Latest in Paterno v NCAA

[JmmyW]

Bump....

There are three recent items worth mentioning in the Paterno vs. NCAA lawsuit.

1. The NCAA is still seeking information on the allegations of Paterno's knowledge from the 70's. The NCAA argues that if there's truth to those allegations, then they didn't act with actual malice when they adopted the Freeh report and issued the Consent Decree. At the end of October, Judge Leete ordered depositions of the 1971 and 1976 victims to proceed. These may have occurred already.

2. A scheduling ordered was issued in December. Fact discovery is to be completed at the end of this month. But the schedule for briefs and reply briefs won't conclude until July. I guess it's possible it could go to trial before the end of the year.

3. The NCAA is still fighting the Paterno's seeking access to any documents between the NCAA and PSU related to the repeal of the Consent Decree. The Paterno's first sought this in discovery from the NCAA about a year ago. It's unclear what has been turned over already or what exactly the Paterno's are hoping to find now from PSU.


Status of Paterno vs. NCAA

10/28/2016 - Judge Leete issues order that victim (from 1971 & 1976) depositions proceed forthwith
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA ORDER DATED OCTOBER 27 2016.pdf

12/5/2016 - Judge Leere issues scheduling order
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...OINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN AMENDED ORDER.pdf

12/27/2016 - NCAA objects to proposed subpoena from Paterno's seeking documents from PSU related to the amendments and subsequent repeal of the Consent Decree.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...BJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED SUBPOENA.pdf


Some background on the above items: starting about two years ago

1/12/2015 - post from Tom McAndrew:

The NCAA made a lot of offers to Corman/McCord in August [2014] to stave off the Corman/McCord lawsuit. PSU's leadership was 100% behind the offers. The offers were ultimately rejected by Corman/McCord, as well as the Paterno Family in their lawsuit, so both lawsuits went forward.

Both the NCAA and PSU's leadership has been embarrassed by things found during discovery. Both sides would like to avoid any more embarrassment, so they've been seeking ways to get out of their current bind.

So if PSU approaches the NCAA with some ideas, one of which includes ripping up the Consent Decree, and the NCAA accepts, what does that do to the Corman/McCord lawsuit? What does it do to the Paterno Family et al. lawsuit? I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that if PSU and the NCAA rip up the Consent Decree, and also make some sort of agreement on the $60 million in fines (some in escrow, and some yet to be paid), then there isn't much left to litigate in the Corman/McCord lawsuit.

The impact on the Paterno family et al. lawsuit is more complicated, but I think (again, as a non-lawyer) that it would leave the Paterno Family to sue PSU, and not the NCAA, to seek the relief they have sought. Currently PSU is a nominal defendant in the Paterno Family at al. lawsuit, and the NCAA is the target. That would place the Paterno Family in a bind, as while they are not happy with the actions of PSU starting with Nov. 2011, they also have avoided going after PSU directly.

1/16/2015 - NCAA announces they've reached a proposed settlement in Corman vs NCAA pending approval of the Penn State board. The board voted unanimously to the proposed settlement terms. The Consent Decree was repealed.

1/19/2015 - After the repeal of the Consent Decree, Mark Emmett and President Eric Barron signed the Superceding Agreement Between the NCAA and Pennsylvania State University.

3/8/2015 - post from lubrano:

CDT: Corman attorney details fight against NCAA | BlueWhiteIllustrated.com
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/cdt-corman-attorney-details-fight-against-ncaa.2900/

Re: Tired and tried and tried....

I believe we know what we're up against.

My understanding is that legal fees to be reimbursed exceed $1.3 million. When told that we had agreed to make this payment to the state, we asked why the NCAA wasn't making the payment. We were told, "because they won't." We then asked why we were settling. With almost one month until trial, we could have waited. However, politics got in the way.

I must confess, I let you down. I should have voted against the settlement. I am sorry.

At the next BOT meeting in Hershey on March 20, expect to hear discussion about this during the public session.

4/8/2015 - post from Tom McAndrew:

FC: Corman speaks: "We sent the Big Ten a letter" | Page 2 | BlueWhiteIllustrated.com
https://bwi.forumdev.rivals.com/threads/fc-corman-speaks-we-sent-the-big-ten-a-letter.7204/page-2

several of you are missing the forest from the trees ...

hey, I understand the desire by most/many to get all the facts. I share that desire. Would we have gotten more than what we currently have if the Corman/McCord lawsuit were settled before it went to trial? That's hard to say. I think Corman has taken far too much grief over the lawsuit. It accomplished way more than most thought was possible when it was filed.

Barry, your views on Corman are pretty well established. I just don't get the constant attacks on him. It's as though you just won the Powerball for 40 mill, but want to spend all your time bitter that your win didn't come when the pot was 600 mill. Yes, you didn't win as much as you might have if everything had gone as you imagined, but 40 mill is still a huge amount -- enjoy it.

Senatedon is offering a lot of good info here. I wish more of you would comprehend what he is saying.

There is still a lot of bitterness, which I understand, and think is somewhat justified. The BOT of Nov. 2011 made so many terrible decisions that in hindsight it's hard to fathom what they were thinking, or why they took such actions. That was compounded by their hiring of Louie the Liar, and then having Erickson, Peetz, and a few other trustees handle things in July 2012. They did a terrible job in their discussions with the NCAA, along with a number of other issues they handled.

So now folks are ticked about the B1G bowl revenue money that was withheld from PSU. Most of that can be blamed on the BOT leadership of July 2012. In addition, President Barron used the Chamberlain/Erickson model when he negotiated with the B1G Presidents after the Corman/McCord lawsuit was dropped. If you want to direct your anger at someone, I would focus it on Barron.

As for Corman, he's doing more to try to achieve what most of you seem to want regarding the B1G than anyone else, and for that he gets ripped here. (And I should note, he gave very broad details of what his communication with the B1G has been.)

As for Yudichak's bill, it remains to be seen if Corman will or will not back it. He's getting a lot of pressure from alums and those in favor of improved governance to do so, and a lot of pressure from the BOT and other stakeholders to not do so. I don't understand the reason for ripping him for not being a sponsor or public supporter of the bill at this time when his position remains to be seen.

Just some thoughts on many things I've seen in this thread.

Tom

5/6/2015 - Ken Frazier was deposed in the Corman vs NCAA lawsuit. At p.35 he testified:
"We also took the position that our fiduciary obligation required us to get enough information to understand the merits of any particular [victim] claim and to avoid paying claims that were either not legitimate or were inflated."

