Let's push forward and get this thing to 2000 posts!
Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
keep the CR/GTA/gmj circle jerk going!!
By omission, you're pissing off Seth/Black Elmo...
Anthony Lubrano fathered the mother of all threads...
You don't know where that finger's been...Who?
"Pull my finger!"
"I don't know no Frank Fina. If you're talkin' about that guy over there, that's our IT guru who makes sure our emails never get hacked"Who?
"Pull my finger!"
simons gets it. If everyone made good use of their Ignore List, this thread would have 79 posts.
simons gets it. If everyone made good use of their Ignore List, this thread would have 79 posts.
or if those relentless idiots would just STFU with their proven false narrative
To think I began this thread as a way to share information regarding the attempt to quash a subpoena.
There is so much passion around the subjects that fall under this broader umbrella of topics..... I'm not surprised that many of us feel compelled to comment and ask questions and throw out challenges when someone with your gravitas and involvement and influence posts something related to the issues. I say keep it coming, Anthony. We need you and your partners on the BOT to continue to acknowledge the outrage so many of us still feel regarding the actions of the Nov. 2011 BOT, and to continue to carry on the fight. You and the others on the good side of the fight are greatly appreciated.
With that, I'm going to complete my BOT ballot and send it in with votes for the 3 incumbent candidates. And next year at this time, I hope to cast one of my votes for Larry and 2 incumbents.
Maybe when all the facts are finally out there, they will slink back into their holes, never to be heard from again. Maybe some of them will be in jail.
Amazing that no one cares about this anymore, like some seem to say
Thank you. WE ARE most definitely on the right side of this and our outrage toward the supposed leaders of OUR school is completely justified.
Maybe when all the facts are finally out there, they will slink back into their holes, never to be heard from again. Maybe some of them will be in jail.
Some clearly deserve to be prosecuted for breach of fiduciary duty.
The fact is that most were just sheep.
As the Freeh Report accurately reported, Garban, Surma and Broadhurst had advance notice of the impending indictments yet they collectively failed to inform the entire Board one week before those indictments were released due to a "glitch."
I continue to ask why Surma and Broadhurst received a free pass. Only Garban resigned.
What you don't know is that Ryan McCombie took Karen Peetz to task when the Freeh Report was released and wrote a letter to her calling for Garban's resignation as well as anyone else with advance knowledge (Surma and Broadhurst). He asked her to distribute to the entire Board. She in turn asked him to allow her to address this matter privately.
Of course we know that Garban resigned. What you don't know is that the University's PR firm at the time, Edeleman, assisted with the writing of the letter and wrote the subsequent letter to Garban accepting his resignation and thanking him for his service.
Oh, did I mention that the University was billed for these services?
CR will be by in a moment to tell us all why you are wrong about that. Their blood must be curdling.
I haven't seen any ruling yet on PSU's motion to quash Barron's subpoena. A copy of the subpoena was attached to the motion (at page 5). He's due to provide deposition testimony in 3 days, on Wednesday 4/13.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...AA MOTION TO QUASH THIRD PARTY DEPOSITION.pdf
Anyone know whether Barron has changed his busy schedule yet to attend the deposition? Are the lawyers busy prepping him?
Also, from page 8 of the 3/30/2016 memorandum of law supporting PSU's attempt to quash Barron's subpoena:
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...OF MOTION TO QUASH THIRD PARTY DEPOSITION.pdf
"President Barron, who was not even in Pennsylvania, much less at Penn State, when all relevant events occurred, does not possess unique additional knowledge about matters relevant to the the [sic] Plaintiffs' remaining claims in this litigation. As explained supra, the legal issues remaining in the litigation essentially are claims that the NCAA lacked a good-faith factual basis for making certain statements in the July 2012 Consent Decree that referred to, inter alia, Coach Paterno and unnamed members of his coaching staff. President Barron, however, had no involvement whatsoever in negotiating the Consent Decree or agreeing to its imposition."
