FC: McQueary declares impasse with Penn State in lawsuit

[lionlurker]

What is interesting is that it seems clear that everyone knows about these altered documents. Freeh may well not be the person who altered them, and yet, someone did. When Freeh is deposed, he will just say that these were the documents he was given, so he will be off the hook.

This rather explains the desperation of PSU to keep all of this covered up, and explains the great efforts made by the BOT to restrict access. It is easy to reach the conclusion that our own BOT got those documents doctored up, and that they then gave them to Freeh. Freeh knew they were doctored, but what does he care? He got them from the university, so he's in the clear. And financially he was indemnified.

This, then, is not just fiduciary incompetence. This would be criminal activity. Probably the Paterno's learned of this a while ago, and likely our dissident elected BOT members as well.

No wonder CR and his buddies are nervous. This all seems highly plausible.

 

[rmb297]

What is interesting is that it seems clear that everyone knows about these altered documents. Freeh may well not be the person who altered them, and yet, someone did. When Freeh is deposed, he will just say that these were the documents he was given, so he will be off the hook.

This rather explains the desperation of PSU to keep all of this covered up, and explains the great efforts made by the BOT to restrict access. It is easy to reach the conclusion that our own BOT got those documents doctored up, and that they then gave them to Freeh. Freeh knew they were doctored, but what does he care? He got them from the university, so he's in the clear. And financially he was indemnified.

This, then, is not just fiduciary incompetence. This would be criminal activity. Probably the Paterno's learned of this a while ago, and likely our dissident elected BOT members as well.

No wonder CR and his buddies are nervous. This all seems highly plausible.

Freeh admitted "independent" discovery of the emails in the case.

The fact that he said he discovered them on March 20th and that somehow the emails from the AG's forensic drive went missing (at that time) is indeed curious.

It is also curious that to the AG's expert didn't mention Freeh's discovery of the emails when he received the DVD on March 23, 2012.

It is also curious that PSU's IT staff provided the emails on USB drives and in April 2011, but the emails in March 2012 were provided on a DVD.

It is surely coincidental that Frank Fina mentioned using DVDs to transfer files during Spanier's April 2011 grand jury proceedings.

And it is surely coincidental that Freeh's computers were not attached to the University's system, making them the perfect vehicles for evidence tampering.

And maybe it's just a tad unfortunate that Kane followed through on investigating the investigation and Moulton's report showed that PSU's emails were turned over to the PA State Police in July 2011 -- making it impossible for Freeh to have discovered them. Curiously, Moulton didn't say when they were turned over to the PA OAG.

Kane is holding some serious cards.

 

[Cletus11]

Big picture, PSU paid $90+ million out to victims (and alleged victims). They have easily spent another $20 million on lawyers and monitors over the last 4+ years (wasn't Freeh alone like $8 million when it was all said and done). And who knows how much money on other related JS stuff. And yet they don't want to settle with McQueary knowing that he could easily be bought off with paying out what he was originally owed by law and then add on $500,000 to $1,000,000 for pain and suffering. That is peanuts compared to what PSU has spent so far, probably along the lines of less than 1%.

So ask yourself, why is this happening.

 

[rmb297]

Big picture, PSU paid $90+ million out to victims (and alleged victims). They have easily spent another $20 million on lawyers and monitors over the last 4+ years (wasn't Freeh alone like $8 million when it was all said and done). And who knows how much money on other related JS stuff. And yet they don't want to settle with McQueary knowing that he could easily be bought off with paying out what he was originally owed by law and then add on $500,000 to $1,000,000 for pain and suffering. That is peanuts compared to what PSU has spent so far, probably along the lines of less than 1%.

So ask yourself, why is this happening.

I think Mike's lawyers have discovered the golden goose. It is just a matter of time before a judge orders authentication and then PSU caves and pays him some serious jangle.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I think Mike's lawyers have discovered the golden goose. It is just a matter of time before a judge orders authentication and then PSU caves and pays him some serious jangle.

