Paterno v. NCAA
- Thread starter LundyPSU
- Start date
Thanks E2......I had not seen that.
Kinda' clears up the role of KMcChesney wrt the recent subpoena.
Obviously, she wasn't using ONLY the PSU/Freeh nonsense to make a buck......but it was certainly one of the "arrows in her quiver".
I had not (and still haven't) found anything spelling out exactly what her role was in the creation of the "Freeh Report 2.0".....she never was, TTBOMK, a member of Freeh Sporkin....but she obviously would not have been subpoenaed (and required to produce any relevant documents) unless the Paterno Plaintiffs knew there was some role there.
Would be interesting to see the transcripts once the deposition is taken.
Those of you clinging to the notion that the validity of Freeh's report is not relevant to this case should be reminded that the NCAA has already conceded that it did not have the authority to impose the sanctions.
Would be nice if they were "experts" in "Ethics while report writing" too.... Good grief Charlie Brown! Carry on.....
It would also disqualify her from testifying about its validity at a later date.
WRONG. THE FREEH REPORT WAS COMMISSIONED BY THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE OF OUR OWN BoT, which I think is a whopping 4 people. The NCAA likely conspired with Freeh and these four people.
The NCAA voluntarily used the report. Once they did that, they became responsible for ensuring it was accurate.
The NCAA was in communication with the Freeh group, and not just receiving update status.
Those are just the really big problems for the NCAA.
In addition to what you said above, the NCAA also knew that freeh had no subpoena power and didn't even talk to any of the key players. We also have Ed Ray and other ncaa big wifs state during depositions they never even read the damn report or consent decree before signing off on them! Yep that sounds like a solid basis to issue massive sanctions including a $60mm fine and the destruction of Joe and others reputations...these scumbags are going down hard
If she doesn't have morals, she doesn't "need" to do anything. Just another one of those conundrums that atheists can't reconcile.
No doubt, the only thing worse than an atheist that will stand for any old thing because they don't truly "believe" in anything is.......an atheist lawyer (I believe the alternative name for such soulless, arrogant, narcissistic creatures is "vampire" or "blood sucker").
Stink, I'll look around some more when I have the time....I'll let you know if I find anything interesting.
Was the NCAA unreasonable? Maybe. They have their own processes and policies to follow, and they obviously didn't follow them in this case. Could you make a case for using the report, sure. But their case was based on misinformation. They stated Freeh has subpoena power, he did not. They stated Freeh would be more thorough than the NCAA could be. OK, that's probable. They didn't take issue with the fact that Freeh didn't even meet with the key players in the scandal. If I'm going to use someone else's work as a basis for my actions, you better believe I'm going to make sure that work product is up to my standards and if I'm the NCAA, any investigation that doesn't even include interviewing the main people involved wouldn't be up to my standards. But they took that risk when they elected to use it.
Would a reasonable person reject it? Yes, provided they read it first (which most people did not). The Freeh report's conclusions were clearly a stretch to anyone reading the report and supporting evidence included in the report. There was practically no evidence to prove that Freeh's supposed "reasonable conclusions" were at all reasonable. Were they possible conclusions? Sure. Reasonable or probable? I think not, at least not based on the supporting evidence Freeh provided.
I would posit that the standard isn't "reasonable" either. Not when millions and millions of dollars are involved and you're voluntarily ignoring your own procedures.
Thanks dem. If she is indeed listed as a defense witness, then what you say makes sense. Do we know for a fact whether she was listed as a defense witness? Also, in regards to her having to bring emails she received from Freeh Group, would not those have already been covered under discovery? Of course, they may not have been subject to discovery if - as I suspect - she never "officially" worked for the Freeh Group.
I think it was as much or more Freeh's stated 'conclusions' regarding Paterno and others vs. the report itself that was the impetus for the sanctions. No one bothered to read the report. The stated conclusions were not supported by the report.
Very nice pic Howie, now I understand the reasoning of my grand son and friends to get to the student section early.....
IIRC, one of the NCAA people admitted to not reading the Freeh piece before the sanctions were handed down. I can't recall his name but it's absolutely crazy the NCAA would lay down ridiculous sanctions without even reading the document which supposedly was the impetus for said sanctions. It's proof the NCAA decided what they wanted to do before any facts were known. As Emmert wrote in an email, the Sandusky situation was a great opportunity for the NCAA to leverage its waning authority.