...

2/25/2016 - Paterno attorneys finally depose Louis Freeh.

3/29/2016 - Judge Leete order to Paterno's to narrow their discovery request regarding Corman Settlement documents (p.13)

3/30/2016 - Penn State files a motion attempting to quash a subpoena to President Barron to be deposed by the Paterno's attorneys. Penn State attorneys argued that:
"Compelling [Barron] to prepare for and attend such a deposition would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden and expense, especially in view of President Barron's substantial professional commitments between now and April 29, 2016 (the discovery cut-off in this case)."

4/5/2016 - Paterno filing made in accordance with Leete's 3/29/2016 order narrowing the document request (p.8)

4/11/2016 - Judge Leete issues an order compelling Barron to be deposed.

5/8/2016 - President Barron issued a statement on the recent claims from 1970s victims. He wrote:
"First, the allegations related tomPenn State are simply not established fact. The two allegations related to knowledge by Coach Paterno are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence other than a claim by an alleged victim. They date from the 1970s. Coach Paterno is not alive to refute them. His family has denied them. Second, we cannot find any evidence, related to a settlement or otherwise, that an alleged early assault was communicated to Coach Paterno. This raises considerable credibility issues as to this press report."

5/16/2016 - Judge Leete order, to reopen discovery to, in part, complete outstanding discovery requests (of which the Corman settlement documents are apparently a part), and to include new discovery related to 1970s allegations revealed in the PMA vs PSU lawsuit.

5/23/2016 - Paterno's file motion to compel. At p.6 of memorandum in support of motion:
"Plaintiff's respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion To Compel Production of Documents Related to Repeal of the Consent Dcree by Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association, responsive to Plaintiff's Third Request for Production of Documents, and provide a privilege log for any documents withheld by the NCAA on the grounds of privilege."

6/9/2016 - NCAA brief in opposition to motion to compel: the NCAA couches this document request as a last minute request for information that is irrelevant, inadmissible, and privileged. The NCAA complains that this would pose an unnecessary burden on them. The NCAA acts as if the Paterno's hadn't already been seeking this information, and complains that the Paterno's could have made this request a year and a half prior when the Corman suit was settled.

[Note - I think it is possible new information was revealed in depositions that led to the Paterno's seeking this information; similar to how the NCAA sought to reopen discovery the month before this filing when the PMA lawsuit revealed an accuser from the 70's. Did the Paterno's learn new information from the deposition of Louis Freeh or President Barron?]

10/28/2016 - Judge Leete issued an order directing that deposition/interrogatories of John Doe 71 (1971) and John Doe 150 (1976) proceed

11/3/2016 - The Department of Education released its Clery Act Report on PSU. At p.23 the report states:
"Ultimately, the University argued that it was unclear what exactly Paterno and Curley were told by McQueary at the time, or what they understood his words to mean, so there was no way to know if any of them believed the events reported rose to the level of a Clery-reportable forcible sex offense."

12/5/2016 - Judge issues amended scheduling order in Paterno vs. NCAA. The parties shall complete fact discovery by 1/31/2017; expert witness disclosures by 4/3/2017; supplemental expert disclosures by 5/1/2017; file dispositive motions & supporting briefs by 6/12/2017; and all responsive briefs & reply briefs by 7/24/2017.

12/27/2016 - NCAA files an objection to providing document requests related to Corman settlement & Consent Decree. Note - the difference in the most recent request from the Paterno's is that they are now seeking the information from a third party, Penn State, rather than directly from the NCAA. Regardless, the NCAA is still fighting release of documents related to the Corman settlement and dissolution of the Consent Decree. What exactly are they worried about?

 

[WyomingLion]

Bump....

There are three recent items worth mentioning in the Paterno vs. NCAA lawsuit.

1. The NCAA is still seeking information on the allegations of Paterno's knowledge from the 70's. The NCAA argues that if there's truth to those allegations, then they didn't act with actual malice when they adopted the Freeh report and issued the Consent Decree. At the end of October, Judge Leete ordered depositions of the 1971 and 1976 victims to proceed. These may have occurred already.

2. A scheduling ordered was issued in December. Fact discovery is to be completed at the end of this month. But the schedule for briefs and reply briefs won't conclude until July. I guess it's possible it could go to trial before the end of the year.

3. The NCAA is still fighting the Paterno's seeking access to any documents between the NCAA and PSU related to the repeal of the Consent Decree. The Paterno's first sought this in discovery from the NCAA about a year ago. It's unclear what has been turned over already or what exactly the Paterno's are hoping to find now from PSU.


Status of Paterno vs. NCAA

10/28/2016 - Judge Leete issues order that victim (from 1971 & 1976) depositions proceed forthwith
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA ORDER DATED OCTOBER 27 2016.pdf

12/5/2016 - Judge Leere issues scheduling order
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN AMENDED ORDER.pdf

12/27/2016 - NCAA objects to proposed subpoena from Paterno's seeking documents from PSU related to the amendments and subsequent repeal of the Consent Decree.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA NCAAS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED SUBPOENA.pdf


Some background on the above items: starting about two years ago

1/12/2015 - post from Tom McAndrew:


1/16/2015 - NCAA announces they've reached a proposed settlement in Corman vs NCAA pending approval of the Penn State board. The board voted unanimously to the proposed settlement terms. The Consent Decree was repealed.

1/19/2015 - After the repeal of the Consent Decree, Mark Emmett and President Eric Barron signed the Superceding Agreement Between the NCAA and Pennsylvania State University.

3/8/2015 - post from lubrano:


4/8/2015 - post from Tom McAndrew:


5/6/2015 - Ken Frazier was deposed in the Corman vs NCAA lawsuit. At p.35 he testified:
"We also took the position that our fiduciary obligation required us to get enough information to understand the merits of any particular [victim] claim and to avoid paying claims that were either not legitimate or were inflated."

...

2/25/2016 - Paterno attorneys finally depose Louis Freeh.

3/29/2016 - Judge Leete order to Paterno's to narrow their discovery request regarding Corman Settlement documents (p.13)

3/30/2016 - Penn State files a motion attempting to quash a subpoena to President Barron to be deposed by the Paterno's attorneys. Penn State attorneys argued that:
"Compelling [Barron] to prepare for and attend such a deposition would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden and expense, especially in view of President Barron's substantial professional commitments between now and April 29, 2016 (the discovery cut-off in this case)."

4/5/2016 - Paterno filing made in accordance with Leete's 3/29/2016 order narrowing the document request (p.8)

4/11/2016 - Judge Leete issues an order compelling Barron to be deposed.

5/8/2016 - President Barron issued a statement on the recent claims from 1970s victims. He wrote:
"First, the allegations related tomPenn State are simply not established fact. The two allegations related to knowledge by Coach Paterno are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence other than a claim by an alleged victim. They date from the 1970s. Coach Paterno is not alive to refute them. His family has denied them. Second, we cannot find any evidence, related to a settlement or otherwise, that an alleged early assault was communicated to Coach Paterno. This raises considerable credibility issues as to this press report."

5/16/2016 - Judge Leete order, to reopen discovery to, in part, complete outstanding discovery requests (of which the Corman settlement documents are apparently a part), and to include new discovery related to 1970s allegations revealed in the PMA vs PSU lawsuit.

5/23/2016 - Paterno's file motion to compel. At p.6 of memorandum in support of motion:
"Plaintiff's respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion To Compel Production of Documents Related to Repeal of the Consent Dcree by Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association, responsive to Plaintiff's Third Request for Production of Documents, and provide a privilege log for any documents withheld by the NCAA on the grounds of privilege."

6/9/2016 - NCAA brief in opposition to motion to compel: the NCAA couches this document request as a last minute request for information that is irrelevant, inadmissible, and privileged. The NCAA complains that this would pose an unnecessary burden on them. The NCAA acts as if the Paterno's hadn't already been seeking this information, and complains that the Paterno's could have made this request a year and a half prior when the Corman suit was settled.

[Note - I think it is possible new information was revealed in depositions that led to the Paterno's seeking this information; similar to how the NCAA sought to reopen discovery the month before this filing when the PMA lawsuit revealed an accuser from the 70's. Did the Paterno's learn new information from the deposition of Louis Freeh or President Barron?]

10/28/2016 - Judge Leete issued an order directing that deposition/interrogatories of John Doe 71 (1971) and John Doe 150 (1976) proceed

11/3/2016 - The Department of Education released its Clery Act Report on PSU. At p.23 the report states:
"Ultimately, the University argued that it was unclear what exactly Paterno and Curley were told by McQueary at the time, or what they understood his words to mean, so there was no way to know if any of them believed the events reported rose to the level of a Clery-reportable forcible sex offense."

12/5/2016 - Judge issues amended scheduling order in Paterno vs. NCAA. The parties shall complete fact discovery by 1/31/2017; expert witness disclosures by 4/3/2017; supplemental expert disclosures by 5/1/2017; file dispositive motions & supporting briefs by 6/12/2017; and all responsive briefs & reply briefs by 7/24/2017.

12/27/2016 - NCAA files an objection to providing document requests related to Corman settlement & Consent Decree. Note - the difference in the most recent request from the Paterno's is that they are now seeking the information from a third party, Penn State, rather than directly from the NCAA. Regardless, the NCAA is still fighting release of documents related to the Corman settlement and dissolution of the Consent Decree. What exactly are they worried about?

Thank You. I truly appreciate ALL that you have done and continue to do for this cause. You have been one of the faithful in this mess. Please stay in the fight. Best Regards.

 

[raleighnclion]

Great. At least another year before anything happens, if it happens.

I have no idea how anyone can be a lawyer by profession. Even if there is justice it often takes so long no one cares anymore. Which is exactly what is going to happen here. I don't fault the people who are fighting for fighting. But this has taken so long and will continue to do so, I honestly don't know how much it really matters. And that's sad.

 

[interrobang]

I still can't believe the judge let those allegations from the 70s even enter the court. Those allegations are so obviously tied to money and money alone.

 

[91Joe95]

Bump....

There are three recent items worth mentioning in the Paterno vs. NCAA lawsuit.

1. The NCAA is still seeking information on the allegations of Paterno's knowledge from the 70's. The NCAA argues that if there's truth to those allegations, then they didn't act with actual malice when they adopted the Freeh report and issued the Consent Decree. At the end of October, Judge Leete ordered depositions of the 1971 and 1976 victims to proceed. These may have occurred already.

2. A scheduling ordered was issued in December. Fact discovery is to be completed at the end of this month. But the schedule for briefs and reply briefs won't conclude until July. I guess it's possible it could go to trial before the end of the year.

3. The NCAA is still fighting the Paterno's seeking access to any documents between the NCAA and PSU related to the repeal of the Consent Decree. The Paterno's first sought this in discovery from the NCAA about a year ago. It's unclear what has been turned over already or what exactly the Paterno's are hoping to find now from PSU.


Status of Paterno vs. NCAA

10/28/2016 - Judge Leete issues order that victim (from 1971 & 1976) depositions proceed forthwith
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA ORDER DATED OCTOBER 27 2016.pdf

12/5/2016 - Judge Leere issues scheduling order
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN AMENDED ORDER.pdf

12/27/2016 - NCAA objects to proposed subpoena from Paterno's seeking documents from PSU related to the amendments and subsequent repeal of the Consent Decree.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA NCAAS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED SUBPOENA.pdf


Some background on the above items: starting about two years ago

1/12/2015 - post from Tom McAndrew:


1/16/2015 - NCAA announces they've reached a proposed settlement in Corman vs NCAA pending approval of the Penn State board. The board voted unanimously to the proposed settlement terms. The Consent Decree was repealed.

1/19/2015 - After the repeal of the Consent Decree, Mark Emmett and President Eric Barron signed the Superceding Agreement Between the NCAA and Pennsylvania State University.

3/8/2015 - post from lubrano:


4/8/2015 - post from Tom McAndrew:


5/6/2015 - Ken Frazier was deposed in the Corman vs NCAA lawsuit. At p.35 he testified:
"We also took the position that our fiduciary obligation required us to get enough information to understand the merits of any particular [victim] claim and to avoid paying claims that were either not legitimate or were inflated."

...

2/25/2016 - Paterno attorneys finally depose Louis Freeh.

3/29/2016 - Judge Leete order to Paterno's to narrow their discovery request regarding Corman Settlement documents (p.13)

3/30/2016 - Penn State files a motion attempting to quash a subpoena to President Barron to be deposed by the Paterno's attorneys. Penn State attorneys argued that:
"Compelling [Barron] to prepare for and attend such a deposition would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden and expense, especially in view of President Barron's substantial professional commitments between now and April 29, 2016 (the discovery cut-off in this case)."

4/5/2016 - Paterno filing made in accordance with Leete's 3/29/2016 order narrowing the document request (p.8)

4/11/2016 - Judge Leete issues an order compelling Barron to be deposed.

5/8/2016 - President Barron issued a statement on the recent claims from 1970s victims. He wrote:
"First, the allegations related tomPenn State are simply not established fact. The two allegations related to knowledge by Coach Paterno are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence other than a claim by an alleged victim. They date from the 1970s. Coach Paterno is not alive to refute them. His family has denied them. Second, we cannot find any evidence, related to a settlement or otherwise, that an alleged early assault was communicated to Coach Paterno. This raises considerable credibility issues as to this press report."

5/16/2016 - Judge Leete order, to reopen discovery to, in part, complete outstanding discovery requests (of which the Corman settlement documents are apparently a part), and to include new discovery related to 1970s allegations revealed in the PMA vs PSU lawsuit.

5/23/2016 - Paterno's file motion to compel. At p.6 of memorandum in support of motion:
"Plaintiff's respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion To Compel Production of Documents Related to Repeal of the Consent Dcree by Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association, responsive to Plaintiff's Third Request for Production of Documents, and provide a privilege log for any documents withheld by the NCAA on the grounds of privilege."

6/9/2016 - NCAA brief in opposition to motion to compel: the NCAA couches this document request as a last minute request for information that is irrelevant, inadmissible, and privileged. The NCAA complains that this would pose an unnecessary burden on them. The NCAA acts as if the Paterno's hadn't already been seeking this information, and complains that the Paterno's could have made this request a year and a half prior when the Corman suit was settled.

[Note - I think it is possible new information was revealed in depositions that led to the Paterno's seeking this information; similar to how the NCAA sought to reopen discovery the month before this filing when the PMA lawsuit revealed an accuser from the 70's. Did the Paterno's learn new information from the deposition of Louis Freeh or President Barron?]

10/28/2016 - Judge Leete issued an order directing that deposition/interrogatories of John Doe 71 (1971) and John Doe 150 (1976) proceed

11/3/2016 - The Department of Education released its Clery Act Report on PSU. At p.23 the report states:
"Ultimately, the University argued that it was unclear what exactly Paterno and Curley were told by McQueary at the time, or what they understood his words to mean, so there was no way to know if any of them believed the events reported rose to the level of a Clery-reportable forcible sex offense."

12/5/2016 - Judge issues amended scheduling order in Paterno vs. NCAA. The parties shall complete fact discovery by 1/31/2017; expert witness disclosures by 4/3/2017; supplemental expert disclosures by 5/1/2017; file dispositive motions & supporting briefs by 6/12/2017; and all responsive briefs & reply briefs by 7/24/2017.

12/27/2016 - NCAA files an objection to providing document requests related to Corman settlement & Consent Decree. Note - the difference in the most recent request from the Paterno's is that they are now seeking the information from a third party, Penn State, rather than directly from the NCAA. Regardless, the NCAA is still fighting release of documents related to the Corman settlement and dissolution of the Consent Decree. What exactly are they worried about?

Good stuff Jimmy!

 

[psuro]

And the beat goes on.

 

[LundyPSU]

Bump....

There are three recent items worth mentioning in the Paterno vs. NCAA lawsuit.

1. The NCAA is still seeking information on the allegations of Paterno's knowledge from the 70's. The NCAA argues that if there's truth to those allegations, then they didn't act with actual malice when they adopted the Freeh report and issued the Consent Decree. At the end of October, Judge Leete ordered depositions of the 1971 and 1976 victims to proceed. These may have occurred already.

2. A scheduling ordered was issued in December. Fact discovery is to be completed at the end of this month. But the schedule for briefs and reply briefs won't conclude until July. I guess it's possible it could go to trial before the end of the year.

3. The NCAA is still fighting the Paterno's seeking access to any documents between the NCAA and PSU related to the repeal of the Consent Decree. The Paterno's first sought this in discovery from the NCAA about a year ago. It's unclear what has been turned over already or what exactly the Paterno's are hoping to find now from PSU.


Status of Paterno vs. NCAA

10/28/2016 - Judge Leete issues order that victim (from 1971 & 1976) depositions proceed forthwith
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA ORDER DATED OCTOBER 27 2016.pdf

12/5/2016 - Judge Leere issues scheduling order
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN AMENDED ORDER.pdf

12/27/2016 - NCAA objects to proposed subpoena from Paterno's seeking documents from PSU related to the amendments and subsequent repeal of the Consent Decree.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA NCAAS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED SUBPOENA.pdf


Some background on the above items: starting about two years ago

1/12/2015 - post from Tom McAndrew:


1/16/2015 - NCAA announces they've reached a proposed settlement in Corman vs NCAA pending approval of the Penn State board. The board voted unanimously to the proposed settlement terms. The Consent Decree was repealed.

1/19/2015 - After the repeal of the Consent Decree, Mark Emmett and President Eric Barron signed the Superceding Agreement Between the NCAA and Pennsylvania State University.

3/8/2015 - post from lubrano:


4/8/2015 - post from Tom McAndrew:


5/6/2015 - Ken Frazier was deposed in the Corman vs NCAA lawsuit. At p.35 he testified:
"We also took the position that our fiduciary obligation required us to get enough information to understand the merits of any particular [victim] claim and to avoid paying claims that were either not legitimate or were inflated."

...

2/25/2016 - Paterno attorneys finally depose Louis Freeh.

3/29/2016 - Judge Leete order to Paterno's to narrow their discovery request regarding Corman Settlement documents (p.13)

3/30/2016 - Penn State files a motion attempting to quash a subpoena to President Barron to be deposed by the Paterno's attorneys. Penn State attorneys argued that:
"Compelling [Barron] to prepare for and attend such a deposition would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden and expense, especially in view of President Barron's substantial professional commitments between now and April 29, 2016 (the discovery cut-off in this case)."

4/5/2016 - Paterno filing made in accordance with Leete's 3/29/2016 order narrowing the document request (p.8)

4/11/2016 - Judge Leete issues an order compelling Barron to be deposed.

5/8/2016 - President Barron issued a statement on the recent claims from 1970s victims. He wrote:
"First, the allegations related tomPenn State are simply not established fact. The two allegations related to knowledge by Coach Paterno are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence other than a claim by an alleged victim. They date from the 1970s. Coach Paterno is not alive to refute them. His family has denied them. Second, we cannot find any evidence, related to a settlement or otherwise, that an alleged early assault was communicated to Coach Paterno. This raises considerable credibility issues as to this press report."

5/16/2016 - Judge Leete order, to reopen discovery to, in part, complete outstanding discovery requests (of which the Corman settlement documents are apparently a part), and to include new discovery related to 1970s allegations revealed in the PMA vs PSU lawsuit.

5/23/2016 - Paterno's file motion to compel. At p.6 of memorandum in support of motion:
"Plaintiff's respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion To Compel Production of Documents Related to Repeal of the Consent Dcree by Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association, responsive to Plaintiff's Third Request for Production of Documents, and provide a privilege log for any documents withheld by the NCAA on the grounds of privilege."

6/9/2016 - NCAA brief in opposition to motion to compel: the NCAA couches this document request as a last minute request for information that is irrelevant, inadmissible, and privileged. The NCAA complains that this would pose an unnecessary burden on them. The NCAA acts as if the Paterno's hadn't already been seeking this information, and complains that the Paterno's could have made this request a year and a half prior when the Corman suit was settled.

[Note - I think it is possible new information was revealed in depositions that led to the Paterno's seeking this information; similar to how the NCAA sought to reopen discovery the month before this filing when the PMA lawsuit revealed an accuser from the 70's. Did the Paterno's learn new information from the deposition of Louis Freeh or President Barron?]

10/28/2016 - Judge Leete issued an order directing that deposition/interrogatories of John Doe 71 (1971) and John Doe 150 (1976) proceed

11/3/2016 - The Department of Education released its Clery Act Report on PSU. At p.23 the report states:
"Ultimately, the University argued that it was unclear what exactly Paterno and Curley were told by McQueary at the time, or what they understood his words to mean, so there was no way to know if any of them believed the events reported rose to the level of a Clery-reportable forcible sex offense."

12/5/2016 - Judge issues amended scheduling order in Paterno vs. NCAA. The parties shall complete fact discovery by 1/31/2017; expert witness disclosures by 4/3/2017; supplemental expert disclosures by 5/1/2017; file dispositive motions & supporting briefs by 6/12/2017; and all responsive briefs & reply briefs by 7/24/2017.

12/27/2016 - NCAA files an objection to providing document requests related to Corman settlement & Consent Decree. Note - the difference in the most recent request from the Paterno's is that they are now seeking the information from a third party, Penn State, rather than directly from the NCAA. Regardless, the NCAA is still fighting release of documents related to the Corman settlement and dissolution of the Consent Decree. What exactly are they worried about?

NCAA argument in #1 is ridiculous

 

[Adlee73]

NCAA argument in #1 is ridiculous

I have no doubt the 2 Doe's depositions will be requested to be made public. Media will cherry pick it like before but hopefully it yields enough info for an even more thorough debunking or even identifying these frauds.

 

[Zenophile]

I still can't believe the judge let those allegations from the 70s even enter the court. Those allegations are so obviously tied to money and money alone.

That was the point of their introduction. The insurance company used them to illustrate that the board did little or no due diligence in paying out claims and also paid claims that were well beyond the statute of limitations.

It was (once again) the press who completely repurposed those documents.

 

[moofafoo]

Got it. I'm a little slow this morning. Can anyone explain the significance of these claims to the Paterno vs NCAA case? IIRCC, it's the NCAA that are bringing them into the case?

None. It shows the BoT and NCAA tried to cover up and failed miserably. The NCAA is trying in a sly way to say the BoT misled them.

 

[Zenophile]

Got it. I'm a little slow this morning. Can anyone explain the significance of these claims to the Paterno vs NCAA case? IIRCC, it's the NCAA that are bringing them into the case?

IMHO it's a desperation and/or a stall tactic. The OAG has already released a statement that the claims aren't credible.

I believe the NCAA is taking the position that if Paterno knew about Sandusky's proclivities since the 70's then it would somehow mean that the NCAA rightly named Paterno personally in the consent decree. which makes perfect sense because the NCAA had no idea of the existence of these claims at the time in which the consent decree was composed.

This makes about as much sense as launching a "comprehensive, independent investigation" to determine whether or not an employee should be fired months after the employee has been fired. Guess the NCAA has the same corrupted sense of cause and effect as the board of trustees does.

 

[bjf1991]

IMHO it's a desperation and/or a stall tactic. The OAG has already released a statement that the claims aren't credible.

I believe the NCAA is taking the position that if Paterno knew about Sandusky's proclivities since the 70's then it would somehow mean that the NCAA rightly named Paterno personally in the consent decree. which makes perfect sense because the NCAA had no idea of the existence of these claims at the time in which the consent decree was composed.

This make about as much sense as launching a comprehensive, independent report to determine whether or not an employee should be fired months after the employee has been fired. Guess the NCAA has the same corrupted sense of cause and effect as the board of trustees does.

It is truly - as you outline - one of the most inane actions in this entire 5+ year fiasco


STUNNINGLY inane


Which, I suppose, should have made it imminently predictable

 

[Zenophile]

I get the sense that as more info is painstakingly revealed the real conspirators (PSU, NCAA, & Freeh) will begin to turn on each other.

Jimmy's comment that this could go to trial by the end of the year is incredibly deflating.

The NCAA has virtually unlimited resources to stall any legal challenge until their opponent/s exhausts their ability pursue claims. This case is no different.

 

[bhill29]

If the claimants from the 70's are required to be deposed, wouldn't this give the Paterno lawyers the ability to cross examine during the deposition? May be this would not be such a bad thing?

 

[WeR0206]

IMHO it's a desperation and/or a stall tactic. The OAG has already released a statement that the claims aren't credible.

I believe the NCAA is taking the position that if Paterno knew about Sandusky's proclivities since the 70's then it would somehow mean that the NCAA rightly named Paterno personally in the consent decree. which makes perfect sense because the NCAA had no idea of the existence of these claims at the time in which the consent decree was composed.

This make about as much sense as launching a comprehensive, independent report to determine whether or not an employee should be fired months after the employee has been fired. Guess the NCAA has the same corrupted sense of cause and effect as the board of trustees does.

The non sequitur ness of the NCAA's whole argument re: 1970's allegations leads me to believe PSU paid those out to help support the NCAA in their suit against the Paternos aka sandbag the Paternos. As you and others have pointed out, not only where the 70's allegations absurd on their face but they were OUTSIDE the SOL and the OAG themselves said they were unsubstantiated. So, there were numerous reasons for PSU to NOT pay out these 70's claims, yet did so anyways...hmmm.....

 

[Zenophile]

If the claimants from the 70's are required to be deposed, wouldn't this give the Paterno lawyers the ability to cross examine during the deposition? May be this would not be such a bad thing?

That's the potential upside.

There's also risk inherent is cross examining an alleged victim, and it's especially true in this case.

 

[WeR0206]

If those things are true then doesn't that constitute a criminal conspiracy?

One would think, you could add that to the list along with the PSU OG BOT conspiring/colluding with the NCAA/Freeh/OAG as well.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

That's the potential upside.

There's also risk inherent is cross examining an alleged victim, and it's especially true in this case.

Add that Paterno cannot refute any testimony or defend himself; so, yeah - risky.

 

[bjf1991]

Something, I think, is being a little "lost" here.....and something that I THINK was part of Zeno's earlier point (if I inferred correctly). So let me take another whack at it:

The inclusion of the 1970's "stuff" does NOTHING to enhance the NCAA's case (just the opposite, if anything)


Assuming non-intellectually-retarded Jurists/Juries (OK........you can all please stop laughing now ):


The "stuff" from the 1970's (even if one took the ridiculous allegations at the "claimant's" face value):
A - Could not have been known to the NCAA at the time they took actions
B - Therefore, could not possibly be weighted as a "justification" for the actions taken at that time

Now....on the other hand......as Zeno mentioned....these "cases" were introduced into the primary case by the defendants - - - - the Insurance Company - - - - to illustrate the "ludicrous-ocity" of the PSU BOT handling of these ridiculous claims.
ie...they were introduced at the behest of the Insurance Company to show that the PSU BOT acted with the same "idiocity" as the NCAA.


The NCAA seeking to introduce this "stuff" as a way to justify THEIR actions is so far removed from common sense and logic as to be unidentifiable (though, in the world of "lawyers" - who will argue for years that "white is black", apparently, perfectly reasonable )

 

[JmmyW]

Thank You. I truly appreciate ALL that you have done and continue to do for this cause. You have been one of the faithful in this mess. Please stay in the fight. Best Regards.

I'm not going anywhere.

I still can't believe the judge let those allegations from the 70s even enter the court. Those allegations are so obviously tied to money and money alone.

NCAA argument in #1 is ridiculous

Got it. I'm a little slow this morning. Can anyone explain the significance of these claims to the Paterno vs NCAA case? IIRCC, it's the NCAA that are bringing them into the case?

If the claimants from the 70's are required to be deposed, wouldn't this give the Paterno lawyers the ability to cross examine during the deposition? May be this would not be such a bad thing?

The NCAA brought in the 70's allegations. I don't think the Paterno's are worried about it. In fact, Scott Paterno tweeted something to the effect they were looking forward to uncovering the truth - the NCAA even referenced the tweet in a legal filing.

The non sequitur ness of the NCAA's whole argument re: 1970's allegations leads me to believe PSU paid those out to help support the NCAA in their suit against the Paternos aka sandbag the Paternos. As you and others have pointed out, not only where the 70's allegations absurd on their face but they were OUTSIDE the SOL and the OAG themselves said they were unsubstantiated. So, there were numerous reasons for PSU to NOT pay out these 70's claims, yet did so anyways...hmmm.....

FYI - an interesting tidbit from the PMA vs PSU documents that were made public. Of the 30+ settlements for $90+ million, there were 14 settlements for claims that were outside the statute of limitations for a grand total of $4 million. That means the other ~19 claims were settled for ~$89 million.

Something, I think, is being a little "lost" here.....and something that I THINK was part of Zeno's earlier point (if I inferred correctly). So let me take another whack at it:

The inclusion of the 1970's "stuff" does NOTHING to enhance the NCAA's case (just the opposite, if anything)


Assuming non-intellectually-retarded Jurists/Juries (OK........you can all please stop laughing now ):


The "stuff" from the 1970's (even if one took the ridiculous allegations at the "claimant's" face value):
A - Could not have been known to the NCAA at the time they took actions
B - Therefore, could not possibly be weighted as a "justification" for the actions taken at that time

Now....on the other hand......as Zeno mentioned....these "cases" were introduced into the primary case by the defendants - - - - the Insurance Company - - - - to illustrate the "ludicrous-ocity" of the PSU BOT handling of these ridiculous claims.
ie...they were introduced at the behest of the Insurance Company to show that the PSU BOT acted with the same "idiocity" as the NCAA.


The NCAA seeking to introduce this "stuff" as a way to justify THEIR actions is so far removed from common sense and logic as to be unidentifiable (though, in the world of "lawyers" - who will argue for years that "white is black", apparently, perfectly reasonable )

Regarding your comment about the 70's allegations: "A. Could not have been known to the NCAA at the time they took actions." You are absolutely correct. In fact, the attorney for the 1976 claimant argued the same when filing a motion to ensure protective orders are in place.

However, the NCAA has argued: "The NCAA enjoys an absolute defense if those statements are true."

The Paterno attorneys countered: "The discovery the NCAA seeks would uncover, at most, only allegations by individuals regarding events that happened more than 40 years ago that have nothing to do with the Freeh Report or the NCAA's blind reliance on the report. It would not establish the truth of those allegations. Nor would it change the fact that those allegations were never mentioned or relied on in the Freeh Report, the Consent Decree, or the NCAA's decision to impose sanctions."

Regardless of the Paterno's arguments, Judge Leete ordered depositions to proceed for the two 70's claimants.

Here are links to three relatively short filings that address these arguments:
6/27/2016 - 10 pages
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...CAAS BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH.pdf
6/28/2016 - 6 pages
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med... RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY MOTIONS TO QUASH.pdf
7/1/2016 - 7 pages
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...AA THE NCAAS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE.pdf

Well, one last comment on the last filing linked above. I saw this quote at p.4: "As discussed in the NCAA's response to Penn State's motion to quash, Plaintiffs must prove that the statements in the Consent Decree are demonstrably false in order to prevail in this litigation."

