OK....so who else read the Clery Report? (I did)

[bjf1991]

Can anyone who is not a complete and utter idiot read that.......
and not wonder if our entire government has jumped the shark?

It is simply dumb-founding.


An awe-inspiring example of circle-jerk moronic agenda-driven posturing with absolutely no connections, tangential or otherwise, to common sense.


One could write a 1,000 page treatise titled "Idiocy in Action"....wrt the authoring of this report.



One shining example, for the 99% who will never read the report [and maybe others who have read it can chime in with one or two of their "favorites" as well]:

The report finds the startling conclusion that:

"...the football team also had the most drug and alcohol citations of any Penn State sports program....."

Now - could anyone with an IQ above the freezing point NOT realize how utterly worthless that statement is?





Hint...........

PSU Men's Tennis Team Roster:

Marc Collado
Constant De La Bassetiere
Nika Dolidze
Matt Galush
Henry Gordon
David Kohan
Aws Laaribi
Christian Lakoseljac
Ben Lieb
Zach Lieb
Christian Lutschaunig
Gabriel Nemeth
Noah Sutter

13 Student - Athletes

PSU Football Roster:

Wont list them - - but:

119 Student - Athletes


Later on - in a footnote - after spending 100 pages focusing on "Football" - there is an acknowledgment that:

"...part of the explanation for the elevated number of violations by football players is explained by the relatively larger number of participants...."

Ya' think? "Agenda", much?

 

[LafayetteBear]

I cannot even bring myself to read it, Barry. WTF! It has been five full years since all of this shit went down. Does this report purport to be an evaluation or commentary on the Sandusky fiasco? Coming five full years after the fact? Who the hell is Clery? Who compiled this report? What gives them authority to assess fines against Penn State, particularly at this late date? **** them, BTW.

 

[bjf1991]

I cannot even bring myself to read it, Barry. WTF! It has been five full years since all of this shit went down. Does this report purport to be an evaluation or commentary on the Sandusky fiasco? Coming five full years after the fact? Who the hell is Clery? Who compiled this report? What gives them authority to assess fines against Penn State, particularly at this late date? **** them, BTW.

This thing makes the "Freeh Report" look like red-letter Bible passages.......seriously.

BTW - It in no way is an "evaluation of the Sandusky fiasco"........
But the authors' CLEARLY pounded on that (and the Freeh Report stuff) in an agenda driven "hit piece" - - - - And I really hesitate to use the term "hit piece"......because it doesn't even come close to encompassing the load of crap this "report" is.

It certainly is not - and won't be - a surprise that "Football" has and will absolutely drive the narrative in the MSM wrt this report.......and it is laughable.

Somewhere (and if I find it again quickly, I will try to post it) there is a breakdown of "what the fines were imposed for" (what the failures were)
IIRC, about $25,000 (1%) of the fines were "PSU Sports related"......and all of them were such idiotic bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo as to blind the senses of even an experienced lifetime empty-suit paper-pusher.


The Fines:


#1: Clery Act violations related to the Sandusky matter (proposed fine: $27,500).

#2: Lack of administrative capability as a result of the University’s substantial failures to comply with the Clery Act and the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act throughout the review period, including insufficient training, support, and resources to ensure compliance (proposed fine: $27,500).

#3: Omitted and/or inadequate annual security report and annual fire safety report policy statements (proposed fine: $37,500).

#4: Failure to issue timely warnings in accordance with federal regulations.

#5: Failure to properly classify reported incidents and disclose crime statistics from 2008-2011 (proposed fine: $2,167,500).

^^^^^ But the authors spend most of their hundreds-of-pages-long report talking about "Football and Sandusky and the Freeh Report"..........seriously?

#6: Failure to establish an adequate system for collecting crime statistics from all required sources (proposed fine: $27,500).

#7: Failure to maintain an accurate and complete daily crime log.

#8: Reporting discrepancies in crime statistics published in the annual security report and those reported to the department’s campus crime statistics database (proposed fine: $27,500).

#9: Failure to publish and distribute an annual security report in accordance with federal regulations (proposed fine: $27,500).

#10: Failure to notify prospective students and employees of the availability of the annual security report and annual fire safety report (proposed fine: $27,500).

#11: Failure to comply with the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (proposed fine: $27,500).

 

[TenerHallTerror]

how dare you discredit this magnanimous report!

those students are safer with those fire safety report fines!

 

[SmithtonLion]

Big government in action. If you've repeatedly voted for it, you don't get to complain about it.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

It is all about .... I gotta make my name by making something out of nothing. DAs, AGs.... CEOs....journalists... you can point the finger at big government all you want..... but the fact is sensationalism is the order of the day and that is how we measure our relevance. One could say America has a "CULTURE PROBLEM". We have become a nation of idiots without any integrity.

 

[interrobang]

And the fine due to Sandusky is levied against the BOT, not Curley/Schultz/Paterno

 

[EPC FAN]

I cannot even bring myself to read it, Barry. WTF! It has been five full years since all of this shit went down. Does this report purport to be an evaluation or commentary on the Sandusky fiasco? Coming five full years after the fact? Who the hell is Clery? Who compiled this report? What gives them authority to assess fines against Penn State, particularly at this late date? **** them, BTW.

A real person.
https://www.google.com/search?q=jeanne+clery&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

 

[Andy84]

Barry I understand your complaint about number of incidents related to roster size, but you could weight the number of incidents with football still coming out on top or compare to a similar size roster of track and field with football having a higher incidence rate. This isn't an indictment of PSU football, but instead is probably indicative of college football teams in general.

 

[Mixolydian]

You'd have to "weight" the microscopes too...

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Barry I understand your complaint about number of incidents related to roster size, but you could weight the number of incidents with football still coming out on top or compare to a similar size roster of track and field with football having a higher incidence rate. This isn't an indictment of PSU football, but instead is probably indicative of college football teams in general.

Or college basketball teams..... Any time you abjectly change "admission standards" for a specific group of individuals to prioritize a wholly different set of criteria (including waiver of personal disqualifying items if they meet this wholly separate list of criteria - i.e., waiving character flaws if the individual appears to be in the top 1% of high school football or basketball players in the nation), you are going to generate "unintended outcomes" like this via the "Law of Unintended Consequences". If these are truly Clery violations, how on earth could F$U skate with no penalty whatsoever when during the Jameis Winston fiasco it was revealed by independent studies that F$U had the highest incidence of "violent crime" criminal complaints involving women of any athletic department in the nation - and by a fairly wide margin. But the Federal Department of Education via the Clery Act never investigated or fined F$U whatsoever - things that make you go hhhhmmmmm????

NYT: F.S.U. Reported Few Rape Cases to the U.S.​

 

[JmmyW]

By no means have I read or digested all of it, but I wanted to point out a few "head-scratchers". The university in its arguments rejected Freeh's conclusions. They admit that what McQueary told Paterno & Curley was unclear. And they even argued that Paterno lied to the grand jury.

In the DOE report, at page 23:

In regard to Paterno, the University conceded that Paterno was a CSA for Clery Act purposes and, as such, if he had knowledge of a criminal act of child sexual abuse, the University would have been obligated to include the reported incident in the crime statistics reported in the 2002 ASR and provided to the Department. The University further conceded that Paterno testified under oath that he understood what McQueary reported to him regarding Sandusky's interaction with the child in the Lasch Building locker room shower was likely a criminal act. However, the University specifically refused to concede it violated the Clery Act in regard to this or any other Sandusky incident. To come to this conclusion, the University has taken the nuanced position that it does not accept that the statements made by Paterno under oath to the Grand Jury were in fact true; but IF they were true, then the University violated the Clery Act.

In regard to Curley, the University defended his silence and inaction and stands by his failure to contemporaneously report this forcible sex offense. 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.

----
Later, at the bottom of p.24:

The Department has closely examined findings contained in the Freeh Report and has conducted its own independent investigation in relation to this matter. Based on this evidence, the Department has reached the same conclusions as the Freeh Report in relation to this incident, and, therefore, is in agreement with the University inasmuch as it accepted the findings of the Freeh Report. With the Department and the University seemingly in agreement regarding the facts of this particular incident, and in agreement that those facts constituted a violation of the Clery Act, for most Universities that would have been the end to the present inquiry—not so for Penn State.