It's interesting the motion mentions that the remaining issues in the litigation are related to claims that the NCAA lacked a good-faith factual basis for statements in the Consent Decree. While it is true President Barron had no involvement with the original Consent Decree, at the conclusion of the Corman lawsuit President Barron is the one who signed the superceding agreement to the consent decree. 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 has some unique knowledge about the basis and rationale behind the NCAA's legitimate and good faith interest.
Just some dates to keep in mind:
The following is from the most recent (3/11/2016) scheduling order in the Paterno vs. NCAA lawsuit.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA REVISED ORDER.pdf
---
Judge Howsare issued a stipulation and order in the Alumni Trustees vs. PSU lawsuit on 1/21/2016 granting access to the Freeh materials. The stipulations placed quite a few restrictions on what the alumni trustees can do with the information, primarily to ensure confidentiality. The alumni trustees have to treat all materials as confidential pursuant to the 11/19/2015 order. Note that all available materials are electronic and if an alumni trustee wants a hard copy a particular item, they have to request it from PSU who then has to first determine if is indeed confidential and mark it as appropriate, and then must provide it to the alumni trustee within 20 days of the request. http://www.psu.edu/ur/newsdocuments/Court_Decision_Nov_19.pdf Item 4 of that 11/19/2015 order restricts how the alumni trustees can discuss information. It reads as follows:
The Petitoner Trustees may discuss the information marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "PRIVILEGED" only in a privileged executive session of the board or in communications with the University's legal counsel. Outside of a privileged executive session of the Board or in communication with the University's legal counsel, any discussion or disclosure to any one by Petitioner Trustees, except their present counsel, of the information marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "PRIVILEGED" is expressly prohibited.
All of this makes it awfully difficult for the alumni trustees to discuss whatever it is they find. But they can discuss it in executive session of the board.
There are four more board meetings scheduled this year. http://www.psu.edu/trustees/meetings.html The dates are as follows:
Sue Paterno sent a letter on 11/5/2015 to the football lettermen. http://paterno.com/Sues-Letter/4th-Anniversary.aspx she concluded with a 'save the date' request:
P.S. Please hold the date...September 17, 2016, marks the 50th anniversary of Joe's first game as head coach. We are planning a special event to honor all that you accomplished. I will be back to you with more information about plans for that weekend.
9/17/2016 is the day after a board meeting and it also marks the second home football game of the season, against Temple.
The following is from the most recent (3/11/2016) scheduling order in the Paterno vs. NCAA lawsuit.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/PATERNO VS NCAA REVISED ORDER.pdf
- 4/29/2016 - all fact discovery to be complete
- 4/29/2016 - Emmert & Ray to file supplemental briefs in support of preliminary objections
- 6/6/2016 - plaintiffs to file opposition to preliminary objections
- 6/20/2016 - reply briefs due
- 5/31/2016 - plaintiff expert witness disclosures
- 6/29/2016 - defendant expert witness disclosures
- 7/13/2016 - plaintiff supplemental expert witness disclosures
- 7/27/2016 - defendant supplemental expert witness disclosures
- 9/8/2016 - all dispositive motions & supporting briefs
- 10/5/2016 - all response briefs to dispositive motions
- 10/19/2016 - all reply briefs in support of dispositive motions
---
Judge Howsare issued a stipulation and order in the Alumni Trustees vs. PSU lawsuit on 1/21/2016 granting access to the Freeh materials. The stipulations placed quite a few restrictions on what the alumni trustees can do with the information, primarily to ensure confidentiality. The alumni trustees have to treat all materials as confidential pursuant to the 11/19/2015 order. Note that all available materials are electronic and if an alumni trustee wants a hard copy a particular item, they have to request it from PSU who then has to first determine if is indeed confidential and mark it as appropriate, and then must provide it to the alumni trustee within 20 days of the request. http://www.psu.edu/ur/newsdocuments/Court_Decision_Nov_19.pdf Item 4 of that 11/19/2015 order restricts how the alumni trustees can discuss information. It reads as follows:
The Petitoner Trustees may discuss the information marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "PRIVILEGED" only in a privileged executive session of the board or in communications with the University's legal counsel. Outside of a privileged executive session of the Board or in communication with the University's legal counsel, any discussion or disclosure to any one by Petitioner Trustees, except their present counsel, of the information marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "PRIVILEGED" is expressly prohibited.