If it plays out that way....and I agree that it may very well do just that....how "ironical" is this:

The doctored e-mails (if that is proven) actually provide STRONG evidence that one of the tenets of the McQueary contentions "High-level folks at PSU knew about Sandusky and did nothing" (paraphrasing, of course) is BS.......but THAT could lead PSU - in this bizarre world we are trapped in - to signing over a big check to him.


You couldn't make this shit up if you tried.

 

[rmb297]

If it plays out that way....and I agree that it may very well do just that....how "ironical" is this:

The doctored e-mails (if that is proven) actually provide STRONG evidence that one of the tenets of the McQueary contentions "High-level folks at PSU knew about Sandusky and did nothing" (paraphrasing, of course) is BS.......but THAT could lead PSU - in this bizarre world we are trapped in - to signing over a big check to him.


You couldn't make this shit up if you tried.

So, IF this goes the way it should....

1. The alumni trustees have access to the Freeh source materials.
2. If handed paper copies, then they should request original data files from the April 2011 USB drives that were provided to Baldwin by John Corro (PSU IT).
3. The alumni trustees prove the emails were subjected to tampering.
4. All hell breaks loose....

 

[nits74]

So, IF this goes the way it should....

1. The alumni trustees have access to the Freeh source materials.
2. If handed paper copies, then they should request original data files from the April 2011 USB drives that were provided to Baldwin by John Corro (PSU IT).
3. The alumni trustees prove the emails were subjected to tampering.
4. All hell breaks loose....

And Ray, if you haven't already, please reach out to Anthony and offer information/advice.

 

[Ceasar]

So, IF this goes the way it should....

1. The alumni trustees have access to the Freeh source materials.
2. If handed paper copies, then they should request original data files from the April 2011 USB drives that were provided to Baldwin by John Corro (PSU IT).
3. The alumni trustees prove the emails were subjected to tampering.
4. All hell breaks loose....

Ray, assuming all of this is true about altered emails, what is your theory about who is responsible? Not necessarily looking for a name but just a general group, department, etc, such as someone in PSU IT? Legal? Risk Mgt? If BOT, wouldn't they have to direct someone to do the dirty work?

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

McQueary declares impasse with the true and facts

 

[Cletus11]

Again, still doesn't make sense. The BOT could pay McQueary off to go away and never have to disclose anything. They just call a meeting with MM and his lawyer, negotiate out a settlement of whatever MM wants which in the amount of money they have paid will be nothing crazy and this all goes away. They can buy off MM, that is the point. Why is the BOT not buying out MM like they have everybody else in this entire affair.

 

[psudukie]

Maybe Mike can't be bought maybe he can get the best of both worlds ... Truth and win case... I think some of you are way off on some thoughts but let's see where the never ending road leads us.... Four five years with this stuff lagging... Hopefully end pints are finally nearing, but I don't hold my breath.

 

[rmb297]

Again, still doesn't make sense. The BOT could pay McQueary off to go away and never have to disclose anything. They just call a meeting with MM and his lawyer, negotiate out a settlement of whatever MM wants which in the amount of money they have paid will be nothing crazy and this all goes away. They can buy off MM, that is the point. Why is the BOT not buying out MM like they have everybody else in this entire affair.

Because the "masterminds" think they can pull their "the documents speak for themselves" argument....just like they thought they could convince everyone that Joe was evil and we should all move forward.

If/when the judge rules that PSU must authenticate them, the checkbook will come out.

 

[rmb297]

Ray, assuming all of this is true about altered emails, what is your theory about who is responsible? Not necessarily looking for a name but just a general group, department, etc, such as someone in PSU IT? Legal? Risk Mgt? If BOT, wouldn't they have to direct someone to do the dirty work?

All roads lead to Tom Corbett, however, you won't find any direct evidence of his involvement. Corbett was motivated to get Spanier fired and he likely knew that Freeh would produce a report with a predetermined outcome in support of his/the AG's ongoing investigation.