Instead, Penn State has chosen to go another route. In its response to the Department's PRR, the University contradicted its earlier acceptance of the Freeh report findings, and, instead, rejected the findings of the Freeh Report in relation to this incident. Contrary to the Freeh Report's findings, the University asserted that it did not violate the Clery Act in relation to this incident. In doing so, the University offers factual and legal arguments that are at best incongruent and at worst in direct opposition to the findings of the Freeh Report.


---
And a little later, on p.25:

The Department is also disappointed that, given the opportunity to review its own actions in regard to this incident, the University has taken no ownership of its past mistakes.

----
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/...center/cleryact/pennstate/PSCFPRD10327991.pdf

 

[didier]

Anybody know who this is referring to?

 

[bjf1991]

Barry I understand your complaint about number of incidents related to roster size, but you could weight the number of incidents with football still coming out on top or compare to a similar size roster of track and field with football having a higher incidence rate. This isn't an indictment of PSU football, but instead is probably indicative of college football teams in general.

Did you read the report?

Or, did you read my post?

The specific passage I cited wasn't so much a complaint.......rather, it was one of - probably - over 1,000 citations of absolute inanity in that piece of crap

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Anybody know who this is referring to?

Wouldn't it be a laugh if it was Psycho Bernie.....

 

[bjf1991]

By no means have I read or digested all of it, but I wanted to point out a few "head-scratchers". The university in its arguments rejected Freeh's conclusions. They admit that what McQueary told Paterno & Curley was unclear. And they even argued that Paterno lied to the grand jury.

In the DOE report, at page 23:

In regard to Paterno, the University conceded that Paterno was a CSA for Clery Act purposes and, as such, if he had knowledge of a criminal act of child sexual abuse, the University would have been obligated to include the reported incident in the crime statistics reported in the 2002 ASR and provided to the Department. The University further conceded that Paterno testified under oath that he understood what McQueary reported to him regarding Sandusky's interaction with the child in the Lasch Building locker room shower was likely a criminal act. However, the University specifically refused to concede it violated the Clery Act in regard to this or any other Sandusky incident. To come to this conclusion, the University has taken the nuanced position that it does not accept that the statements made by Paterno under oath to the Grand Jury were in fact true; but IF they were true, then the University violated the Clery Act.

In regard to Curley, the University defended his silence and inaction and stands by his failure to contemporaneously report this forcible sex offense. 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.

----
Later, at the bottom of p.24:

The Department has closely examined findings contained in the Freeh Report and has conducted its own independent investigation in relation to this matter. Based on this evidence, the Department has reached the same conclusions as the Freeh Report in relation to this incident, and, therefore, is in agreement with the University inasmuch as it accepted the findings of the Freeh Report. With the Department and the University seemingly in agreement regarding the facts of this particular incident, and in agreement that those facts constituted a violation of the Clery Act, for most Universities that would have been the end to the present inquiry—not so for Penn State.

Instead, Penn State has chosen to go another route. In its response to the Department's PRR, the University contradicted its earlier acceptance of the Freeh report findings, and, instead, rejected the findings of the Freeh Report in relation to this incident. Contrary to the Freeh Report's findings, the University asserted that it did not violate the Clery Act in relation to this incident. In doing so, the University offers factual and legal arguments that are at best incongruent and at worst in direct opposition to the findings of the Freeh Report.


---
And a little later, on p.25:

The Department is also disappointed that, given the opportunity to review its own actions in regard to this incident, the University has taken no ownership of its past mistakes.

----
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/...center/cleryact/pennstate/PSCFPRD10327991.pdf

Yep - one would think that the Circle-Jerk King (GTASCA) and his Henchman (CDW) and their minions (GMJ etc) - will be reading that report over and over again in pure orgasmic ecstasy.

Like a bunch of lost apostles, who have stumbled onto the lost words of the savior

 

[bjf1991]

Wouldn't it be a laugh if it was Psycho Bernie.....

First person who popped into my head......probably not him - but what a chuckle-inducing idea

 

[joeparules]

Wouldn't it be a laugh if it was Psycho Bernie.....

That was my first thought after reading it. Bernie has always fallen under the category of "methinks thou doth protest too much"!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

By no means have I read or digested all of it, but I wanted to point out a few "head-scratchers". The university in its arguments rejected Freeh's conclusions. They admit that what McQueary told Paterno & Curley was unclear. And they even argued that Paterno lied to the grand jury.

In the DOE report, at page 23:

In regard to Paterno, the University conceded that Paterno was a CSA for Clery Act purposes and, as such, if he had knowledge of a criminal act of child sexual abuse, the University would have been obligated to include the reported incident in the crime statistics reported in the 2002 ASR and provided to the Department. The University further conceded that Paterno testified under oath that he understood what McQueary reported to him regarding Sandusky's interaction with the child in the Lasch Building locker room shower was likely a criminal act. However, the University specifically refused to concede it violated the Clery Act in regard to this or any other Sandusky incident. To come to this conclusion, the University has taken the nuanced position that it does not accept that the statements made by Paterno under oath to the Grand Jury were in fact true; but IF they were true, then the University violated the Clery Act.

In regard to Curley, the University defended his silence and inaction and stands by his failure to contemporaneously report this forcible sex offense. 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.

----
Later, at the bottom of p.24:

The Department has closely examined findings contained in the Freeh Report and has conducted its own independent investigation in relation to this matter. Based on this evidence, the Department has reached the same conclusions as the Freeh Report in relation to this incident, and, therefore, is in agreement with the University inasmuch as it accepted the findings of the Freeh Report. With the Department and the University seemingly in agreement regarding the facts of this particular incident, and in agreement that those facts constituted a violation of the Clery Act, for most Universities that would have been the end to the present inquiry—not so for Penn State.

Instead, Penn State has chosen to go another route. In its response to the Department's PRR, the University contradicted its earlier acceptance of the Freeh report findings, and, instead, rejected the findings of the Freeh Report in relation to this incident. Contrary to the Freeh Report's findings, the University asserted that it did not violate the Clery Act in relation to this incident. In doing so, the University offers factual and legal arguments that are at best incongruent and at worst in direct opposition to the findings of the Freeh Report.


---
And a little later, on p.25:

The Department is also disappointed that, given the opportunity to review its own actions in regard to this incident, the University has taken no ownership of its past mistakes.

----
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/...center/cleryact/pennstate/PSCFPRD10327991.pdf

That's utter made up bull$hit - Paterno never "testified under oath" that he understood that Mike McQueary reported a criminal act to him. That is clearly a libelous claim. Mike McQueary has already testified multiple times under oath that he NEVER saw or eyewitnessed anything and that he was speculating based on what he first heard (noises) and then saw (body positioning in shower) WHICH WERE BOTH "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" in nature -- neither was "DIRECT EVIDENCE". Paterno's statement clearly states that he had no idea what exactly MM saw that day and he never really told him - Paterno expressed that MM was concerned that it was "inappropriate", not criminal. IOW, Paterno's words could have just as easily been referring to MM's CONJECTURING about worse case scenarios as to what might have been going on (which Paterno made clear that MM told him he wasn't even sure exactly what was going on!). But it is completely libelous and defamatory to claim that Paterno "testified under oath" that he [JVP] acknowledged MM reported a crime to him, knew MM reported a crime to him and he thought MM was attempting to make a criminal report to him.......that is a beyond absurd and ludicrous claim AND FACTUALLY NEVER HAPPENED! IOW, it is an INTENTIONALLY false statement by the authors of the Clery Report.

 

[kgilbert78]

Can anyone who is not a complete and utter idiot read that.......
and not wonder if our entire government has jumped the shark?

It is simply dumb-founding.


An awe-inspiring example of circle-jerk moronic agenda-driven posturing with absolutely no connections, tangential or otherwise, to common sense.


One could write a 1,000 page treatise titled "Idiocy in Action"....wrt the authoring of this report.



One shining example, for the 99% who will never read the report [and maybe others who have read it can chime in with one or two of their "favorites" as well]:

The report finds the startling conclusion that:

"...the football team also had the most drug and alcohol citations of any Penn State sports program....."

Now - could anyone with an IQ above the freezing point NOT realize how utterly worthless that statement is?





Hint...........

PSU Men's Tennis Team Roster:

Marc Collado
Constant De La Bassetiere
Nika Dolidze
Matt Galush
Henry Gordon
David Kohan
Aws Laaribi
Christian Lakoseljac
Ben Lieb
Zach Lieb
Christian Lutschaunig
Gabriel Nemeth
Noah Sutter

13 Student - Athletes

PSU Football Roster:

Wont list them - - but:

119 Student - Athletes


Later on - in a footnote - after spending 100 pages focusing on "Football" - there is an acknowledgment that:

"...part of the explanation for the elevated number of violations by football players is explained by the relatively larger number of participants...."

Ya' think? "Agenda", much?



Group photo of the "Clery Report" team......celebrating the completion of their task:

This explains it all:

 

[mn78psu83]

How much revenue could the government generate if they just started doing "random" Clery Act audits? I say random, but let's be real. Start with Baylor and FSU and go from there. I will be surprised if they don't. Sleepless nights for some university administrations thinking about a Clery Act audit. For PSU these things have become "de rigeur."

 

[bjf1991]

That's utter made up bull$hit - Paterno never "testified under oath" that he understood that Mike McQueary reported a criminal act to him. That is clearly a libelous claim. Mike McQueary has already testified multiple times under oath that he NEVER saw or eyewitnessed anything and that he was speculating based on what he first heard (noises) and then saw (body positioning in shower) WHICH WERE BOTH "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" in nature -- neither was "DIRECT EVIDENCE". Paterno's statement clearly states that he had no idea what exactly MM saw that day and he never really told him - Paterno expressed that MM was concerned that it was "inappropriate", not criminal. IOW, Paterno's words could have just as easily been referring to MM's CONJECTURING about worse case scenarios as to what might have been going on (which Paterno made clear that MM told him he wasn't even sure exactly what was going on!). But it is completely libelous and defamation to claim that Paterno "testified under oath" that MM reported a crime to him and he thought MM was attempting to make a criminal report to him.......that is a beyond absurd and ludicrous claim AND FACTUALLY NEVER HAPPENED! IOW, it is an INTENTIONALLY false statement by the authors of the Clery Report.

The "Clery Report".......kernels of corn courtesy of Vicky T:

 

[wensilver]

Where's my good friend Steffie Deviney - who made a point of chasing me down that November "Evening with President Barron" here in Philadelphia - telling me how valuable the Freeh report was?

As always - these people continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

By no means have I read or digested all of it, but I wanted to point out a few "head-scratchers". The university in its arguments rejected Freeh's conclusions. They admit that what McQueary told Paterno & Curley was unclear. And they even argued that Paterno lied to the grand jury.

In the DOE report, at page 23:

In regard to Paterno, the University conceded that Paterno was a CSA for Clery Act purposes and, as such, if he had knowledge of a criminal act of child sexual abuse, the University would have been obligated to include the reported incident in the crime statistics reported in the 2002 ASR and provided to the Department. The University further conceded that Paterno testified under oath that he understood what McQueary reported to him regarding Sandusky's interaction with the child in the Lasch Building locker room shower was likely a criminal act. However, the University specifically refused to concede it violated the Clery Act in regard to this or any other Sandusky incident. To come to this conclusion, the University has taken the nuanced position that it does not accept that the statements made by Paterno under oath to the Grand Jury were in fact true; but IF they were true, then the University violated the Clery Act.

In regard to Curley, the University defended his silence and inaction and stands by his failure to contemporaneously report this forcible sex offense. 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.

----
Later, at the bottom of p.24:

The Department has closely examined findings contained in the Freeh Report and has conducted its own independent investigation in relation to this matter. Based on this evidence, the Department has reached the same conclusions as the Freeh Report in relation to this incident, and, therefore, is in agreement with the University inasmuch as it accepted the findings of the Freeh Report. With the Department and the University seemingly in agreement regarding the facts of this particular incident, and in agreement that those facts constituted a violation of the Clery Act, for most Universities that would have been the end to the present inquiry—not so for Penn State.