All of this makes it awfully difficult for the alumni trustees to discuss whatever it is they find. But they can discuss it in executive session of the board.
There are four more board meetings scheduled this year. http://www.psu.edu/trustees/meetings.html The dates are as follows:
- 5/5/2016 - 5/6/2016, at University Park
- 7/21/2016 - 7/22/2016, at Penn State Wilkes-Barre
- 9/15/2016 - 9/16/2016, at University Park
- 11/3/2016 - 11/4/2016, at University Park
Sue Paterno sent a letter on 11/5/2015 to the football lettermen. http://paterno.com/Sues-Letter/4th-Anniversary.aspx she concluded with a 'save the date' request:
P.S. Please hold the date...September 17, 2016, marks the 50th anniversary of Joe's first game as head coach. We are planning a special event to honor all that you accomplished. I will be back to you with more information about plans for that weekend.
9/17/2016 is the day after a board meeting and it also marks the second home football game of the season, against Temple.
Thank you, Anthony. I really cannot wait until you and others are able to speak completely freely. Hopefully at least one national media outlet will pick up on it. The story must be told.
I am ever grateful for your hard and selfless work.
Thanks for the details. We'll see how much more PSU tries to stonewall the Paternos just to delay things further.
My wife and I will be at the temple game, not that we are expecting the university to honor Joe. There should be plenty of unofficial celebrations going on in town that weekend.
Yeah, but we're all just trying to prove that, indeed, you can argue with a sick mind.simons gets it. If everyone made good use of their Ignore List, this thread would have 79 posts.
Surma couldn't resign right away. In fact, Garban resigning made Surma's plan even easier to execute. He needed to stay on board so as to complete "The Surma Vendetta" and fire JVP. That was the scumbag's master plan from the get-go. Corbett wanted Spanier, Surma wanted JVP.
There is no need to call John Surma a scumbag. Just speak or write his name. John Surma stands for despicable, contemptible, heinous, and despised. Scumbags appear to be Congressional Medal of Honor winners when compared to him.
Tell me again. The initials JS stand for what?
Why is questioning (possibly corrupted) testimony made by an 84yr old about a conversation from 10yrs prior that he may have meant as conjecture and his actions & other statements contradict such a hard thing for you?
Are you sure he did not mother the father of all threads?
Either he's not honest, or he's the worst attorney ever. For some reason, he thinks having his own witness contradict his testimony without even being cross examined is a good thing. He also seems to think there was not a single other relevant question worth asking.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
To Jimmie, and Anthony
Jimmie, I'm not sure if we should know who you are but I don't. If it is common knowledge someone let me in on the secret. Anyway your knowledge and insight to all of this is unbelievable. Thanks for keeping so many of us informed.
Anthony, truly appreciate your tireless efforts in both fighting the good fight AND keeping everyone informed to the extent you are allowed.
Jimmie, I'm not sure if we should know who you are but I don't. If it is common knowledge someone let me in on the secret. Anyway your knowledge and insight to all of this is unbelievable. Thanks for keeping so many of us informed.
Anthony, truly appreciate your tireless efforts in both fighting the good fight AND keeping everyone informed to the extent you are allowed.
Lol. Legal technicalities. The charges were put on trial and found to be baseless. Legal technicalities. That's pretty funny. CR, your fear is palpable.
dingbats like CR see the criminal justice system and the law as "technicalities"
What CR66 fails to realize is that the ruling proves the only evidence they had against them for those charges was Baldwin's testimony which came from her working out a deal to avoid being charged because it was Baldwin who was ultimately responsible for turning in the subpoenaed documents. Hardly a credible witness when she would've been charged herself had she not told the OAG what they wanted to hear.
