he's as bad as people who laser focus on "sexual nature" in Joe's GJ testimony, and ignore the 3 qualifiers of uncertainty he put around those words
McQueray Hearing Cancelled.
- Thread starter pnnylion
- Start date
he's as bad as people who laser focus on "sexual nature" in Joe's GJ testimony, and ignore the 3 qualifiers of uncertainty he put around those words
Do you have reading comprehension difficulties?
I pointed out some things he could have done, which are not illegal, despite repeated claims to the contrary after being repeatedly corrected here and elsewhere by me and others.
I said it was specifically not an argument that they would or would not have been a good idea to have tried. Completely separate.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just reinstated Monsignor Lynn's conviction and overturned the Pennsylvania Superior Court. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pennsylvania-top-court-reinstates-monsignors-conviction-30623889
If MM's story has not changed....as Towny claims: Why would Mike, JM or Dr. D accept as final the explanation by GS that nothing more could be done? Would it be a stretch at that point to ask if CYS or any agency had been contacted? Certainly these two veteran and respected medical professionals know how the system works. The other thing I am troubled with is if MM reported CSA and did not equivicate....how long did it take him to give his statement to the police after investigators contacted him?
Yeah, I saw that. No way it stands when it is appealed to the US Supreme Court. This ruling shows the hazards of having elected judges who care more about political grandstanding than the US constitution.
I haven't read the Opinion minus the small portions made public in news articles, but the vote was 4-1 with Baer (D), Eakin (R), Todd (D), and Stevens (R) in the majority and Saylor (R) in the dissent. Eakin and Baer are both in their final terms, so I don't think there's much risk of them making decisions for political purposes or to bolster a reelection bid, and Stevens is an interim Justice who isn't running. I'd wait to read the actual opinion before I accuse Justices of making decisions for political purposes.
The link works fine. You just don't want to read anything that doesn't comport with your version of reality so you'll pretend that it doesn't work.
Here try again http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-11-01/pdf/FR-1999-11-01.pdf
The Clery Act requires a CSA to report it to the cops and get a copy of the police report. "Passing it on" doesn't comply with the act. And you don't report it for "statistical purposes" but so that additional crimes can be prevented.
Finally, you seem to be saying that Paterno had nothing to pass along but passed it along anyway, which can only make sense to you.
You also seem to be saying that McQueary witnessed a convicted serial pedophile in an empty building late at night naked with a little boy who was also naked and contemporenously reported sexual molestation but that can't be believed. Because . . .
I just get the feeling you don't give a crap about other people, including kids that scarred for life.
You want to explain your legal reasoning as to why the US Supreme Court would even take the case, let alone reverse it? Case citations would help.
You're just butt hurt again because as of yesterday you didn't even know it was still under appeal. I had to point it out to you.
Good news is that as soon as the courts of appeals get through dismissing the Gang of Three's latest dilatory appeals, the case can go to trial.
You represented that the language you quoted in this post was part of the regulation. It's not.
And the Clery Act is basically entirely about reporting campus crime statistics. The title of the Act is "Disclosure of campus security policy and campus crime statistics."
With regards to your claim that "The Clery Act requires a CSA to report it to the cops and get a copy of the police report." Go ahead, show us the text in the Act that requires that.
Ah, that's what it is. The unending quest for justice. Justice for whom? Jerry's in jail, and PSU has been publicly obliterated. The BOT is off, scot-free. Who, precisely, are you seeking justice for?
Sorry, but don't waste your time painting me that way. You won't find any post of mine, ever, defending Jerry.
You guys are lucky that Jerry exists. It gives you something to fall back on when you're out of other ideas. And frankly, it disgusts me to think that you guys are financially benefiting from the acts of a pedophile. Have you no shame?
You guys are lucky that Jerry exists. It gives you something to fall back on when you're out of other ideas. And frankly, it disgusts me to think that you guys are financially benefiting from the acts of a pedophile. Have you no shame?
From the philly.com article about this today:
"Writing for the 4-1 majority of the state's high court, Justice Max Baer said the state Superior Court erred in reversing Lynn's conviction because he did not directly supervise children.
"That which is supervised is the child's welfare," wrote Baer. "Under the facts presented at trial, [Lynn] was a person supervising the welfare of many children because, as a high-ranking official in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, he was specifically responsible for protecting children from sexually abusive priests."
Can someone please explain to me how the Msgr. William J. Lynn case is even REMOTELY similar to CSS?? CSS were freaking college ADMINS, none of them were responsible for protecting children from sexually abusive priests.
This isn't an apples to apples comparison. Also, I'm not sure about Msgr. Lynn but CSS reported 2001 OUTSIDE of PSU to outside counsel Courtney and JR director of TSM (an entity DIRECTLY/legally responsible for the well being of the child JS was with) who has a PhD in Psychology and was a mandatory reporter. With that in mind, how in the world could FTR/EWOC even apply to them??
There's only one reason you and CDW can be here, taking the positions that you do, looking like idiots. Nobody says stuff like you and he do, for free. It's simply not possible.
Ok. I'll let you get back to supporting complete nut jobs like pnnylion. And you call me the idiot. Holy delusional.
Ah, can't throw Jerry at me, so you choose to throw pnnylion out, instead. Now that's original thinking! By god, nobody will ever read my posts anymore, after that verbal broadside.
Really, it's time for you to abandon this fruitless endeavor of yours, and find something else to do to earn spending money. You aren't convincing anybody of anything, other than the fact that your parents may well have been haploid.
Really, it's time for you to abandon this fruitless endeavor of yours, and find something else to do to earn spending money. You aren't convincing anybody of anything, other than the fact that your parents may well have been haploid.
You win. . I'm gonna just look the other way from now on. I'll be going to the unemployment office now. Sorry to have taken up your time.
Thank you so much for your caring words. Hopefully I'll be able to finally get some sleep tonight.
Hey, pal, I had a hearing on a motion for summary judgment at 3:00 p.m. my time. I won. My client will be very happy.
Here is how I believe it's relevant: Curley, Schultz and Spanier have argued that the charges of child endangerment (not getting into FTR which doesn't apply here) don't apply to them because protection of children wasn't specifically enumerated in their job duties, and used the Superior Court's Lynn decision to demonstrate that child endangerment doesn't apply to individuals where child protection isn't in their direct job duties. Instead, the Supreme Court's opinion demonstrates that child protection doesn't need to be a specific part of an individual's job duties for child endangerment to apply. Putting aside all the FTR elements that you're bringing into the equation for this limited purpose because none of that in my eyes is affected by Lynn - and it doesn't mean that they're guilty in the least, but it does appear to mean that they can be charged and tried of it even though protection of children isn't specifically in their job description.
It was in the Federal Register. Because you're not a lawyer you don't know why that's important.
The Federal Register, abbreviated FR or sometimes Fed. Reg., is the official journal of the federal government of the United States that contains government agency rules, proposed rules, and public notices.[1] It is published daily, except on federal holidays. The final rules promulgated by a federal agency and published in the Federal Register are ultimately reorganized by topic or subject matter and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is updated annually.
And I'm still waiting to here about how the US Supreme Court is going to reverse Lynn's appeal.
From a practical perspective, it means that some the victims will come in and testify about how they were abused after the '01 incident. Instead of being a rather dry case regarding perjury and obstruction of justice, it'll be a case about enabling a child abuser.
I suspect the cost of a plea deal just went up.
Big surprise, both you and raffycorn completely missed my point. Even if the state can rely on this newest ruling to try and charge CSS with EWOC, how did they endanger children if they brought the 2001 incident to OUTSIDE counsel (who said he would have been required to report it if he was told about abuse) and the director of TSM, the guy who was legally responsible (and whom was a MANDATORY reporter) for the kids JS was with and his access to said kids???? Just b/c TSM didn't do their jobs and properly look into the incident report doesn't mean CSS EWOC.....I'm all ears......
Lynn is being accused of doing nothing once he was told that his priests were abusing kids. CSS did FAR from nothing in 2001 (and had nothing to do with 1998 going the way it did), they told JS his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop, revoked his guest privileges at PSU, and informed JR at TSM about the incident and their new directives -- JR was then REQUIRED by state law and TSM policy to look into any an all incident reports involving one if his employees and a kid, no matter how benign. The buck stopped at TSM, NOT CSS.
Let's take a look at the state's case against CSS:
You have MM's word that he reported certain CSA to CSS and their word that MM did not report certain child abuse, but a late night inappropriate shower/horseplay. IOW it's still up in the air whether or not CSS were told about child abuse vs. inappropriate shower, but whatever they were told, it got reported OUTSIDE of PSU. You can't say the same for Lynn. Lynn allegedly was told his priests were abusing kids and he then ignored the reports and never told any outside entity.
CSS is completely different than the Lynn case.
The state's version of the case is that McQueary told Curley and Schultz that something sexual occurred, and Curley went on to tell Raykovitz that the incident was mere horseplay, that it had been investigated, and essentially that there wasn't anything to worry about. The state's entire case revolves around the argument that McQueary told Curley and Schultz of sexual activity and that Curley's message to Raykovitz was that it wasn't sexual and that there was nothing to worry about. Now, whether that's accurate or not will be up to a jury to decide, but under the state's argument the C/S/S situation is much closer to Lynn than you're making it seem.
And therein lies the problem with the state's case, they are holding some college admins to a higher standard than the Phd running a state licensed children's charity that was legally responsible to look into any and all incident reports involving one of HIS employees.
The state's argument will never hold up in court b/c it makes no logical sense. First of all why would CSS tell TSM ANYTHING at all if they were trying to cover up/enable JS's CSA? Wouldn't that just invite the possibility of JR getting curious and start looking into things? The makes ZERO logical sense.
Secondly, even if TC told JR that he looked into it and it was only horseplay, it doesn't matter. TC wasn't a trained child sex abuse investigator so his investigation into the matter should have been meaningless to JR as far as his LEGAL obligations to look into it were concerned.
Think about this for a minute, JR (director of state licensed children's charity which employed JS) had PSU's AD on his doorstep complaining about JS's late night inappropriate showering behavior (repeat of 1998), that PSU was REVOKING JS's ability to bring kids on campus (hello red flag!!), and that they felt JR should know about this behavior and their new directives. JR then did absolutely nothing with that info. Never found out who JS was with, informed the kid's parents, nothing --except for "just wear swim trunks"....yikes...... Yet the state throws the book at CSS (looking past ex post facto and SOL) and let's JR ride off into the sunset and NEVER even charges him with any crimes!!
Just like "I wish I had done more" versus the actual "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."
CDW3333, I am trying to respect your opinion because you (should) know the law better than those of us who are non-lawyers. Your arguments are such a stretch and with just about every post it seems that you stretch even further which undermines your credibility. As an example, you said that the state's case is that MM told CS a story that had a higher level of sexual detail than what Curley told TSM, JR. Even if that is true the state will have nearly an impossible task of proof because there are two people who say one thing with only one person stating the opposite. If anything the case is better against MM for perjury than it is against CS. Throw on top of that, the fact that there are many inconsistencies in MM's stories and testimony, the state has a losing case here against CS.
Now you're a lawyer and if Paterno was your client would you tell him to go to the press and tell the press that MM said whatever about JS? If you would then I am sure I would never hire you. Certainly showing up to the press is not against them law but as soon as you open your mouth you are in legal jeopardy for either liable or defamation unless you have knowledge of the truth.
What did Joe know? All he heard was hearsay. If that hearsay was wrong then he could be sued because it is against the law to defame someone. Since Joe had no direct knowledge he had a very high likely hold of breaking the law if he went to the press. So what you said may be technically true but only in the tightest circumstances.
You want to tell me that you would have advised Joe to go to the papers without direct knowledge?
Yeah, sure. Please stop being so over the top when I at least hope you know better.
1. Both Raykovitz and Curley said that Curley reported "horseplay in the shower." That's zero sexual detail. Paterno understood McQueary's report to be something of a sexual nature. Schultz although he waffled a lot seems to have believed that the report concerned something of a sexual nature. The circumstances surrounding McQueary's report are much more indicative of a report of something of a sexual nature rather than mere horseplay in the shower.
2. The state has far more evidence to support its charges than just McQueary. In fact, I think McQueary's testimony will be anti-climatic. The testimony of Wendell Courtney, for example, will be as important.
3. That's the great thing about a message board. Everybody get to have an opinion.
4. I tell my clients to never talk to the press. I would've told Paterno to go the police.
5. There are all kinds of legal protections for people reporting suspected child abuse. If Paterno went to the police and said "McQueary reported something of a sexual nature involving Sandusky and a little boy" there would be zero chance of a successful lawsuit against him.
Last edited:
Your columnist opines as follows:
"But this does not make him a criminal. It's clear that the law under which he was convicted should never have been applied to him, as it was meant to cover only people who had immediate supervisory control of children. The law was amended in 2007 to include people like Lynn, but you can't be convicted of a crime retroactively."
But that's not the argument. The argument is that when the law was changed in 2007 because there were new reporting standards Lynn should have come forward at the point. He wasn't prosecuted for failing to report in 1999, he was prosecuted for not reporting post-2007 when the new law went into effect. You can argue that the law is stupid, and I might agree, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
You guys that make this kind of argument are either liars or honestly have no idea how the justice system works.
The CSS trial has nothing to do with whether TSM is more or less responsible for what happened than they are. It's a trial in isolation of what CSS did and didn't do, period. The "state's case" in the CSS trial can be strong or weak or whatever; it doesn't matter that you think they should hold TSM more responsible - because TSM isn't part of this trial.
Similar threads
