained in the report. "The University" seems comfortable creating "fall guys."
If they have an elaborate plan in place to dismount from this issue and throw people under the bus, it seems to me that they have not exhibited the ability to pull off something of that magnitude. All they ever do is step into shitpile after shitpile, on every single issue. They aren't competent enough to credibly pull anything like that off.
Lurker -
Actually, I don't think it is that difficult to decipher what is going on here.
As JimmyW outlined (something that - to the best of my knowledge - generated almost no discussion here or elsewhere):
1 - McQueary's lawyers made a very basic request that PSU attest to the legitimacy of the e-mails (and some other documents, IIRC) that were included in the discovery process
2 - These are - for the most part - the same e-mails that were used in the Freeh Report AND to support the charges against C/S/S.
3 - PSU has refused - multiple times - to "put in writing" that these e-mails are indeed authentic and unaltered.
Let me write that again:
PSU LEADERSHIP HAS REFUSED TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE E-MAILS USED TO SUPPORT THE FREEH FINDINGS....AND TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES AGAINST C/S/S!!!
What does that tell you?
It really isn't that hard to figure out.
What is their plan, then? They know the stuff they are being asked for is crap, but they also know it will ultimately be released to the world. What is the game plan?
Right now, as it relates to the topic at hand?
The game plan is that NOONE at PSU is going to go on record as verifying the authenticity of those e-mails. NOONE at PSU is going to be the guy to fall on that sword.
The Court ordered that they be turned over to McQueary's lawyers, and they did turn them over....after a lengthy, contentious, losing battle.
But, there is a big difference between complying with a discovery order from the Court - and being the guy who avers that the documents are legit.
Why not sign off? Why not state that "Yes, indeed, these are e-mails pulled off of the PSU e-mail systems", when it is such a simple, rubber-stamp process in the general course of most discovery activities?
I think it is pretty simple....they KNOW the e-mails are AT BEST very dubious with regard to their provenance, and quite possibly, they know they are altered/forged.
Which brings us to a claim made by Blehar shortly after the Freeh Report was released. With respect to MM, I don't see where this helps his case. In other words, if these emails were altered, forged, or whatever, on what was he blowing the whistle? Nothing?
Here's my understanding of the situation; terming his suit a whistle-blower suit is something of a misnomer. He's not claiming he was fired for blowing the whistle on Sandusky. He's claiming the terms of his contract were violated upon his termination and nothing about whistle-blowing...but that's your (on)crack PA reporting media for you. As I understand his claims against PSU are:
1. They took away his car prior to his termination (appears to be a violation of his contract)
2. they took away his cell phone prior to his termination (same)
3. they didn't allow him to interview with O'Brien for a new job (only assistant coach this applied to)
4. they appear to have violated COBRA rights.
What he's demanding:
1. Bonus for the bowl game against Houston. You'll recall that PSU suspended him essentially for his own safety, not over any purported misconduct, so he didn't coach at the bowl game. But he was technically still on the staff so he was still eligible for the bonus. They never gave it to him.
2. Reimbursement for the car and other guaranteed perks during the tenure of his contract.
3. Reimbursement for COBRA expenses during the gap in insurance coverage.
4. Compensation to cover any expenses for having to dip into his retirement account to make up for above shortfalls.
Is $4,000,000 a lot to ask for that? Probably, but that's par for personal damage lawsuits. That includes punitive damages as well as the above. After all, he has been reduced to sleeping in his own bedroom in his parent's hours, or last I had heard. It is my understanding that his case is very strong and will almost certainly go to settlement, otherwise PSU is probably going to get their asses handed to them.
I am ok with PSU having their asses handed to them.
Thank you for clearing that up. As you posted it, I agree he has a valid case. Why the hell do the media keep saying it is a whistleblower case? Lazy hacks.
Absolutely right about Ray B.
Thank God for that guy.
We all could never repay him for his efforts.
WRT your comment "With respect to MM, I don't see where this helps his case. In other words, if these emails were altered, forged, or whatever, on what was he blowing the whistle? Nothing?"
McQueary's lawsuit against PSU goes off in several different directions and I don't have a full, accurate list here in front of me.
But much of it deals with the fact that McQueary was treated "differently" than others in his position. As I recall - and, again, I don't have all of those details in front of me - there was a laundry list of "mistreatments" directed at McQueary from the PSU administration.
I would think - though I don't have privy to just were the lawsuit currently stands - that those claims would likely, if and when this gets in front of a jury, have a very high probability of resulting in a favorable outcome for McQueary.
The pure "whistle-blower" stuff is just one aspect, and those issues - IMHO - become much more nebulous and harder to quantify with respect to damages to McQueary.
In any event, as many have been saying for a long, long time about all of these legal battles, lets hope that they get in front of a legitimate judge and jury as soon as possible.
EVERYONE deserves at least that much.
I just wish this process was playing out for everyone in the public to see -
Perhaps they would have done him a favor had they taken that cell phone away just a bit earlier.
I don't really understand why they suspended him without pay. There were only three games left and there was a 0% chance the next coach would keep him. Why take the risk of a lawsuit to save a few tens of thousands in salary? Now they are dealing with a four million dollar lawsuit. These people are really dumb.