The evidence from the BP case indicates that Louis Freeh was likely behind the actual tampering.

The BOT inner circle also was motivated to have Freeh deliver a report that would justify the firing of Paterno and Spanier. Freeh's entire justification for firing Spanier and Paterno hinges on very questionable piece of evidence that our BOT paid him $8.5 million to produce.

Note that in late January 2012, Erickson's notes stated that Fina "expected C&S to flip" on Spanier. Two months after they were charged, C&S didn't flip. Fina needed more leverage and I think that Freeh's emails - and the Freeh Report press conference theatrics -- were supposed to make that happen.

Frazier: "those documents say what they say and no amount of hand waving can change what those documents say."

Lots of people with the last name beginning in "F" appear to have had a hand in this thing.

 

[LundyPSU]

So, IF this goes the way it should....

1. The alumni trustees have access to the Freeh source materials.
2. If handed paper copies, then they should request original data files from the April 2011 USB drives that were provided to Baldwin by John Corro (PSU IT).
3. The alumni trustees prove the emails were subjected to tampering.
4. All hell breaks loose....

And what else was in the Schultz paper file that we haven't seen yet...

 

[lionlurker]

I still don't understand why every single person on the BOT has followed the company line and never wavered. Why did that happen? Did they really think everything was legitimate?

 

[nits74]

I still don't understand why every single person on the BOT has followed the company line and never wavered. Why did that happen? Did they really think everything was legitimate?

Because the BOT is primarily comprised of corporate hacks. This is how they got where they are and the way in which they survive.

 

[lionlurker]

It can't be that simple, can it? Didn't anybody ever ask any questions at all? I understand that some of them, like the guy who forgot he was a felon, are just plain stupid, but not all of them. It is just so statistically unlikely that not a single one of them ever disagreed with the leadership on any issue at all. I don't think they had a vote that was against the company lines for over 3 years. No company ever runs like that.

 

[Ceasar]

All roads lead to Tom Corbett, however, you won't find any direct evidence of his involvement. Corbett was motivated to get Spanier fired and he likely knew that Freeh would produce a report with a predetermined outcome in support of his/the AG's ongoing investigation.

The evidence from the BP case indicates that Louis Freeh was likely behind the actual tampering.

The BOT inner circle also was motivated to have Freeh deliver a report that would justify the firing of Paterno and Spanier. Freeh's entire justification for firing Spanier and Paterno hinges on very questionable piece of evidence that our BOT paid him $8.5 million to produce.

Note that in late January 2012, Erickson's notes stated that Fina "expected C&S to flip" on Spanier. Two months after they were charged, C&S didn't flip. Fina needed more leverage and I think that Freeh's emails - and the Freeh Report press conference theatrics -- were supposed to make that happen.

Frazier: "those documents say what they say and no amount of hand waving can change what those documents say."

Lots of people with the last name beginning in "F" appear to have had a hand in this thing.

Thank you Ray. This is the first I have anyone lay out a detailed and clear analysis of the motivation for altering documents. And I agree the Freeh/BP case is vital as it shows a pattern.

 

[nits74]

It can't be that simple, can it? Didn't anybody ever ask any questions at all? I understand that some of them, like the guy who forgot he was a felon, are just plain stupid, but not all of them. It is just so statistically unlikely that not a single one of them ever disagreed with the leadership on any issue at all. I don't think they had a vote that was against the company lines for over 3 years. No company ever runs like that.

At that level, many do. And Boards of Directors are largely rubber stamps. In this case when the sh!t actually hit the fan, they had no idea what to do, because their positions were largely ceremonial and window dressing to support their primary interests (their companies and ultimately themselves). So, as people like this generally do in such cases, they nodded their collective heads and followed the plan to deflect blame. As long as the BOT continues to operate in the manner they have, no one is likely to break ranks.