However, Judge Leete's 3/29/2016 order suggests that this is not the only way to prove malice. NCAA contends here (and elsewhere) that plaintiffs must prove defamatory statements are false. Leete's order suggests that they can prove malice if the NCAA acted in "reckless disregard for the truth or falsity" of its alleged defamatory statements (p.5). Further, that proof of malice may be circumstantial. "Such circumstantial evidence can consist of deliberate efforts to avoid the truth and the taking of action to achieve a pre-determined outcome." (p.11)
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...CAA OPINION AND ORDER DATED MARCH 29 2016.pdf

 

[Zenophile]

"Such circumstantial evidence can consist of deliberate efforts to avoid the truth and the taking of action to achieve a pre-determined outcome." (p.11)
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA OPINION AND ORDER DATED MARCH 29 2016.pdf

I missed that initially, and it's very interesting. Since it's been well documented that the NCAA trained & provided material support to the Freeh team, IMHO this returns us to one of the central questions to the A9 Freeh Review:

How well does the information sourced by the Freeh investigators match up with the conclusions he delivered?​

So, in other words, we know what Freeh claims to have found, but upon inspection, will that information match up with what he actually found? Suddenly the answer to this question seems a lot more significant for the NCAA.

 

[TheGLOV]

Kinda like Vicky Triponhertongue. She had a great deal to say until she was subpoenaed.

Really?

Why did she go silent??

 

[TheGLOV]

A top journalist like Sarah Ganin of this very quickly!!

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Really?

Why did she go silent??

I think she developed a case of lockjaw. Or else she always had the face of a bulldog with an overbite.

 

[colt21]

I'm not going anywhere.









The NCAA brought in the 70's allegations. I don't think the Paterno's are worried about it. In fact, Scott Paterno tweeted something to the effect they were looking forward to uncovering the truth - the NCAA even referenced the tweet in a legal filing.


FYI - an interesting tidbit from the PMA vs PSU documents that were made public. Of the 30+ settlements for $90+ million, there were 14 settlements for claims that were outside the statute of limitations for a grand total of $4 million. That means the other ~19 claims were settled for ~$89 million.



Regarding your comment about the 70's allegations: "A. Could not have been known to the NCAA at the time they took actions." You are absolutely correct. In fact, the attorney for the 1976 claimant argued the same when filing a motion to ensure protective orders are in place.

However, the NCAA has argued: "The NCAA enjoys an absolute defense if those statements are true."

The Paterno attorneys countered: "The discovery the NCAA seeks would uncover, at most, only allegations by individuals regarding events that happened more than 40 years ago that have nothing to do with the Freeh Report or the NCAA's blind reliance on the report. It would not establish the truth of those allegations. Nor would it change the fact that those allegations were never mentioned or relied on in the Freeh Report, the Consent Decree, or the NCAA's decision to impose sanctions."

Regardless of the Paterno's arguments, Judge Leete ordered depositions to proceed for the two 70's claimants.

Here are links to three relatively short filings that address these arguments:
6/27/2016 - 10 pages
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA THE NCAAS BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH.pdf
6/28/2016 - 6 pages
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY MOTIONS TO QUASH.pdf
7/1/2016 - 7 pages
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA THE NCAAS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE.pdf

Well, one last comment on the last filing linked above. I saw this quote at p.4: "As discussed in the NCAA's response to Penn State's motion to quash, Plaintiffs must prove that the statements in the Consent Decree are demonstrably false in order to prevail in this litigation."

However, Judge Leete's 3/29/2016 order suggests that this is not the only way to prove malice. NCAA contends here (and elsewhere) that plaintiffs must prove defamatory statements are false. Leete's order suggests that they can prove malice if the NCAA acted in "reckless disregard for the truth or falsity" of its alleged defamatory statements (p.5). Further, that proof of malice may be circumstantial. "Such circumstantial evidence can consist of deliberate efforts to avoid the truth and the taking of action to achieve a pre-determined outcome." (p.11)
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA OPINION AND ORDER DATED MARCH 29 2016.pdf

So Jimmy how bout a little color commentating on the latest developments?
Make ya feel better or worse about anticipated outcome ?

 

[NC2017]

I think she developed a case of lockjaw. Or else she always had the face of a bulldog with an overbite.

She looks like a young Winston Churchill with a mullet.

 

[flash86]

She looks like a young Winston Churchill with a mullet.

Insult to Winston.

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[bjf1991]

View embedded media

And once again, the "benefits" of the "Corman Victory" rear their ugly head.......


SenateDon will be along shortly to make sure we know how "grateful" we should be to Jake Corman

 

[moofafoo]

And once again, the "benefits" of the "Corman Victory" rear their ugly head.......


SenateDon will be along shortly to make sure we know how "grateful" we should be to Jake Corman

I addressed some of this in the Bozeman Thread. Why Corman took his foot off the neck of the NCAA is a mystery known only to him. As far as the NCAA and their bullshit motions go, they will do anything to delay and further hide the truth. Their only ace in the hole is to blame the BoT for "misleading them".

 

[NittPicker]

View embedded media

If I was a betting man, I'd wager PSU will lose their argument. Don't they always??

 

[bjf1991]

I addressed some of this in the Bozeman Thread. Why Corman took his foot off the neck of the NCAA is a mystery known only to him. As far as the NCAA and their bullshit motions go, they will do anything to delay and further hide the truth. Their only ace in the hole is to blame the BoT for "misleading them".

Well, we all know the result of Jake's "work"

I'm not so sure the "why" is really a "mystery known only to him" though

I hear what you're saying, and we are probably in agreement here - but just approaching it from different angles:

But, there were certainly other additional parties (beyond Jake) playing a role (probably the lead roles....truth be told) in the Corman Surrender - - - - - and I think we all know at least some of the motivations (even if none of us can be certain that we know ALL of the motivations)

 

[WeR0206]

Well, we all know the result of Jake's "work"

I'm not so sure the "why" is really a "mystery known only to him" though

I hear what you're saying, and we are probably in agreement here - but just approaching it from different angles:

But, there were certainly other additional parties (beyond Jake) playing a role (probably the lead roles....truth be told) in the Corman Surrender - - - - - and I think we all know at least some of the motivations (even if none of us can be certain that we know ALL of the motivations)

I'll never forget watching the video of the BOT meeting when the Corman settlement was announced and how much glee and happiness was on the faces of the OG BOT. That's the moment I knew Corman was protecting them. That day was a bad day for the truth.

If you guys recall, the timing of Corman's settlement was very odd. Covey was literally a few weeks from releasing 400+ pages of emails between the OG BOT and NCAA. It made zero strategic sense form Corman's perspective to settle BEFORE those docs were made public. If he would have waited a few weeks he'd have a much better negotiating position. He settled when he did to protect his political benefactors on the PSU OG BOT and to an extent the NCAA who was colluding with them.

 

[bjf1991]

WeR0206:
"...I'll never forget watching the video of the BOT meeting when the Corman settlement was announced and how much glee and happiness was on the faces of the OG BOT. That's the moment I knew Corman was protecting them. That day was a bad day for the truth...."


