ADVERTISEMENT

Good Day for the Good Guys

And it felt good to read this......finally, starting to work its ways through the appropriate channels. Hopefully there are many more good days for the good guys.
 
When the court asks a witness if they are represented by counsel, and they name a person who is sitting there in the court room, and the named person does not object or clarify some other position, then that person is their counsel. Why does this need to go to superior court?
 
When the court asks a witness if they are represented by counsel, and they name a person who is sitting there in the court room, and the named person does not object or clarify some other position, then that person is their counsel. Why does this need to go to superior court?
Because the initial judge bizarrely disagreed, so it was appealed. Then a judge agreed, and the other side appealed.
 
Because the initial judge bizarrely disagreed, so it was appealed. Then a judge agreed, and the other side appealed.


Mary Jane Bowes was one hell of an attorney. She was assigned by my insurance company to help me after I was sued in a "slip and fall." To be brief, she did one hell of a job. She is very independent minded and will not be manipulated. I agree; the guys will get a very fair hearing before her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PennSt8er
berkland4 is right on the money. How did this woman Baldwin ever obtain a position of such responsibility? She's an idiot, in my book. The current judge's question ("Who was representing these men in that grand jury hearing, if not Cynthia Baldwin?") is pretty telling, IMO.
 
When the court asks a witness if they are represented by counsel, and they name a person who is sitting there in the court room, and the named person does not object or clarify some other position, then that person is their counsel. Why does this need to go to superior court?


Probably because the state of PA is too corrupt to render a fair decision.
PA is making Chicago look good.
 
Mary Jane Bowes was one hell of an attorney. She was assigned by my insurance company to help me after I was sued in a "slip and fall." To be brief, she did one hell of a job. She is very independent minded and will not be manipulated. I agree; the guys will get a very fair hearing before her.

I've heard the same. I doubt these judges will give a crap about overruling Hoover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski
I was told told was a good day for Curley, Schultz & Spanier
Link to various remarks & story:
http://abc27.com/2015/08/11/curley-spanier-schultz-appeals-heard-by-superior-court/

"It’s been nearly four years since charges were bought against former Penn State president Graham Spanier and two administrators for covering up Jerry Sandusky’s abuse."

That alone is mind boggling. Whatever happened to the 6th amendment and how is 4 years without a trial not a violation of that?
 
Good news, good news. Unless you're one of those bot sycophants.

On an unrelated matter, I see from the article PSU has suddenly lowered the official costs of the scandal down to $80MM. Right...

Link?
 
You have to hope something's get to trial with or without Baldwin...

I am not a lawyer so I will let others fight on Baldwin.. I just don't understand all the intricacies of her testimony etc .

Maybe over all with the broadest scope is mikes civil case to see a court room but you have to hope all get to a court room... Criminal and all of civil
 
You have to hope something's get to trial with or without Baldwin...

I am not a lawyer so I will let others fight on Baldwin.. I just don't understand all the intricacies of her testimony etc .

Maybe over all with the broadest scope is mikes civil case to see a court room but you have to hope all get to a court room... Criminal and all of civil
C, S, and S could have told her anything and everything and it could be very damning. Either way, I want to hear what she has to tell and its up to the individual as to whether she is credible.
 
C, S, and S could have told her anything and everything and it could be very damning. Either way, I want to hear what she has to tell and its up to the individual as to whether she is credible.

Huh? An individual's due process rights be damned? Who cares what she has to say, she should be disbarred and charged with obstruction of justice (along with members of the prosecution and Judge Feudale) given what she has intentionally done here.
 
berkland4 is right on the money. How did this woman Baldwin ever obtain a position of such responsibility? She's an idiot, in my book. The current judge's question ("Who was representing these men in that grand jury hearing, if not Cynthia Baldwin?") is pretty telling, IMO.
She has been completely incompetent her entire career
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fox Chapel Lion II
C, S, and S could have told her anything and everything and it could be very damning. Either way, I want to hear what she has to tell and its up to the individual as to whether she is credible.[/QUOT
Huh? An individual's due process rights be damned? Who cares what she has to say, she should be disbarred and charged with obstruction of justice (along with members of the prosecution and Judge Feudale) given what she has intentionally done here.
last time I checked she was not in the country any longer
 
Good news, good news. Unless you're one of those bot sycophants.