IIRC, the most notable person to make that statement (not bothering to read the report) was Eddie Ray
Proving it will be the challenge. I think you are right--but it will depend on how arrogant the NCAA was (by that I mean, did they cover their tracks or think they didn't have to).
The NCAA (and their involvement) is a sideshow.
It may expose some breadcrumbs that lead to the meatier stuff, and they certainly "did wrong" - so it is an avenue that should be fully exposed......but they are, for the most part, a clown show
It's not a challenge at all.
We know that the NCAA people gave a presentation to the Freeh people directing them to look at stuff that had nothing to do with what the public had been told was the purpose of the Freeh investigation.
We know that Freeh employees were directly soliciting top NCAA officials (incl Julie Roe) for future enforcement business.
We know that Pepper Hamilton has cut Freeh loose.
We know that Freeh has a lot to hide, or so much effort and money wouldn't have been expended to hide it.
Well, since the Paterno lawsuit is against the NCAA I don't see how anyone can call it a "sideshow."
Legally, it may be. I get your premise here--and I suspect you are correct. But legal proof is a higher standard and what we know now is more circumstantial.
There's a good reason why the NCAA/OG BOT settled with Corman when they did in January. There were 400+ emails that were about to be released a few weeks later in Febuary. It's not a huge leap to suggest those emails were quite incriminating.
Corman, the sleeze bag that he is, of course accepted the settlement to help out his OGBOT buddies (who were most likely his political benefactors) and kept those emails in the dark away from the public's eyes. Any decent person looking out for PSU would have told the NCAA to take their settlement offer and shove it up their ass. Covey was all over the NCAA as well and Corman gave them a life line with that settlement and the timing of it. At the very least, why not wait until the 400+ emails are released to the public thus making the NCAA's negotiating postion that much weaker before agreeing to a settlement?? Never made any sense to me.
I'll never forget seeing how the OGBOT scoundrels reacted during the BOT meeting when the settlement was announced..they were SOOO happy and glad handing each other....I remember thinking..hmm..that's odd...PSU was a CO-DEFENDANT with the NCAA and they just supposedly "lost" to Corman....not really....they were happy b/c their malfeasance/collusion with the NCAA remained hidden b/c the 400+ emails will never get released.
Hopefully the Paterno and other lawsuits will get those emails out in the open once they go to trial.
His "reasonable conclusions" were the one's he was paid $8 million to "conclude" by the very parties who benefitted from those clearly false conclusions that were supported by ZERO EVIDENCE and diametrically OPPOSITE the PUBLICLY STATED "conclusions" of the actual germane Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Authorities & Entities who worked the case in regards to PATERNO AND THE PSU FOOTBALL PROGRAM!! Given that Freeh's "conclusions" are diametrically the opposite of the applicable LE "conclusions" in regards to JVP & PSU Football specifically, this is clear evidence that Freeh was "conflicted" in his "conclusions" due to the $8 million he was paid by the very parties those "FALSE CONCLUSIONS" favored and who COMMISSIONED FREEH'S REPORT!
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
If the preponderance of the evidence reasonably supports the report's conclusions it doesn't matter if the NCAA played a role.
Right, because it does not matter that the whole world finds out that the BoT and Freeh were lying when they said it was an "independent report." You know CR, sometimes you forget that you spend most of your time here pretending that your friends on the OG BoT are not liars. Of course, none of us believe you when you say that, but I am concerned that you may wake up feeling bad one of these days when you realize how often you confirm our view.
Wow just effn WOW - you never cease to amaze CR - I'll give you that
Don't worry though - your theory will not be validated
You're full of $hit, the NCAA is in a CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP with PSU - not only an NCAA Member in "good standing", but a FULL-SHARE EQUITY HOLDER in the organization (a SELF-REGULATORY private organization OWNED BY THE MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS). If the NCAA used, and mis-purposed an "independent report" (not an authorized NCAA "investigative report" of any kind), outside of their STATED PROCESSES AND CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PSU, they are in deep doo-doo and clearly dealing in BAD FAITH relative to dealing on a fair and equitable basis with a member institution in "good standing" (e.g., they clearly would be acting in a CAPRICIOUS MANNER in regards to PSU and ITS FOOTBALL PROGRAM INCLUDING THE HEAD COACH AND DIRECTOR OF THE PROGRAM AT THE TIME which is a clear violation of contractual law by the NCAA).
Wait, there's a ton of evidence that supports the report's conclusions??
Hey, let's hear it. What do you have CR66?; you're a man who cares so much about his University, surely you want to see a just conclusion here. By all means, tell us about this evidence.
But it doesn't.
