His abject hate for the Paterno family, which evidently goes way, way back, will not him allow to do that. He'll carry this grudge with him for the rest of his life, regardless of the evidence.
Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
Since you evidently can "read my mind" and know my life story, when did my "abject hate for the Paterno family" begin?
I met JoePa once during my time on-campus. Nice guy, 10 minute conversation, I enjoyed it.
I guess you're surprised that I didn't pull out a shank and end it all there?
Then his questioning will be brief and probably not used in the trial. That's what happened with Vicky, but it was still relevant for discovery purposes.
I gave a potential answer. You're ignoring it.
Major difference and you know it. Nothing random about Barron conducting an official review as a sitting University president regarding an investigative report that continues to affect the University in multiple lawsuits. Knowing the PSU's current thinking on the Freeh report is relevant and that is something that Erickson cannot address. Being the president makes you the mouthpiece of the university, like it or not.
Short-sighted argument. To assume that Barron, who has been the President of Penn State since Rodney Erickson, has no knowledge of anything related to the Freeh Report and this litigation is preposterous. And that is what the Paternos will argue...and why they will most likely win.
Also, why try to quash? It makes him look like he and PSU have something to hide. Just sit for the deposition...it's a few hours out of his life. PSU has literally used every single legal maneuver allowed to avoid answering questions. Why? The answer is simple.
I'm not ignoring it. It's simply conjecture and a complete, 100% stab in the dark. If that's why the Paternos want to subpoena Barron, they can explicitly say so in their next court brief.
Especially when he said he was going to conduct his own investigation and issue his opinion on the matter after he felt he was fully educated on the matter and made this as an official statement on the matter within days of accepting the position as President of The Pennsylvania State University.
Yawn... You are boring and preDICKable. Your act had gotten old.
awwwwwwwwa how about some fig newtons and milk???
on second thought, forget the fig newtons. looks like its down to you as far as representing your side in all of this on the TM board. and frankly, with each additional post, you sound more and more like the junior varsity. tantrums, really unattractive behavior.
Everything that Freeh and Surma and Barron et al are doing, is a stab in the dark. They have no truth on their side, none, and that is why they have spent 4 years and a zillion dollars doing nothing but evading questions.
Try, just once, to not be a GD idiot. Wasn't it Barron who gave the "wink to the camera" interview about what some folks know
Somewhere there is a Men's Room that needs to be critiqued
Hop to it.....something within your pay grade
Ummmmm... YOU said:
I told you what Barron "could" tell them. And, actually, it's not conjecture. He could tell them if he was ordered to not conduct the review, and if so, by whom. If I "knew" exactly what Barron was going to tell them, they could subpoena me. But I, nor you, nor anyone else know, so I guess Barron will just have to answer the question himself. That's kinda how it works.
Give it up toilet boy
Now matter how hard you try, you will never surpass CR's incredible douchiness........not GTASCA's obtuse circle-jerkism.
It's difficult for Barron to read the report, let alone critique it, when his Hands are Up in the air and his head is up his a$$.
Also preposterous is the idea that Barron can not find time to appear for deposition (or would face "undue hardship"). In fact, that might be the most ridiculous argument in this entire sordid affair.
What you, me, or anyone does not know is who Barron talked to and what he may have learned. Maybe nothing, but until the questions are asked we won't know.
Last edited:
If after Barron took office he had conversations with members of the BoT relating to reasons for the termination of Joe which supported the plaintiff's cause of action, would that not be discoverable? If discovery reveals facts which may lead to the discovery of relevant information, shouldn't the scope of discovery be fairly broad?
I'm pretty confidant that nothing would come from Barron's deposition but I also understand why the Motion to Quash was filed.
It's very sad and unfortunate what happened to your late wife, but you can't and shouldn't possibly hold Joe Paterno, any of the Paternos or Penn State for that matter, responsible for the source of your misplaced anger at humanity.
Last edited:
Barron was the one who signed a new consent decree with the NCAA and forfeited the $60 million after the wins were restored. He is neck deep in this whether he likes it or not.
Mitch, the six shooter is loaded.
I for one will be elated when you release proof of Joe, Curley, Schultz and Spanier having contacted the police and CYS in 2001, as was done in 1998. At that point you will have vindicated Penn State and Joe. All Penn State graduates will forever be in your debt.
It's fairly evident that you're not a PSU'er. Care to share your academic background?
Harmon has already acknowledged that Schultz contacted him.