Instead, Penn State has chosen to go another route. In its response to the Department's PRR, the University contradicted its earlier acceptance of the Freeh report findings, and, instead, rejected the findings of the Freeh Report in relation to this incident. Contrary to the Freeh Report's findings, the University asserted that it did not violate the Clery Act in relation to this incident. In doing so, the University offers factual and legal arguments that are at best incongruent and at worst in direct opposition to the findings of the Freeh Report.


---
And a little later, on p.25:

The Department is also disappointed that, given the opportunity to review its own actions in regard to this incident, the University has taken no ownership of its past mistakes.

----
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/...center/cleryact/pennstate/PSCFPRD10327991.pdf

 

[wensilver]

Bernie McCue?

Anybody know who this is referring to?

 

[Peetz Pool Boy]

Where's my good friend Steffie Deviney - who made a point of chasing me down that November "Evening with President Barron" here in Philadelphia - telling me how valuable the Freeh report was?

As always - these people continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

You had to have been shuffling along in order for Stephanie to catch up with you.

 

[didier]

Bernie McCue?

Would Bernie qualify as "influential member of the community" though?

 

[94LionsFan]

By no means have I read or digested all of it, but I wanted to point out a few "head-scratchers". The university in its arguments rejected Freeh's conclusions. They admit that what McQueary told Paterno & Curley was unclear. And they even argued that Paterno lied to the grand jury.

In the DOE report, at page 23:

In regard to Paterno, the University conceded that Paterno was a CSA for Clery Act purposes and, as such, if he had knowledge of a criminal act of child sexual abuse, the University would have been obligated to include the reported incident in the crime statistics reported in the 2002 ASR and provided to the Department. The University further conceded that Paterno testified under oath that he understood what McQueary reported to him regarding Sandusky's interaction with the child in the Lasch Building locker room shower was likely a criminal act. However, the University specifically refused to concede it violated the Clery Act in regard to this or any other Sandusky incident. To come to this conclusion, the University has taken the nuanced position that it does not accept that the statements made by Paterno under oath to the Grand Jury were in fact true; but IF they were true, then the University violated the Clery Act.

In regard to Curley, the University defended his silence and inaction and stands by his failure to contemporaneously report this forcible sex offense. 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.

----
Later, at the bottom of p.24:

The Department has closely examined findings contained in the Freeh Report and has conducted its own independent investigation in relation to this matter. Based on this evidence, the Department has reached the same conclusions as the Freeh Report in relation to this incident, and, therefore, is in agreement with the University inasmuch as it accepted the findings of the Freeh Report. With the Department and the University seemingly in agreement regarding the facts of this particular incident, and in agreement that those facts constituted a violation of the Clery Act, for most Universities that would have been the end to the present inquiry—not so for Penn State.

Instead, Penn State has chosen to go another route. In its response to the Department's PRR, the University contradicted its earlier acceptance of the Freeh report findings, and, instead, rejected the findings of the Freeh Report in relation to this incident. Contrary to the Freeh Report's findings, the University asserted that it did not violate the Clery Act in relation to this incident. In doing so, the University offers factual and legal arguments that are at best incongruent and at worst in direct opposition to the findings of the Freeh Report.


---
And a little later, on p.25:

The Department is also disappointed that, given the opportunity to review its own actions in regard to this incident, the University has taken no ownership of its past mistakes.

----
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/...center/cleryact/pennstate/PSCFPRD10327991.pdf

Trying to understand this... All along -- well, since removing Spanier -- PSU has just gone along with the narrative and offered no pushback. Why would they reject the Freeh Report's findings in relation to the Sandusky incident in their response to the DOE?

 

[bdgan]

I don't understand the part about Joe being a CSA. Even if you believe he understood MM's report to be about a sex act, he still reported what he was told to C&S. In what way were his actions a violation of the Cleary Act?

 

[bjf1991]

Would Bernie qualify as "influential member of the community" though?

Depends on your definition of "community"

In their community - - - the answer is probably (almost certainly) -----YES.

 

[Legion of Lions]

And the fine due to Sandusky is levied against the BOT, not Curley/Schultz/Paterno

Now you know why corruption in government is the most important issue in the entire Sandusky situation. The Clery Act Report, just like the OAG Presentment and the Freeh Report (Opinion) have been publicized in a method which is common to political campaigns - total agenda-driven public "images".

The creation of "public images" - here the continuation of the PSU implied "Criminal Football" culture - are ENGINEERED to distort reality so that the emotionally based 2011 Sandusky-Penn State horror story is consistently reinforced. Throughout this ordeal, NOTHING has been provided to the public without PROFESSIONAL planning (Friday Release??) and nothing has been presented to the public in a remotely factual way. This is a POLITICS-BASED method of operation in a state where the politics and government have been corrupted to the core!!

In every media presentation, the $2.4M+ fine being assessed on PSU is presented as a SANDUSKY FINE!! - not a Cleary fine. It is IMPLIED (a standard form of emotional deception) that Penn State FOOTBALL was the reason for these "unprecedented fines".

In reality, the entire Sandusky matter resulted in a minimum amount based upon the listing of violations in the judgement. The largest fine (more than $2M) comes from a multi-year reporting "irregularity period" from 2008-2011. I challenge anyone to ACCURATELY support the public statement that links the Sandusky matter (and Football) with the Cleary fine. The fact that "football" is even mentioned casts doubts as to the "purpose" of the entire Cleary Investigation!

The need for maintaining the public illusion of "Criminal Football Culture" must be unbelievably important to the PA government (and BOT) criminals who continue to spin negative stories, maximized in both release timing and presentation, as a method of continuing to "reinforce" the original OAG smokescreen, even in the light of new (and better) evidence which exposes questions as to the validity of the entire Sandusky-Penn State Football allegations.

Why else would Cleary fines presented as it has in the news today - fines assessed AFTER the Sandusky 2001 event - which are promoted as Penn State-Sandusky "cover-up" fines? REMEMBER....the media KNOWS the truth.....that only $27,000 - a minimum - was resulting from "anything Sandusky".

ANSWER - The political media "strings" are still being pulled!!!! Someone must fear that the deception could soon be exposed!

 

[jake_and_zach]

Can anyone who is not a complete and utter idiot read that.......
and not wonder if our entire government has jumped the shark?

It is simply dumb-founding.


An awe-inspiring example of circle-jerk moronic agenda-driven posturing with absolutely no connections, tangential or otherwise, to common sense.


One could write a 1,000 page treatise titled "Idiocy in Action"....wrt the authoring of this report.



One shining example, for the 99% who will never read the report [and maybe others who have read it can chime in with one or two of their "favorites" as well]:

The report finds the startling conclusion that:

"...the football team also had the most drug and alcohol citations of any Penn State sports program....."

Now - could anyone with an IQ above the freezing point NOT realize how utterly worthless that statement is?





Hint...........

PSU Men's Tennis Team Roster:

Marc Collado
Constant De La Bassetiere
Nika Dolidze
Matt Galush
Henry Gordon
David Kohan
Aws Laaribi
Christian Lakoseljac
Ben Lieb
Zach Lieb
Christian Lutschaunig
Gabriel Nemeth
Noah Sutter

13 Student - Athletes

PSU Football Roster:

Wont list them - - but:

119 Student - Athletes


Later on - in a footnote - after spending 100 pages focusing on "Football" - there is an acknowledgment that:

"...part of the explanation for the elevated number of violations by football players is explained by the relatively larger number of participants...."

Ya' think? "Agenda", much?



Group photo of the "Clery Report" team......celebrating the completion of their task:

Will/has Clery looked into the Baylor fiasco and issued a report? Has/will Clery look into the FSU cases and issue a report? I'm sure there are more I can't recall at the moment. There was a lot of "covering-up" and "non-reporting" taking place at those fine institutions. Waiting for the Clery report for those issues.........

 

[kgilbert78]

I don't understand the part about Joe being a CSA. Even if you believe he understood MM's report to be about a sex act, he still reported what he was told to C&S. In what way were his actions a violation of the Cleary Act?

Ex post facto most likely. Even though that's unconstitutional.

 

[CDW3333]

By no means have I read or digested all of it, but I wanted to point out a few "head-scratchers". The university in its arguments rejected Freeh's conclusions. They admit that what McQueary told Paterno & Curley was unclear. And they even argued that Paterno lied to the grand jury.