On an unrelated matter, I see from the article PSU has suddenly lowered the official costs of the scandal down to $80MM. Right...
No. It says the tab is now $80 million. It will grow substantially from there assuming the fine keeps being paid, the legal fee continue to mount, and more victims come forward.

If they counted all the potential gifts that are not being given I'd suspect several hundred million.
 
No. It says the tab is now $80 million. It will grow substantially from there assuming the fine keeps being paid, the legal fee continue to mount, and more victims come forward.

If they counted all the potential gifts that are not being given I'd suspect several hundred million.

There was a big drop in licensing income that they're not talking about, too.
 
No. It says the tab is now $80 million. It will grow substantially from there assuming the fine keeps being paid, the legal fee continue to mount, and more victims come forward.

If they counted all the potential gifts that are not being given I'd suspect several hundred million.

Back when they had their website, the official tab used to be reported as much higher. I agree with you that it will continue to rise substantially and that they are deliberately underreporting some numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
Good news, good news. Unless you're one of those bot sycophants.

On an unrelated matter, I see from the article PSU has suddenly lowered the official costs of the scandal down to $80MM. Right...
I noticed that too. Are they no longer counting the $60 million fine because it is now a "donation" since the consent decree was dissolved? That is the only way this number remotely makes any sense. Just the fine and the victim settlements should put it well over $80 million without counting paying Freeh, Mitchell, and all the other assorted legal fees, consultants, PR advisors etc.
 
I noticed that too. Are they no longer counting the $60 million fine because it is now a "donation" since the consent decree was dissolved? That is the only way this number remotely makes any sense. Just the fine and the victim settlements should put it well over $80 million without counting paying Freeh, Mitchell, and all the other assorted legal fees, consultants, PR advisors etc.

Fines + victim settlements total about $150MM without all the stuff you mentioned or the big 10 fines, corman litigation costs, etc.
 
No. It says the tab is now $80 million. It will grow substantially from there assuming the fine keeps being paid, the legal fee continue to mount, and more victims come forward.

If they counted all the potential gifts that are not being given I'd suspect several hundred million.

As others have pointed out....that $80 million number is pure nonsense (LOL - what else would you expect from the "leaders" of Dear Old State?).

They could have said the costs were $4.27 with equal credibility.

I won't go into the accounting - of JUST the direct and available numbers - but even just the direct costs are SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION....at least.

There is no way to issue a definitive total costs - including the tangential fallout.....but I think even a relatively conservative LEGITIMATE estimate may be breaching $1 BILLION before it is all over.

IIRC - a "think tank" type of group (I wish I had made note of the name), at a annual gathering in D.C - estimated the costs would top $1 Billion......and that gathering - again, IIRC - took place last fall.


[EDIT....just to show how ludicrous that figure is.....I spent a hundred seconds or so just tabulating some of the direct costs (all in Millions):

CD Fine - $60
Services of G Mitchell - approx. $10 and counting
Louis Freeh - $9 (not even counting the internal manpower costs.....a real low-ball total would be $15-20)
Lost share of B1G Bowl Revenues - $6
"Victim Settlements" - $90-100
Costs to implement "Freeh Recommendations" - $12 up front + ongoing annual expenses
Reimbursement/Extortion of State's Legal Fees - $2

That's approx. $200 Million just of the direct costs, off the top of my head in about a minute

A few minutes more, and one could probably compile another $100 million or so.

And then you start to look at the indirect......the legal expenses for all of the lawsuits, court cases etc (any chance that comes in UNDER $50 million?.....the manpower hours for every employee "on the clock" with all of the fallout aspects....."brand damage", licensing, etc.....the ongoing, and likely institutionalized manpower costs -ie do you really think the DeGiorno-type positions WON'T become permanent costs? Or that we will ever NOT have those dozen or so "Inside Counsels" - and their administrative staffs - that we now support, on the payroll?

The costs will - LITERALLY - never stop adding up. LITERALLY! Think about that for a moment.