Absolutely......and the Scoundrels weren't the only ones grinning and back-slapping like Politicians taking a payoff..



Not sure if you were there that day or not..........but that morning - up at the Penn Stater - as word started to get leaked about the parameters of the "settlement proposal" (at that point it was only a "proposal", as it had yet to be discussed/voted on/approved by the BOT):

EVERYONE I came into contact with - that cares about responsible governance and "doing the right thing" (and there were a LOT of folks attending the meetings back then) - was astounded, bewildered and PISSED OFF that the Scoundrels would try to pull such a maneuver - - - - - it was a "sellout" designed to protect the Scoundrels, that was clear and evident to EVERYONE.
And, we KNEW "our guys" would fight like hell against approving that abortion


Everyone who claims to stand for righteous governance was appalled - - - - except for, as it turns out, "our guys" - - - the A9:

When the A9 joined in providing UNANIMOUS approval for the Sellout.......there was a lot of outrage and disbelief in that room (among the folks who care about exercising responsible stewardship - NOT, obviously, among the Scoundrels and the A9).

When the A9 - after the meetings - adamantly tried to justify the Sellout as "the right thing to do"......it was obvious that each of them was either:

A:
Prioritizing something OTHER THAN responsible governance and duty to Penn State
ie..... Putting "409" above all else
(Stunningly, Louis Freeh was RIGHT.....about some folks.....when he said "Penn Staters placed football above the safety of children". It just turns out the the number of folks who fall in that category is a little larger than what we would have hoped to believe)

B:
Incredibly stupid, naïve, gullible

and/or

C:
Being led like one of the "sheeple"



Sadly, not much has change - wrt the A9 - since.......see Lubert, Ira - 34-0

 

[WeR0206]

WeR0206:
"...I'll never forget watching the video of the BOT meeting when the Corman settlement was announced and how much glee and happiness was on the faces of the OG BOT. That's the moment I knew Corman was protecting them. That day was a bad day for the truth...."


Absolutely......and the Scoundrels weren't the only ones grinning and back-slapping like Politicians taking a payoff..



Not sure if you were there that day or not..........but that morning - up at the Penn Stater - as word started to get leaked about the parameters of the "settlement proposal" (at that point it was only a "proposal", as it had yet to be discussed/voted on/approved by the BOT):

EVERYONE I came into contact with - that cares about responsible governance and "doing the right thing" (and there were a LOT of folks attending the meetings back then) - was astounded, bewildered and PISSED OFF that the Scoundrels would try to pull such a maneuver - - - - - it was a "sellout" designed to protect the Scoundrels, that was clear and evident to EVERYONE.
And, we KNEW "our guys" would fight like hell against approving that abortion


Everyone who claims to stand for righteous governance was appalled - - - - except for, as it turns out, "our guys" - - - the A9:

When the A9 joined in providing UNANIMOUS approval for the Sellout.......there was a lot of outrage and disbelief in that room (among the folks who care about exercising responsible stewardship - NOT, obviously, among the Scoundrels and the A9).

When the A9 - after the meetings - adamantly tried to justify the Sellout as "the right thing to do"......it was obvious that each of them was either:

A:
Prioritizing something OTHER THAN responsible governance and duty to Penn State
ie..... Putting "409" above all else
(Stunningly, Louis Freeh was RIGHT.....about some folks.....when he said "Penn Staters placed football above the safety of children". It just turns out the the number of folks who fall in that category is a little larger than what we would have hoped to believe)

B:
Incredibly stupid, naïve, gullible

and/or

C:
Being led like one of the "sheeple"



Sadly, not much has change - wrt the A9 - since.......see Lubert, Ira - 34-0

I was not there in person but I watched the feed remotely. Thanks for sharing that insight, I remember feeling exactly the same way....still pissed about not being able to see those 400+ emails we were waiting on. smh

 

[bjf1991]

I was not there in person but I watched the feed remotely. Thanks for sharing that insight, I remember feeling exactly the same way....still pissed about not being able to see those 400+ emails we were waiting on. smh

It was a surreal day.

It was a was very eye-opening day - - - - - not with respect to the Scoundrels and Jake (those folks who had been watching already knew what they were trying to do) - - - - but with respect to some of the folks we thought were "our guys".

Obviously - and unfortunately - it wasn't nearly eye-opening enough ......and we've continued further down the same shitty path for the last two years

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Well, we all know the result of Jake's "work"

I'm not so sure the "why" is really a "mystery known only to him" though

I hear what you're saying, and we are probably in agreement here - but just approaching it from different angles:

But, there were certainly other additional parties (beyond Jake) playing a role (probably the lead roles....truth be told) in the Corman Surrender - - - - - and I think we all know at least some of the motivations (even if none of us can be certain that we know ALL of the motivations)

Ummm, it's easily explained.....Fake Corman was "Majority Leader" of PA Senate (i.e., GOP was the Majority). Good 'ole Fake owed fealty to the same corrupt political junta that Corbutt did.....IOW, he was following the orders of his corrupt political "bosses".

 

[Nitt1300]

"justice delayed is justice denied"

 

[bjf1991]

Ummm, it's easily explained.....Fake Corman was "Majority Leader" of PA Senate (i.e., GOP was the Majority). Good 'ole Fake owed fealty to the same corrupt political junta that Corbutt did.....IOW, he was following the orders of his corrupt political "bosses".

Well.....you got two pieces together

Now, as to the other 498 of the 500 piece jigsaw puzzle..........

 

[Nellie R]

I'll never forget watching the video of the BOT meeting when the Corman settlement was announced and how much glee and happiness was on the faces of the OG BOT. That's the moment I knew Corman was protecting them. That day was a bad day for the truth.

If you guys recall, the timing of Corman's settlement was very odd. Covey was literally a few weeks from releasing 400+ pages of emails between the OG BOT and NCAA. It made zero strategic sense form Corman's perspective to settle BEFORE those docs were made public. If he would have waited a few weeks he'd have a much better negotiating position. He settled when he did to protect his political benefactors on the PSU OG BOT and to an extent the NCAA who was colluding with them.

Then there was that sticky McCord situation at the very same time which might have also had a lot to do with it. Somebody knew he was going to plead? What they may not have known was he was a cooperating witness wearing a wire on Ireland. I still think someone, likely NCAA got wind of McCord and that was a hand NCAA played in settling. Who knows what they may have found on Corman. Do ppl recall Treasurer McCord was a joint complainant with Corman in this countersuit against the NCAA?