 

[Mixolydian]

I can't stand Ken Frazier, but I am having a really hard time seeing him (or most of the nimrods on the 2011 BoT for that matter) directly or even knowingly involved in evidence tampering in this criminal case.. I get that they would prefer that Freeh find justification for firing Joe, but that isn't enough to take such a risk. There has to be more to this.

Not at all saying the emails weren't doctored, but some of this is getting a little far fetched. Corbett, the OAG and Freeh's involvement make sense to me, but I'm struggling to see how the BoT fits in if the emails were indeed altered. I guess some small subset of them may have something else at stake and could have tried to pull it off. But what?

 

[rmb297]

At that level, many do. And Boards of Directors are largely rubber stamps. In this case when the sh!t actually hit the fan, they had no idea what to do, because their positions were largely ceremonial and window dressing to support their primary interests (their companies and ultimately themselves). So, as people like this generally do in such cases, they nodded their collective heads and followed the plan to deflect blame. As long as the BOT continues to operate in the manner they have, no one is likely to break ranks.

The composition of the 11/9/11 BOT and its predecessors was as follows:
a) An small inner circle of 4-5 members that controlled everything (Surma, Lubert, Hintz, etc)
b) A second group of members who were the "Preatorian Guard" -- those who were corrupt and influenced to do the bidding of the inner circle (e.g., Dambly, Peetz, Frazier, etc). These individuals sat on the group with the inner circle when it came time to select new Presidents.
c) The sheeple (e.g., Riley, Huber, Shaffer, Myers, Arnelle, Alexander, Jones, etc). Mostly the Ag and Alumni trustees.

The Inner Circle helped make the shit hit the fan for Spanier, Paterno, and the football program. Then they sat back and watched when the media burnt PSU to the ground. Where they went wrong was in thinking the Alumni were going to be pushovers like the Alumni elected trustees were in 2011.

Someone will break when it comes down to them going to jail or them saving their own backside.

 

[fairfaxlion2]

I can't stand Ken Frazier, but I am having a really hard time seeing him (or most of the nimrods on the 2011 BoT for that matter) directly or even knowingly involved in evidence tampering in this criminal case.. I get that they would prefer that Freeh find justification for firing Joe, but that isn't enough to take such a risk. There has to be more to this.

Not at all saying the emails weren't doctored, but some of this is getting a little far fetched. Corbett, the OAG and Freeh's involvement make sense to me, but I'm struggling to see how the BoT fits in if the emails were indeed altered. I guess some small subset of them may have something else at stake and could have tried to pull it off. But what?

I think it's actually really simple. Frazier thought he was a genius who could commission a report that would minimize PSU's liability. That process got diverted by political forces, and the report instead maximized PSU's liability and was used to generate a very specific storyline (very specific, as in specifically never looking into the second mile).

 

[rmb297]

I can't stand Ken Frazier, but I am having a really hard time seeing him (or most of the nimrods on the 2011 BoT for that matter) directly or even knowingly involved in evidence tampering in this criminal case.. I get that they would prefer that Freeh find justification for firing Joe, but that isn't enough to take such a risk. There has to be more to this.

Not at all saying the emails weren't doctored, but some of this is getting a little far fetched. Corbett, the OAG and Freeh's involvement make sense to me, but I'm struggling to see how the BoT fits in if the emails were indeed altered. I guess some small subset of them may have something else at stake and could have tried to pull it off. But what?

PSU turned the mails over in 2011.
Spanier was not charged in 2011.

Spanier was charged in 2012 for what an email from 2011 said.
PSU didn't object to the evidence and Frazier vehemently promoted their contents.

Are you suggesting Cynthia Baldwin was the mastermind here?

Let me help you out. Ken "Vioxx" Frazier became a member of the BOT in July 2009....right at the time the BOT approached Spanier about PSU getting their own in-house counsel.

Who do you think was calling the legal shots, Frazier or Baldwin?

There was hardly any risk involved. Who in the world was ever going to question emails that were found by a man (Freeh) with such an impeccable reputation and that were being used as evidence by the AG?

If Freeh's team did a better job tampering with the emails, I never would have suspected a thing, but the anomalies in the emails were very suspicious (obvious).

 

[Mixolydian]

PSU turned the mails over in 2011.
Spanier was not charged in 2011.

Spanier was charged in 2012 for what an email from 2011 said.
PSU didn't object to the evidence and Frazier vehemently promoted their contents.

Are you suggesting Cynthia Baldwin was the mastermind here?

Let me help you out. Ken "Vioxx" Frazier became a member of the BOT in July 2009....right at the time the BOT approached Spanier about PSU getting their own in-house counsel.

Who do you think was calling the legal shots, Frazier or Baldwin?

There was hardly any risk involved. Who in the world was ever going to question emails that were found by a man (Freeh) with such an impeccable reputation and that were being used as evidence by the AG?

If Freeh's team did a better job tampering with the emails, I never would have suspected a thing, but the anomalies in the emails were very suspicious (obvious).

Who in the world? They had to know that Spanier, Schultz and Curley would ferociously defend themselves with first class counsel. Seems pretty risky to me. I guess if you're right they put too much faith in Freeh.

 

[LundyPSU]

Who in the world? They had to know that Spanier, Schultz and Curley would ferociously defend themselves with first class counsel. Seems pretty risky to me. I guess if you're right they put too much faith in Freeh.

It may be less about tampering with the content of the emails and more about how the emails were presented. A whole lot of context missing and I suspect other emails or documents that we have not seen

 

[Mixolydian]

It may be less about tampering with the content of the emails and more about how the emails were presented. A whole lot of context missing and I suspect other emails or documents that we have not seen

Great point. I forgot about that.

I do wonder how complete and "untouched" a set of these original emails our Alumni Trustees will ever see. They have had a long time to scrub them.

 

[lionlurker]

True, but they run an enormous risk, given the rumors of university and Freeh employees switching sides. I'm sure Sollers knows what the deal is, and can be helpful.

 

[Zenophile]

So, IF this goes the way it should....

3. The alumni trustees prove the emails were subjected to tampering.
4. All hell breaks loose....

And if Paterno, et al. were to engage, for example, a former FBI forensics expert, they may well be holding open one of the gates.

 

[BobPSU92]

I still don't understand why every single person on the BOT has followed the company line and never wavered. Why did that happen? Did they really think everything was legitimate?

They eat well at those meetings.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

True, but they run an enormous risk, given the rumors of university and Freeh employees switching sides. I'm sure Sollers knows what the deal is, and can be helpful.

Very true LL.

A good time to be reminded that one of the parameters of Howsare's ruling (the Judge who said the Trustees get access to the Freeh File documents) was this:

The Trustees could NOT employ the services of Sollers and Company while undertaking their review (this didn't get much - if any - attention at the time of the ruling, but it was - IMHO - a very interesting little passage in his order).

Now, I would think there are ways to work around that - if, indeed, Sollers group has relevant information.....but it will need to be done carefully.

 

[lionlurker]

That is an interesting blurb. That had to come from somewhere. Does the judge know something?

 

[Aoshiro]

Who in the world? They had to know that Spanier, Schultz and Curley would ferociously defend themselves with first class counsel. Seems pretty risky to me. I guess if you're right they put too much faith in Freeh.

I'm pretty sure that Corbett, Fina et al expected the PSU admins to plead out and slink away.

 

[Marshall30]

Question for anyone who may know...in light of all of the recent discussions on PSU payouts and insurance/non-insurance coverage, why haven't state legislators been very publicly been asking questions of the BOT? It is beginning to look more and more that the PA state taxpayers have been picking up the tab for this.

Where is the oversight?

There is none. Some Legislators are no doubt in bed with the BoT.

 

[Zenophile]

I can see that some legislators are quietly acquiescing but I as politically contentious as Harrisburg is today I don't understand why others are not shouting "malfeasance" from the rooftops?

Perhaps they are quietly hoping to avoid similar scrutiny.

 

[rmb297]

Who in the world? They had to know that Spanier, Schultz and Curley would ferociously defend themselves with first class counsel. Seems pretty risky to me. I guess if you're right they put too much faith in Freeh.

Unfortunately, at the July 2013 preliminary hearing, none of the legal teams brought along a computer forensics expert who, had they been in attendance, would have recognized all of the shortcomings of Braden Cook -- the PA OAG's computer forensics expert's testimony.

The result was that NONE of the legal teams objected to the authenticity of the emails or even questioned the deficient explanations provided by Cook.

As an interesting aside, someone mentioned the possibility of altered emails to Sally Jenkins and her reaction was incredulous (i.e., how could anyone lodge such a serious accusation against a man with the credentials of Louis Freeh?).

I'm pretty sure the C/S/S legal teams know that Freeh is a fraud and didn't discover anything. Obviously, they knew his claim of finding the Schultz file was false. And that kind of explains why Tim Curley referred to the Freeh Report as a "joke." However, they should have realized that if Freeh lied about the Schultz file that he was also likely lying about the emails. After the Moulton Report, Freeh's claim of independent discovery went out the window.

And again, unfortunately, none of the slobbering fools in the media who bought Freeh's garbage are willing to admit they all got taken in by a fraud. None of the media present at the July 2013 hearing made a peep about Freeh's claims being debunked by Cook and Kimberly Belcher.

 

[rmb297]

I'm pretty sure that Corbett, Fina et al expected the PSU admins to plead out and slink away.

That's pretty much documented in Erickson's notes.

 

[rmb297]

It may be less about tampering with the content of the emails and more about how the emails were presented. A whole lot of context missing and I suspect other emails or documents that we have not seen

One of the trustees filings contains an exhibit that is a discovery request from Victim 9's attorney. The request lists all of the source document numbers from the Freeh Report and that each document be produced. IIRC, it was a long list of perhaps 30-70 documents.

I agree that in some cases Freeh just used excerpts from emails and not the full emails.

 

[JmmyW]

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/media/upload/MCQUEARY MOTION TO DETERMINE SUFFICIENCY OF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO 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.

Looks like PSU responded on 12/14/2015 to McQueary's 10/9/2015 motion, which he has withdrawn as moot. I haven't seen anything that indicates how PSU responded. FYI.
-----

McQueary withdraws motion after Penn State response | Centre Daily Times
12/21/2015
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/article50931330.html

BY LORI FALCE
lfalce@centredaily.com
Mike McQueary’s attorney is withdrawing a motion.

In a document filed in Centre County court on Monday but dated last week, Elliot Strokoff asked the Prothonotary’s Office to withdraw as moot the Oct. 9 motion to determine the sufficiency of Penn State’s response for admissions.

McQueary, the former Nittany Lions football assistant coach whose testimony was key in the Jerry Sandusky child sexual assault grand jury and criminal trial, is suing the university under whistleblower laws.

In the October motion, McQueary’s camp claimed the university’s answers “did not fairly meet the substance of the requested admissions,” and that the two sides were at an impasse in their attempts to resolve the situation. Strokoff asked for a “judicial determination” of the genuineness and authenticity of the response.

According to the new documents, the withdrawal came in response to the Dec. 14 documents served via email, a second supplemental response to the plaintiff’s second request for admissions.

McQueary’s case was originally filed in October 2012, almost a year after Sandusky’s arrest and four months after his conviction on 45 of 48 counts of child sexual abuse charges.

McQueary famously testified to the most graphic incident in the case, the allegations of the assault of a young boy, officially known as Victim 2, in the showers by the then-retired Sandusky. Although it is arguably the most well-known incident of the heavily publicized proceeding, Sandusky was not convicted of the related involuntary deviate sexual intercourse charge.

Lori Falce: 814-235-3910, @LoriFalce

-----

McQeary's 12/21/2015 filing
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/MCQUEARY PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION.pdf

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Looks like PSU responded on 12/14/2015 to McQueary's 10/9/2015 motion, which he has withdrawn as moot. I haven't seen anything that indicates how PSU responded. FYI.
-----

McQueary withdraws motion after Penn State response | Centre Daily Times
12/21/2015
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/article50931330.html

BY LORI FALCE
lfalce@centredaily.com
Mike McQueary’s attorney is withdrawing a motion.

In a document filed in Centre County court on Monday but dated last week, Elliot Strokoff asked the Prothonotary’s Office to withdraw as moot the Oct. 9 motion to determine the sufficiency of Penn State’s response for admissions.

McQueary, the former Nittany Lions football assistant coach whose testimony was key in the Jerry Sandusky child sexual assault grand jury and criminal trial, is suing the university under whistleblower laws.

In the October motion, McQueary’s camp claimed the university’s answers “did not fairly meet the substance of the requested admissions,” and that the two sides were at an impasse in their attempts to resolve the situation. Strokoff asked for a “judicial determination” of the genuineness and authenticity of the response.

According to the new documents, the withdrawal came in response to the Dec. 14 documents served via email, a second supplemental response to the plaintiff’s second request for admissions.

McQueary’s case was originally filed in October 2012, almost a year after Sandusky’s arrest and four months after his conviction on 45 of 48 counts of child sexual abuse charges.

McQueary famously testified to the most graphic incident in the case, the allegations of the assault of a young boy, officially known as Victim 2, in the showers by the then-retired Sandusky. Although it is arguably the most well-known incident of the heavily publicized proceeding, Sandusky was not convicted of the related involuntary deviate sexual intercourse charge.

Lori Falce: 814-235-3910, @LoriFalce

-----

McQeary's 12/21/2015 filing
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/MCQUEARY PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION.pdf

Yes.....trying to figure that one out as well.

Can't see where anything changed - except for Strokoff now saying, "Don't bother"....with respect to verifying the provenance of the e-mails.

Must be something that is unclear/unrevealed.


Has anyone seen this "Defendant's (PSU's) Response" of 12/14/15?

I hope this Elliot S knows what he is doing - as far as I can tell, he is a one-man-band running this whole deal from the M McQ end of things.
I certainly don't expect him to be on par with W Sollers (and that group that he has at his disposal), and it seems that Elliot S is a decent, competent guy.....but I am not sure what his "expertise" is - assuming it is "labor law/unfair employment practices" type stuff, and this case is SOOOOOO convoluted, it may call for guys with expertise in numerous areas (but that may be more costly than what can be obtained).

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

All roads lead to Tom Corbett, however, you won't find any direct evidence of his involvement. Corbett was motivated to get Spanier fired and he likely knew that Freeh would produce a report with a predetermined outcome in support of his/the AG's ongoing investigation.

The evidence from the BP case indicates that Louis Freeh was likely behind the actual tampering.

The BOT inner circle also was motivated to have Freeh deliver a report that would justify the firing of Paterno and Spanier. Freeh's entire justification for firing Spanier and Paterno hinges on very questionable piece of evidence that our BOT paid him $8.5 million to produce.

Note that in late January 2012, Erickson's notes stated that Fina "expected C&S to flip" on Spanier. Two months after they were charged, C&S didn't flip. Fina needed more leverage and I think that Freeh's emails - and the Freeh Report press conference theatrics -- were supposed to make that happen.

Frazier: "those documents say what they say and no amount of hand waving can change what those documents say."

Lots of people with the last name beginning in "F" appear to have had a hand in this thing.

"Lots of people with the last name beginning in "F" appear to have had a hand in this thing". F Frazier.