From now until eternity, every student who ever writes out a tuition check, will be subsidizing the malfeasance of this Band of Scoundrels

From now, until the day Old Main crumbles to the ground...this University, and the University's mission, will be handicapped by the fallout from the way the Scoundrels controlling this University have behaved.]
 
Last edited:
I was told today was a good day for Curley, Schultz & Spanier
Link to various remarks & story:
http://abc27.com/2015/08/11/curley-spanier-schultz-appeals-heard-by-superior-court/
Wendy, thanks for bringing this forward. Hard to say what an appellate court will do. I cannot help but believe that the OAG told Baldwin that it felt she could testify, and if she did not testify they were going to indict HER for some trumped-up bs.

Oh to have been a fly on the wall for that discussion between CB and the OAG.
 
"It’s been nearly four years since charges were bought against former Penn State president Graham Spanier and two administrators for covering up Jerry Sandusky’s abuse."

That alone is mind boggling. Whatever happened to the 6th amendment and how is 4 years without a trial not a violation of that?

Where is the "alleged" or "accused of" in the title?
 
If this is true:

Amy Zapp represented the attorney general’s office. She argued that Baldwin, in correspondence prior to their grand jury appearance, made clear to Curley, Schultz and Spanier that she was primarily representing Penn State University. Zapp was equally tight-lipped following the hearing, saying only, “We’re glad the court heard our arguments today and we’ll wait for their decision.”
Then this is over. It may have been the reporter screwing up. But if this was the arguement, then they admitted that they, at least, partially represented CS&S. If she represented them at all, this part of the issue is over IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PennSt8er
If this is true:

Amy Zapp represented the attorney general’s office. She argued that Baldwin, in correspondence prior to their grand jury appearance, made clear to Curley, Schultz and Spanier that she was primarily representing Penn State University. Zapp was equally tight-lipped following the hearing, saying only, “We’re glad the court heard our arguments today and we’ll wait for their decision.”
Then this is over. It may have been the reporter screwing up. But if this was the arguement, then they admitted that they, at least, partially represented CS&S. If she represented them at all, this part of the issue is over IMHO.

I had the exact same thought.
 
If this is true:

Amy Zapp represented the attorney general’s office. She argued that Baldwin, in correspondence prior to their grand jury appearance, made clear to Curley, Schultz and Spanier that she was primarily representing Penn State University. Zapp was equally tight-lipped following the hearing, saying only, “We’re glad the court heard our arguments today and we’ll wait for their decision.”
Then this is over. It may have been the reporter screwing up. But if this was the arguement, then they admitted that they, at least, partially represented CS&S. If she represented them at all, this part of the issue is over IMHO.
Perhaps CB couldn't distinguish between solely representing C/S/S while being paid by PSU and simultaneously representing all four parties. Maybe conflict of interest gets thrown out the window in the PSU/Sandusky/CSS cluster as have so many other judicial proceedings and practices. Talk about being pragmatic. Shades of grey in the Commonwealth Judiciary.
 
I apologize if this was already posted, but Baldwin drove Curley and Schultz to Harrisburg to testify. What do you think they discussed on the way? In what reality is she not representing them? This issue should have been settled years ago and the charges should have been dropped.
 
I apologize if this was already posted, but Baldwin drove Curley and Schultz to Harrisburg to testify. What do you think they discussed on the way? In what reality is she not representing them? This issue should have been settled years ago and the charges should have been dropped.

Lubrano posted, the other day, that Joe and Curley (I think, may have been Schultz) drove with Baldwin....the other (Curley or Schultz) was told to follow them in a separate car by Baldwin so that, in her mind, they couldn't discuss their story. this, then, begged the question as to why it was OK for JVP to sit in the car with her and Curley/Schultz but not Curley AND Schultz. Odd.
 
There is zero, nil, zilch, no chance Baldwin's testimony will be allowed upon appeal. Zero. This case (or at least the part that relates to her testimony) is over and always has been. The prosecutor's case is DOA and everybody knows it. This was a case they had no intention of pursuing. They wanted (1) key players silent and (2) at least one player to roll over on the others and strike a plea deal. The first thing happened. The second failed. Now the prosecutors are basically fukked and this whole thing is unraveling, albeit slowly. But it is unraveling.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT