OG Board and lawyers.
- Thread starter malanoce
- Start date
That's a pretty big jump; Freeh never said his report was bogus, you did. He cited certain facts in his report from which he reached certain conclusions. Now those conclusions were opinions but that doesn't eliminate the existing facts he cited nor the validity of them. I don't buy his opinion that protection of the football program was the motivating factor for the actions of Penn State leadership, but that doesn't negate the emails and other facts. I also think he was off base elsewhere. In the end Freeh never said his report was bogus nor did he say anything that could reasonably be viewed as supporting such a conclusion..
I agree that the majority of alumni disagree with how this matter was handled in certain respects. I have voiced how I disagreed with some of the actions of the BoT. But disagreement with what happened and an OC obsession with "digging up dirt" on members of the Board and the the actions of the University in matters unrelated to this period in Penn State history are two entirely different animals.
So I guess it depends how you define move on; those who exhibit OCD tendencies have not moved on and IMO they represent a tiny fraction of alumni. The vast majority have moved on and still hold their University in high regard in spite of the past..
It's common sense that negates the emails.
I'm curious as to what these other facts are? Please help me learn, maybe by providing a link to a "cite"? I'd really like to know, because to most people who have read the Freeh Report, it is pretty devoid of facts, and simply relies on a handful of vague emails that were not sent/received by JVP. These "facts" as you call them were gathered without subpoena power, or interviewing any of the key individuals.
I guess your post depends on the absurdity of first having believed the Freeh report was ever accurate.
Actually the conclusions rely on Louis Fact Freeh's "opinions" (e.g., conjecture) and nothing else - and even Louie himself admits this. LMFAO at GTACSA who presumes to lecture admissible court evidence and due process guarantees under both the PA and U.S. Constitutions and he doesn't even know the difference between "fact" and third-party conjecture (e.g., "opinion") in a legal sense - hysterical....
Precisely, from a legal standpoint - Freeh's conclusions are nothing more than biased third-party conjecture (e.g., "opinions") especially given his COI in regards to the BOT (which included Corrupt Corbutt and his "paid for" lackeys on the Executive Committee of PSU's BOT in 11/2009). IOW, about the furthest thing from "fact" you could imagine in any kind of "legal sense".
What exactly does "move on"mean? Does it mean forgetting about what has happened? Does it mean living your life while still remembering what happened? Time moves on whether we want it to or not. So people have certainly moved on because they have no choice but to do so. Much like the death of a parent, you still move on and live your life, take care of your kids, go to work........ But that person stays with you. So while you move on and continue with your life, that person is still a very real element of your life.
I get the impression that by moving on you are meaning that people are done with it and forgetting about it. I certainly don't think that is the case. I think the vast majority of Penn Staters have this whole situation with them and are awaiting a true resolution, one which the Freeh report did not provide.
Last edited:
He means not holding miscreants accountable who clearly and massively violated their legal, and legally-enforceable, Fiduciary Obligations to PSU......not holding the fraudulent charity - TSM, the "Safe Hold Care Institution", or any of its executives other than JS legally accountable.....not holding any of numerous corrupt and accountable PA Agencies and Public Employees accountable.....etc so forth and so on...... IOW, the servile pond scum's corrupt master's told him to just keep babbling their nonsensical, meaningless, "word salad" Move-On mantra, demagoguery and rhetoric.
A reasonable post; and if you reread mine I think it shows my definition of moving on which does not fit into the meaning you have attributed to me. Look at the Lubert/Dambly post of SSS for an example of who the vast majority of Penn State alumni are not.
Just state it to me briefly.
I believe people wanting to move either don't want to bothered with it anymore or are afraid of what will be found out.
Enter Mark Emmert who my guess(and only a guess) had issues with GS when he was Chairman of the Board of Presidents at NCAA, yelling "give me a sword, give me a sword too"! The tip of his spear was up the arse of Rod (May I have another) Erickson. This will be right up there with the Greek Tragedies for all of time.
NOBODY who actually read it would ever claim it was accurate....
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SPANIER VS FREEH REPLY MEMO OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS DEFAMATION CLAIMS.pdf
Read it, please. The whole filing by Freeh's attorneys says Freeh's statements were OPINION.
I was visiting relatives on Long Island this week, who happen to live right along the flight path of planes taking off from all the NY metro airports, including Teterboro. Thought of the Zipster quite often. Then I realized he wouldn't be in any of those planes. More likely he was putting in some AC window units or doing the play by play for a wiffleball tournament in Leonia.I just flew into Teterboro.....and my A/C is on the fritz again....
Well actually, the vote was not "unanimous" - but you already knew that. It doesn't matter how close to or how admired Joe was by many on the Board - this was never about Joe. Penn State's goose was being cooked all along down in Harrisburg and Penn State never saw that coming. Joe could have been retired - it didn't matter - Corbett & Fina were targeting Spanier. Linda Kelly was very careful to walk that edge and not implicate Joe. They thought they had a fire line in the forest.
"It was a calculated risk"
It would have worked too - had Surma not held that late night press conference. That, combined with the dysfunction & confusion of the Board itself, was enough combustible material for the flames to leap that fire line to burn millions of acres of forest with the help of the high winds in the sports media. Fina and Corbett never planned on the sports media. Look what the sports media did with Duke, UNC and now Baylor.
Good leaders ask tough questions, seek the truth, take a stand, and challenge others to do the same. In the absence of facts and transparent communications coming from such leaders (which were missing from the Board) - "wild theories" will take over. When a crisis emerges, "no comment" or delayed responses to the media doesn't make it go away. It makes it worse, giving the media the opportunity to speak for the Board.
Who here wants today's sports media to interpret your words and repackage it for broad distribution?
Had Fina listened to Castor when he advised not to use Cynthia Baldwin in their "strategy", investigated and charged Sandusky on credible victim testimony alone and left Spanier out of it - he very well might be our next Attorney General. We'd be no wiser to his porn.
Instead, he quietly leaves the DA's office for private practice.
Last edited:
Surma is only one guy. But you must know he was the key guy for one term Tommy. Others had issues with JVP like Suhey and Judas. Another issue with trustees like Lubert, was the desire to be de facto athletic director. I will concur that a large # of trustees did not plot to assassinate Joe. They were just horrified when this scandal interrupted their consumption of shrimp, cocktails and construction projects.If anyone wavered there was the Good Gov. telling them to remember the "little boy" in the shower.
Ken Frazier or "anyone who looks like him", didn't defend it as an opinion. IF the OGBOT paid 8.5 million dollars to Freeh for an opinion and then gave him a prime time stage to nuke PSU...... they are accountable for the sanctions and 100's of millions of dollars in damages.
I wonder if he's going to do air conditioning law?
Given the seriousness of the work Freeh was doing at PSU, opinions do not cut it. He needed to have and show irrefutable evidence of the connection of JoePa and the football program as enablers of JS. [which given our state OAG did not .... ] I read the report. It did not.
I have read it and I did not see where Freeh's attorneys admitted that the Freeh Report was bogus. Perhaps I missed that language?
I think you may have missed the following in the Brief: "....the Report, which on it's face, contains both statements of fact based on the documents and the testimony collected by the Defendants, as well as opinions based on those facts."
If you reread my post that is what I said; and let me remind you that I don't agree with all of Freeh's conclusions.
This whole emphasis by posters on this board ranting about Freeh's Report being only his opinion is misdirected. In a court proceeding, which this was not, evidence is presented to the trier of fact which then makes a determination as to what happened. In a criminal proceeding, where intent must be proven, the trier of fact either finds intent or not based on the facts. That determination is only an opinion since the trier of fact can not know what the defendant's mental process was. However this opinion can then form the basis for a conviction.
Freeh's Report cites certain facts from which he draws conclusions (opinions) as set forth in his report. Now you can argue that the conclusions are not reasonably supported by the facts and should be rejected, but rejection of those opinions can not be based on the fact that they were opinions.
It doesn't matter. Argue over opinions versus facts all you want. It still doesn't matter.
Freeh carried out his mandate July 12, 2012 by 11 am from a ballroom on 17th Street in Philadelphia.
All in time for the noon news cycle.
No amount of #handwaving over what he said in his report is going to change what he said into the microphone that morning for his audience.
The Board didn't need the "report" - they claim they ever wanted was just the 119 recommendations. They never approved the report itself. The media didn't need the "report". They never read it - they only took the key findings that morning of July 12th and did their damage via Twitter.
Who needed that "report"? The NCAA did. The NCAA needed to determine "loss of institutional control" so they could insert themselves into the picture and drop the hammer. In order to do that - you need to nail the coach. Freeh was able to nail the coach, not with facts, not with opinion, but with a theatrical performance.
What's important now is to discover what Greg Paw & Omar McNeil might have said in the work product that contradicted Freeh or sheds more on the process. What's also important is to discover what or who made Ken Frazier do a 180 and embrace Freeh and his "facts".
Last edited:
GT, after all of the investigative work his team did on this don't you think there would be more evidence to support his conclusions than what he came up with? In all honesty, it's pretty scant.
Again, I always feel the need to qualify things with you to state that I am not baiting or attacking you, just asking a simple question. I certainly have my opinion on this went down but I really appreciate hearing from all sides.
not to mention the FACT that the charges underscored by Freeh's report, have all been dropped. Freeh's report, really, only holds water in critiquing PSU's process and title IX compliance. This has little or nothing to do with JS.
I'd go further and say that the actual evidence....the email chain from 2001..... is exculpatory. Freeh intentionally tried to sell a narrative based on the total misinterpretation of those emails. You can't convince me that he and his people did not understand the difference between the words "everyone" and "anyone".
Tim wrote that he was uncomfortable going to "everyone but the person involved." Meaning he was uncomfortable going behind Sandusky's back. After talking with Joe, Tim simply proposed to include Sandusky among those to be informed. He did not propose to exclude anyone.
The entire narrative dragging Joe into this is fallacious and I believe intentional. The BOT paid him a lot of money and got every penny's worth!
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Apprently, Freeh didn't need much of anything for the NCAA to slap Penn State with lack of institutional control. And whatever he did need he being told directly by the NCAA.
From an objective point of view, the report is a farce. It's scandalous and damning of Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier- unless you actually read the report. Then it just becomes a head scratcher. When it was released I read it from front to back before listening to anybody else's opinion or reading anybody else's take on it. And I was stunned by the lack of hard evidence to support his conclusion or "opinions" if you prefer. And that was with him essentially writing a prosecutorial presentment without speaking with any of the accused, with the exception of a last minute chat with Spanier.
From an objective point of view, the report is a farce. It's scandalous and damning of Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier- unless you actually read the report. Then it just becomes a head scratcher. When it was released I read it from front to back before listening to anybody else's opinion or reading anybody else's take on it. And I was stunned by the lack of hard evidence to support his conclusion or "opinions" if you prefer. And that was with him essentially writing a prosecutorial presentment without speaking with any of the accused, with the exception of a last minute chat with Spanier.
Bring forth the information for folks to view.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Or ignore the post/request like he did mine and Mr. Lubrano's the other week asking to see or provide links this documentation that he claims is out there. Good ol' zipster will just drone on like he always does....
good post. I heard the presser with Freeh on the radio and was outraged at Paterno and Penn State. Then, I read the report and wondered WTF I missed. I read the Baylor report and got the exact same wonder.
Apparently, according to Zippy, freeh has information not contained in his final report that the OAG themselves isn't aware of (even though freeh didn't even have subpoena power and never spoke to any of the key players except Spanier at the last minute)....otherwise why would the most serious charges against CSS get quashed?? There's all this damning evidence yet the OAG had to resort to breaking the constitution with Baldwin fiasco, ex post facto, expired SOL, etc. just to charge CSS....riiiiiiight.
Isn't the BOT fighting tooth and nail to prevent exactly what the Squirrel Nut Zipper is proposing?
What, you're not at Oakmont with your Fancy Friends Zippy?
Fixed it for you:
No, what is important is for others to view information not contained in the final report which further supports the Alumni Trustees, the Paterno family & Dr. Spanier's conclusions. Further, Frazier originally did not want to conduct an investigation, but has accepted Freeh's conclusions and reinforced it in his now famous public exchange with Bill Cluck in March 2013.
The question is WHY.
You got solid info - you bring it. Otherwise stop with the #handwaving and go home.
Fixed it for you:
No, what is important is for others to view information not contained in the final report which further supports the Alumni Trustees, the Paterno family & Dr. Spanier's conclusions. Further, Frazier originally did not want to conduct an investigation, but has accepted Freeh's conclusions and reinforced it in his now famous public exchange with Bill Cluck in March 2013.
The question is WHY.
You got solid info - you bring it. Otherwise stop with the #handwaving and go home.
Last edited:
Didn't JVP run Title IX? if not for Title IX and field hockey, what would Peetz have done with her life?
"Maybe you haven't noticed but the news cycle in today's world is about 5 minutes so don't make it sound like this was some sort of sinister orchestrated event to maximize effect. Freeh could have held his press conference in a coal mine at four in the morning on Christmas eve and the press would have been there wearing miner's lanterns two hours in advance jockeying for position."-CR666
The advantage of Freeh holding the press conference in a mine would have been that NO AIR CONDITIONING would have been needed....
The advantage of Freeh holding the press conference in a mine would have been that NO AIR CONDITIONING would have been needed....
Last edited:
