Dammit Jimmy!! The Masters still be waitin' on you.
Grab your piss bucket chop chop!!
Good Day for the Good Guys
- Thread starter wensilver
- Start date
Dammit Jimmy!! The Masters still be waitin' on you.
Grab your piss bucket chop chop!!
Good point. I read stories using "allegedly" referring to Ray Rice "allegedly punching his fiance", even though there was video showing him punching his fiance, because he hadn't been convicted of anything. News stories use "allegedly" very, very consciously all the time, which means one can reasonably conclude that the non-use of it is also a very, very conscious decision.
You are the dimwit. CB's testimony will see the light of day whether it is used in a criminal trial or not. If she was their lawyer, her duties are clear REGARDLESS of what any retainer agreement says. Sheesh. Stop pretending you understand. It is okay to be dumb, but being a pretentious, lying dummy is really intolerable.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Keep trying sweet cheeks. I suggest you read Hoover's decision and why he ruled like he did. What Baldwin actually said or didn't say to Judge Freudale is in the ruling.
Last edited:
It was gratis as is custom in such situations, however, we don't know for sure because Baldwin broke the ethics rules by not sending them an engagement letter. Pa. R. Prof. Resp. 1.5(b): "When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation." This is what the Superior Court was referring to when it expressed surprise that Baldwin didn't send out such a letter.
And no, not having a letter doesn't mean that she wasn't their lawyer. It just means that she violated the rule.
We know what Baldwin said to Feudale.
Why did Feudale allow her in the Grand Jury room if she wasn't representing them and Feudale knew it?
Is Feudale incompetent or corrupt?
If that is accurate, I'm not sure they can even argue that considering there is a transcript of a conversation between feudale and Baldwin where she stated she represented, "solely the university". I mean come on....
CR.....along with a couple of the other Bot-bots.....has run out of wiggle room.
As you have probably noticed, they've reached the point where they now have devolved to just "making shitt up".
"The March of the Bootlickers, Toadies, and Piss-Boys"
As you have probably noticed, they've reached the point where they now have devolved to just "making shitt up".
"The March of the Bootlickers, Toadies, and Piss-Boys"
Rule 1.5 is entirely about the fee, and not about the scope of representation. I'm wondering if she could have actually violated 1.5 without charging a fee. That's not to say that she didn't commit other ethical violations. I just don't think it was this one.
Yes you are the dimwit. And no you did not retire comfortably in you your early thirties Jimmy. Nice try liar.
If CR were so sure that he stood on the righteous side, he wouldn't waste time here trying to convince us hoi polloi that he stands on the righteous side.
It's called whistling by the graveyard.
It's called whistling by the graveyard.
One of the reasons I NEVER wanted (or want) CR to disappear from this Board.
It has always been nice to look forward to these times when CR (and the rest of the piss-boys) go completely over the edge. Knowing what a completely pathetic worm he is.
I have been amazed that since day one those accused have been assumed the good guys by the majority f those on the boards. They certainly are entitled to presumption of innocence.
A friend I were talking earlier came up with an interesting question and a rephrasing of same question.
With all the key players in this ffing mess who do your trust or rephrased who's most honest?
Paterno's
The admins accused
The old guard bot and or the new guard bot
The old Ag the new Ag
The witness mike
Ray blehar and or john zeigler
I am sure I could ad more ....
Frighteningly between both of us there were four names and the list I gave you is what forty - fifty people and we factored in more then that.
A friend I were talking earlier came up with an interesting question and a rephrasing of same question.
With all the key players in this ffing mess who do your trust or rephrased who's most honest?
Paterno's
The admins accused
The old guard bot and or the new guard bot
The old Ag the new Ag
The witness mike
Ray blehar and or john zeigler
I am sure I could ad more ....
Frighteningly between both of us there were four names and the list I gave you is what forty - fifty people and we factored in more then that.
You can say whatever the hell you want about me, but I didn't have an employee in the department I oversee come to me and say that they saw a kid getting fondled / sexually abused in the shower--and then not report it to anyone other than the charity started by the person who did the fondling.
I mean Schultz himself told the grand jury that what McQueary communicated to him was sexually inappropriate. So let's not try to rewrite history.
I mean Schultz himself told the grand jury that what McQueary communicated to him was sexually inappropriate. So let's not try to rewrite history.
And you don't know this is true. And let's talk about JM and Dranov while we're at it.
Dukie - thanks for answering my questions the other day. I would like to ask you a few more. To your knowledge -
When did you find out about the shower incident and did you advise Mike to go to the police? If you did what was Mikes response?
