Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
Didn't Barron pledge to study the Freeh Opinion and issue his critique? His public statement, unless he was lying, indicates he is very familiar with the issues at hand.
Well, he was, of course, lying about issuing a critique. Now he appears to be afraid to stand by earlier comments he made to others.
Last edited:
Kinda like Vicky Triponhertongue. She had a great deal to say until she was subpoenaed.
Barron also said he wanted to put to rest speculation that PSU was hiding something. This certainly makes me suspicious.
Her husband did, as well. That weasel all of a sudden got really quiet.
I cannot wait until she is revealed to the entire world for what she is.
Seems like a pretty easy response from the paterno side. "Barron is conducting his own review of the Freeh report" as he said many times so therefore he should be spoken to
Regrettably, I think PSU prevails and Barron gets a pass. The Paterno's need to depose Poole ....he's the Lucifer of Oz with the dirty hands and all of the answers.
Irrelevant.
Anyone can "conduct his own review of the Freeh Report."
Why should someone who had zero-zilch-nada association with Penn State University during the 2011-2012 time period (THE time period in question) be forced to testify?
At least as regards the Paternos' issues with the NCAA, Barron is absolutely irrelevant. Shoot, may as well subpoena John Ziegler .....
You're getting very testy lately, Mich. You don't like what you are seeing.
Just read the second link and I see Silvis, Lubert, and a few others are scheduled. That's a real shame, especially in light of the disparaging book they helped write. So sad.
One would think. But, if logic applied to anything related to this whole situation there would have been no criminal charges against CSS, there would have been no NCAA sanctions, Penn State would not have been paying victims $60M or Freeh 8.5M; the statue would still be in place; and there would be no need for these lawsuits. And alas, we would not have Barron as president, nor would we have had the douche bag that preceded him.
How long does it take to prepare when you tell the truth. Not very long. Preparations take a long time when you want to prepare a "message". What really could be more important than helping to close a long, very sad chapter in this great university's history? These people attempting to avoid, delay, obstruct and lie are all not worth the time or effort. Of course he will lie, his employment is contingent upon spewing the same story, until he actually believes it.
Relevance isn't the standard that applies to depositions and other discovery.
As Penn State says in their argument: Barron was not affiliated with Penn State in any way during the November 2011 (story broke)-May 2013 (Paternos sue the NCAA) time period.
So what could Barron --- a rather busy man, of course, whose time should not be wasted --- possibly have to say that is relevant as regards the Paternos' issue with the NCAA?
The Paternos have subpoenaed three other University reps --- note that Penn State is not looking to quash any of those three.
I don't understand the concern If Barron is truly without knowledge of the chicanery of the misanthropes.....he can say, "I don't know. I don't remember or I don't recall." You know, like Omar McNeill in his deposition.
Or he could claim he is suffering from dementia, like the crying janitor.
Or he could claim he is suffering from dementia, like the crying janitor.
Barron seems irrelevant to me in this whole thing. Is he being subpoenaed to embarrass him to show that he has not actually conducted any sort of an independent investigation?
Sure it is ...... you're essentially arguing that the Paternos should be able to subpoena the 763,243,106 citizens of Earth who have some sort of an opinion on the Freeh Report --- regardless of whether they have any sort of affiliation with the NCAA (the defendant) or Penn State (the nominal defendant).
Is that what you are arguing?
Barron had no association with either Penn State or the NCAA during the November 2011 to May 2013 time period. That's basically end of story as regards this subpoena.
Lubert, Masser and Silvis. They are being deposed. NO issues there. They were associated with Penn State in that time period, of course.
It is reasonable to assume Lubert, Masser and Silvis will have faulty memories. That's just MY OPINION.
Shouldn't you be eating "some" cookies or conducting surveys on the topic?
I'm going to take a stab at it... Barron said he was going to do a thorough review of the Freeh Report. If he did, he sure hasn't said a word about it. More likely, was told to drop it (my opinion, of course, but apparently an opinion is good enough for Freeh to slander people, so... ). That could be relevant, and it could be helpful to know who and why.
Now, as busy as Barron must be, I'm sure he has a strong interest in both justice being done, and the truth being known. I'm sure why he never conducted his much publicized review has a simple explanation, and therefore won't take long to prepare for, nor testify to.
"President Barron, did anyone encourage you to drop your assessment of the Freeh report?"
Well, Barron did open his mouth and claim he was going to become an expert on the report. That makes his findings relevant. I know, I know, you think PSU officials can have it both ways without any impact. That naivete is your fault.
You said the same thing about NCAA going after Paterno's rebuttal to the Freeh Report. Those reports were conducted after the Freeh Report was released. And yet, the judge disagreed with you.
Except Barron was NOT a "PSU official" during the November 2011 - May 2013 time period.
The Paterno lawsuit against the NCAA (and Penn State, as a nominal defendant) addresses issues during the November 2011 - May 2013 time period. What could Barron, a man with no association with either NCAA or Penn State during that time, have to do with the issues of that lawsuit?
Address that issue. That's the question that is being asked in the appeal to quash the subpoena. Address that issue, provide a substantive answer to that question. Thus far, you are not addressing that question, you are evading it.
Mich, it's over. The tide has turned, and the end result is predictable, just like Atlanta, just like FIFA. Get on the right side of this while you still can.
I must have missed the "tide turning" amidist the "Paterno Loyalists" continuing (for the 1460th consecutive day) to fail to provide a single piece of tangible evidence that the PSU BOT told Freeh what to write.
Come up with that silver bullet (I'm not holding my breath), and I'll believe the "tide has turned."
Well, the judge was wrong ----- but at least the NCAA's position there was 10000x times more defensible in terms of being relevant than trying to subpoena a man who had no association with Penn State during the November 2011 - May 2013 time period (nobody is addressing this point of fact!).
You miss the point of discovery. Not everything ends up being relevant, but you still have to look. One, and only one person interjected himself into this issue, and that is Frau Barron. Just like Vicky, he's probably going to be answering some questions, whether they end up being relevant or not. So sad.
We are one more day closer to the day when we will hear from the heretofore silenced C/S/S. And then we'll find out why they needed to be muzzled.
Dr. Barron "injected himself into the issue of Paternos vs. NCAA" about as much as "random New Mexico State graduate who has access to the internet, read the Freeh Report, then posted his opinion on the report on his blog (that 9 people read)" did. Go subpoena that guy too ..........
Jim Clemente was not affiliated with the Paternos until well after November 2011 and well after the Freeh Report was issued in July 2012 and Mark Emmert sanctioned Penn State and defamed Joe Paterno. And yet the judge says that the NCAA must have access to his records.
So if the NCAA can go after Clemente, the Paternos sure as heck ought to be able to depose the guy who stood up in public and promised that he was going to review the Freeh Report on behalf of the university.
You are a funny man or woman. Neither were Clemente and others. The judge will decide, and maybe you will say the judge was wrong again or you could say he was right. Regardless, the judge will decide and your opinion will mean squat.
That's not true. Frau Barron has access to the files, any correspondence with Freeh, any correspondence with the NCAA, etc. Whether he used that access or not remains to seen. He stated he planned to.
Maybe he hasn't done anything. Such is his prerogative. It's not exactly a "front-burner issue" in terms of running Penn State University.
But still, if he is inactive --- what relevance does Barron's inaction have to do with the issues stated in the Paterno lawsuit?