PSU President Barron Statements
November 2014: http://onwardstate.com/2014/11/15/president-barron-pledges-to-review-freeh-report/
“If there are issues [with the report’s completeness or credibility]that I felt the board needed to know about, I committed myself to come forward to them and report what it is that I found,” Barron told the Patriot-News. “I committed myself that I would spend the time to do that … and I will come back to [the trustees]and tell them if there are issues, or no, I do not feel there are issues.”
"I don't want it to look like we're hiding anything."
December 2015: http://www.centredaily.com/opinion/article42896760.html
"I have asked our attorneys to redact or withhold any piece of information that could reasonably lead any reviewer to know its source."
January 2015:
"I have to say, I’m not a fan of the [Freeh] report. There’s no doubt in my mind, Freeh steered everything as if he were a prosecutor trying to convince a court to take the case."
"[The Freeh report] very clearly paints a picture about every student, every faculty member, every staff member and every alum. And it’s absurd. It’s unwarranted. So from my viewpoint the Freeh report is not useful to make decisions."
"Unfortunately, there are a lot of shoes that have to drop. You could argue that public opinion has found us guilty before the criminal trials. There’s no doubt in my mind what was completely and totally wrong was the notion that this entire alumni base, our students, our faculty, our staff, got the blame for what occurred."
"Freeh expressed his personal opinions and conclusions about the motivation of individuals, rather than simply presenting factual information. Certainly, some of the content raises real questions, but only through criminal proceedings do you have access to all witnesses and only through this process do you view information from the counter-balanced perspective of both defense and prosecutor."
Selected comments of Eric Barron, 1/28/2015, Penn State president: Freeh acted like prosecutor in review, http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/c...36-11e4-8ca0-87df11afb36b.html?mode=jqm
and 1/29/2015, President Barron: On the challenges facing Penn State University post-Sandusky, http://news.psu.edu/story/342778/20...-challenges-facing-penn-state-university-post
November 2014: http://onwardstate.com/2014/11/15/president-barron-pledges-to-review-freeh-report/
“If there are issues [with the report’s completeness or credibility]that I felt the board needed to know about, I committed myself to come forward to them and report what it is that I found,” Barron told the Patriot-News. “I committed myself that I would spend the time to do that … and I will come back to [the trustees]and tell them if there are issues, or no, I do not feel there are issues.”
"I don't want it to look like we're hiding anything."
December 2015: http://www.centredaily.com/opinion/article42896760.html
"I have asked our attorneys to redact or withhold any piece of information that could reasonably lead any reviewer to know its source."
January 2015:
"I have to say, I’m not a fan of the [Freeh] report. There’s no doubt in my mind, Freeh steered everything as if he were a prosecutor trying to convince a court to take the case."
"[The Freeh report] very clearly paints a picture about every student, every faculty member, every staff member and every alum. And it’s absurd. It’s unwarranted. So from my viewpoint the Freeh report is not useful to make decisions."
"Unfortunately, there are a lot of shoes that have to drop. You could argue that public opinion has found us guilty before the criminal trials. There’s no doubt in my mind what was completely and totally wrong was the notion that this entire alumni base, our students, our faculty, our staff, got the blame for what occurred."
"Freeh expressed his personal opinions and conclusions about the motivation of individuals, rather than simply presenting factual information. Certainly, some of the content raises real questions, but only through criminal proceedings do you have access to all witnesses and only through this process do you view information from the counter-balanced perspective of both defense and prosecutor."
Selected comments of Eric Barron, 1/28/2015, Penn State president: Freeh acted like prosecutor in review, http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/c...36-11e4-8ca0-87df11afb36b.html?mode=jqm
and 1/29/2015, President Barron: On the challenges facing Penn State University post-Sandusky, http://news.psu.edu/story/342778/20...-challenges-facing-penn-state-university-post
March 30, 2016: PSU/Barron seek to quash subpoena to Barron to testify in Paterno vs. NCAA
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...AA MOTION TO QUASH THIRD PARTY DEPOSITION.pdf
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...OF MOTION TO QUASH THIRD PARTY DEPOSITION.pdf
The principal argument in the attempt to quash Barron's subpoena is that Barron was not affiliated with Penn State during the events underlying the lawsuit and "has no unique, first-hand knowledge that is likely to be relevant to any of the Plaintiff's remaining claims."
Also, he is really busy over the next six weeks, so "compelling him to prepare for and attend such a deposition would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden and expense."