In the DOE report, at page 23:

In regard to Paterno, the University conceded that Paterno was a CSA for Clery Act purposes and, as such, if he had knowledge of a criminal act of child sexual abuse, the University would have been obligated to include the reported incident in the crime statistics reported in the 2002 ASR and provided to the Department. The University further conceded that Paterno testified under oath that he understood what McQueary reported to him regarding Sandusky's interaction with the child in the Lasch Building locker room shower was likely a criminal act. However, the University specifically refused to concede it violated the Clery Act in regard to this or any other Sandusky incident. To come to this conclusion, the University has taken the nuanced position that it does not accept that the statements made by Paterno under oath to the Grand Jury were in fact true; but IF they were true, then the University violated the Clery Act.

In regard to Curley, the University defended his silence and inaction and stands by his failure to contemporaneously report this forcible sex offense. 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.

----
Later, at the bottom of p.24:

The Department has closely examined findings contained in the Freeh Report and has conducted its own independent investigation in relation to this matter. Based on this evidence, the Department has reached the same conclusions as the Freeh Report in relation to this incident, and, therefore, is in agreement with the University inasmuch as it accepted the findings of the Freeh Report. With the Department and the University seemingly in agreement regarding the facts of this particular incident, and in agreement that those facts constituted a violation of the Clery Act, for most Universities that would have been the end to the present inquiry—not so for Penn State.

Instead, Penn State has chosen to go another route. In its response to the Department's PRR, the University contradicted its earlier acceptance of the Freeh report findings, and, instead, rejected the findings of the Freeh Report in relation to this incident. Contrary to the Freeh Report's findings, the University asserted that it did not violate the Clery Act in relation to this incident. In doing so, the University offers factual and legal arguments that are at best incongruent and at worst in direct opposition to the findings of the Freeh Report.


---
And a little later, on p.25:

The Department is also disappointed that, given the opportunity to review its own actions in regard to this incident, the University has taken no ownership of its past mistakes.

----
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/...center/cleryact/pennstate/PSCFPRD10327991.pdf

Joe Paterno was a CSA? Man, nobody saw that coming.

 

[CDW3333]

I don't understand the part about Joe being a CSA. Even if you believe he understood MM's report to be about a sex act, he still reported what he was told to C&S. In what way were his actions a violation of the Cleary Act?

The Clery Act requires a CSA to report what he knows to the police, not another CSA. Otherwise "the reporting" can go on forever.

 

[bjf1991]

The Clery Act requires a CSA to report what he knows to the police, not another CSA. Otherwise "the reporting" can go on forever.

You and GTASCA must be EXHAUSTED!!!!

 

[kgilbert78]

The Clery Act requires a CSA to report what he knows to the police, not another CSA. Otherwise "the reporting" can go on forever.

The trouble with that, of course, is that CSA reports in PA were purged after a certain time if they are found to be unfounded--which is likely what happened with the 2001 Sandusky case.

 

[bdgan]

The Clery Act requires a CSA to report what he knows to the police, not another CSA. Otherwise "the reporting" can go on forever.

So MM didn't have to report what he witnessed to Police. Neither did JM or Dranov. Just Joe?

Furthermore, wouldn't Joe violate university and NCAA policy to call police instead of report to Sr administrators?

 

[Obliviax]

The Clery Act requires a CSA to report what he knows to the police, not another CSA. Otherwise "the reporting" can go on forever.

maybe...but in this case, the university has their own police....and the guy who oversaw the "police" was in fact, informed. So again, who is "the police?" Who is a "Campus Security Authority?"

 

[interrobang]

So Penn State is skeptical of two of the most crucial pieces of info that have extended this narrative?

 

[CDW3333]

maybe...but in this case, the university has their own police....and the guy who oversaw the "police" was in fact, informed. So again, who is "the police?" Who is a "Campus Security Authority?"

The Clery Act requires not just that the CSA report the crime but that he/she make sure that a written police report is prepared. Even assuming that Schultz was a cop (which he isn't) there is no evidence that Paterno did anything to make sure a written police report was prepared.