Did you do anything to bring the issue to the attention of the authorities especially after it became clear that PSU apparently had not escalated the episode to the authorities? Did you advise Mike he now had to report the episode to outside authorities after it became clear that PSU had not reported it to uniformed police or outside child welfare agencies?
A poster on this board had claimed that about a year after the episode (I think it was a year?) Mike partipated in a charity touch football game where I believe Jerry was an honorary coach of one of the teams - this poster claimed to know this because he attended the event. Is there any truth to this allegation?
Thanks
Last edited:
Batters I can't comment on certain aspects for obvious reasons. Hope you understand.
Off subject from your question... I donated to the second mile from my business ... When asked and when I could. A framed print or something for auctions. The people who asked were good people trying to do a good thing for kids... The one lady I think now leads the state college food bank.
Anyway not what you wanted best I can do .
Off subject from your question... I donated to the second mile from my business ... When asked and when I could. A framed print or something for auctions. The people who asked were good people trying to do a good thing for kids... The one lady I think now leads the state college food bank.
Anyway not what you wanted best I can do .
History is something that is generally written after the entire story has been told.
Schultz (and Wendell Courtney, PSU's General Counsel at the time) also said the incident WAS REPORTED TO THE SECOND MILE'S REGULATOR - CYS/DPW. Given recent revelations about DPW and their County-Level CYS Field Offices policies & procedures, Schultz's and Courtney's statements are quite relevant and must be accepted.
Well, if they did exactly what Wendell Courtney advised them to do they are certainly not bad guys and they don't deserve to be treated the way they have. And if Frank Fina tried to coerce them to lie about Graham Spanier's involvement in this sordid mess and they steadfastly refused to lie and roll over on Spanier, then they certainly are "good guys" for having the integrity to suffer the consequences rather than go along with the Corbett/Fina scheme.
OK fair enough. The trials haven't happened yet. I think they all skate anyway. But it's a fact that Schultz knew all the details of 1998, and he admitted himself that McQueary told him and Curley that he saw sexually inappropriate behavior. Based on those two facts alone, they either were grossly negligent or willfully ignorant.
I really hope the trials do occur. I'd love for new info to come out that better explains one way or the other why these guys took the actions (inaction) that they did.
Of all the people in this mess, the person I am most curious about is your dad, not Mike. I don't say that in a malicious way, but he was a trained professional in these matters, and he didn't advise Mike to go to the police. Then we see your posts and they heavily question everyone but Mike. I get that, but your dad falls into the same category, and he supposedly was either the first or second person to talk to Mike.
The "details" of 1998 were that it was determined by trained child welfare professionals that it was all a big misunderstanding.
I don't understand why people think there is something damning about knowing about 1998.
If anything, it should be damning for CYS and DPW that they screwed up so badly, but for some reason they've escaped all blame.
You're completely mischaracterizing Schultz's testimony. He said he was told about an inappropriate shower. The "sexual" part you keep refrencing was was his response to a hypothetical question from the prosecutor.
cmon man, that is a total cop out! Schultz was asked to give an opinion (from a conversation 10 years ago) of what he thought Mike might have (possibly) meant by describing what he thought he saw but wasn't (definitely) sure he saw
it soooooooo obvious, how can you possibly have doubts???
If that were the case, why didn't his esteemed counsel, a former commonwealth supreme court justice, advise against speculation?
This is too funny. The guy just wants to be right... Pathetic.
Of all the charges, "failure to report" may be appropriate. There was indeed an incident that was not reported, but to take the position that it was a known molestation and not reported to protect the name of football is asinine... Fitting for you I suppose.
Carol is one of the many unfortunate collateral victims of Sanduskygate. She worked diligently at TSM for a long time because she wanted to help the kids. Was happy to hear she landed on her feet at her present position. Very nice lady.
Yes. Lord knows the world is harshest against those who report eyewitness accounts child sex abuse to the proper authorities.
Well if anyone should be charged with failure to report it should be MM,JM, or Dranov. They're the ones who really passed the buck.
The failure to report will never stick. None of the accused were mandatory reporters. That is another example of OAG trying the case in the press. They knew the charge would never stick....it just sounded good. Also, since it is apparent that Tom Harmon was in the loop....if anyone dropped the ball it likely was him. I believe he may have struck a deal of some sort.
I always thought the FTR should be applied to Raykovitz, if anyone, and certainly not CSS. JR was a mandatory reporter, phd in psychology, and director of a state licensed children's charity. Plus he was required to look into any and all incident reports no matter how benign. If anyone was qualified to deal with MM's vague assumtion riddled report, it was JR.
Yet he got a complete pass from press/OAG...hmmm. That wouldn't have anything to do with corbett's connection to TSM could it? I think so.