----
Judge Leete's opinion and order from one day before this motion (3/29/2016) is instructive on how he might rule on the motion to quash Barron's subpoena.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...CAA OPINION AND ORDER DATED MARCH 29 2016.pdf
At page 11 in that order, Judge Leete wrote that "discovery is not subject to the same evidentiary rules as apply to admissibility at trial; discovery is meant to crystallize issues and therefore broader scope is permitted".
This was written in support of Leete's ruling that The Paterno's could compel third party discovery from Britton Banowsky, the chair of the NCAA committee on infractions. The NCAA had objected to Banowsky's subpoena on the basis that he would have no information relevant to the claims in this case. Leete overruled this objection.
I found the 2nd paragraph on page 11 of Judge Leete's very interesting:
"Proof of malice can be founded on circumstantial evidence. Such circumstantial evidence can consist of deliberate efforts to avoid the truth and the taking of action to achieve a pre-determined outcome." [case citations omitted]
And the remainder of what Judge Leete wrote on page 11 appears instructive as to how he may rule on the motion to quash Barron's subpoena:
"In the case at bar, Plaintiffs contend that discovery responses and third party discovery they seek are directly related to the issue of malice in this case. Defendants contend said discovery requests are irrelevant and unduly burdensome. The Court finds said discovery requests are relevant, so long as they remain narrowly tailored to the issue of malice."
"The broad scope of discovery permits Plaintiffs to investigate the possibility of circumstantial evidence of Defendants' alleged malice. At this juncture, the Court would be abrogating Plaintiffs' right to build their case if it struck down their inquiry regarding a central issue."
Apparently it's still lost on GTA that if CYS was contacted in 2001 and they never investigated the complaint since they had already cleared St Jerry in 98 for a very similar incident (see Tutko case for another example of CYS simply not investigating someone they already cleared) or they determined it to be unfounded, there'd be no record/proof, just like there's no CYS record of 1998.
All the state did to "prove" CC CYS wasn't told about 2002 (sic) was have sassano talk to two people. One was lauro who didn't even work for CC CYS and the other was the current head of cc CYS who was a low level employee at the time in 2001. That's it. No call logs subpoenaed etc.. He didn't seem to want to dig very hard.
Even if they didn't contact CC CYS it's moot because the admins still went above and beyond their legal requirement by informing JR at TSM who certainly was a mandatory reporter, being the director of a state licensed children's charity, who was required to look into any and all incident reports re: one of his employees.
I know you read the state statutes before. Its why your argument has changed over the years. Even still, what they did report still meets the statute requirements. Also, the state has an added problem due to what constitutes a report and what the state requires from a record keeping standpoint. Its funny, the argument you espouse would not stand up in court.
Excellent point. Barron did sign the new consent decree, although it was titled a superceding agreement. Semantics. See exhibit U, page 116 in the alumni trustees lawsuit filing:
https://ps4rs.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/exhibits-l-gg-00203239xbf28f.pdf
Item 2 in that agreement is where it says "Penn State acknowledges the NCAA's legitimate and good faith interest and concern regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter." Barron signed his name to that. Perhaps he'll be asked about the basis and rationale behind that statement when he is deposed.
Don't know if it's relevant here but I just want everyone to understand something
IF a report is made and ultimately becomes "unfounded" it will eventually become, by law, "expunged"
Just to be clear to everyone - that means NO RECORD of it exists....period, end of story!
Just to extrapolate a little more for y'all....that means there is NO WAY TO PROVE THAT IT WAS REPORTED OR THAT IT WASN'T reported.
It means THE SITUATION NEVER EXISTED
He's had the statutes posted so that he can read then. Its why his argument has changed over the years. He knows he's being disingenuous. He may think he's being cute, but he knows no one is buying his, ahem, 'bs.'
bwifan
Well-Known Member
I doubt it. The reason why: "if the six-shooter were loaded", you would have shot the gun by now. You have proven in your past to be incapable of keeping secrets. For instance, BWI on the evening of Wednesday, 27-June-2012.
Great post. I know you have some expertise in this field. What you and I pointed out is exactly why the state's charges of EWOC and FTR are complete and utter bullshit. Their lawyers pointed out the same during prelims and yet bizarrely the judge allowed the case to continue. Smh.
So what? Barron signed his name to a paper acknowledging the NCAA's "interest and concern." Shoot --- all of us have "interest and concern."
"Interest and concern" is a whole lot different than if he were to sign his nape to a paper "acknowledging the NCAA's right to impose sancitons as a result of the Jerry Sandusky matter."
The latter is what the Paterno vs NCAA lawsuit is about. Not "interest and concern."
