Press Release from PS4RS on ruling in C/S/S case
- Thread starter Tom McAndrew
- Start date
If C/S/S wanted their day in court it would have happened by now, or forced the state to drop all charges by pushing for a trial.
They have no grounds to sue.
Hmmmmmm
Charge someone with a crime - that you KNOW is bogus........that, even in the best possible light is outside of the SOL
For FIVE YEARS continue on in efforts to maintain that charge - causing the defendants to expend 100s of thousands of dollars (and "how do you even add it all up" costs in collateral damage).......
until finally a Judge says WTF? And tosses the charges (should have done so on account of "prosecutorial stupidity and arrogance")
Nope. No case there.
As are the two counts of Endangering the Welfare of Children that remain. They are felonies of the third degree.
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-22-CR-0003616-2013
So how is Kane's situation different? Both felonies, both without prior record, and both public figures in high profile cases...if convicted C/S/S will assuredly get some prison time and probably lose their pensions.
Actually you have it ass backwards......empirical evidence (Sandusky Trial) proves that if The Commonwealth had even a flimsy case against the PSU 3 they would have run them over 5 years ago. The Commonwealth never intended to pursue Gary and Tim and were convinced they would flip on Graham. They have had a tiger by the tail for 5 years and don't have a clue how to let it go. These defendants have competent counsel who are not compromised AND people are watching. No one in the Commonwealth OAG wants to walk into the shit storm that Fina and his porn buddies created.
especially when you are a square peg trying to ease into a round hole.
Will the Commonwealth name the child they endangered, or will they maintain that he is known only "to God?"
With respect to incarceration, no. Both Kane's crimes and the alleged crimes of C/S/S are 3rd degree felonies that carry up to a 7 year max imprisonment. See 101 Pa Code 15.66.
Kane was convicting of two 3rd degree felonies and C/S/S face two 3rd degree felonies, hence their threat of incarceration is the same as Kane although they are charged for separate and different crimes.
If convicted, C/S/S will face jail time. Your original opinion that they wouldn't receive jail time as first time offenders for a misdemeanor is incorrect not only because they are charged as 3rd degree felonies not as misdemeanors, but also because people without a prior record go to jail all the time and Kane is just an obvious example. If Kane with her power didn't have any sway over staying out of jail, then C/S/S don't have a prayer if convicted. Give the OAGs pursuit of the case to date, I'd expect for them to push for a significant sentence and the judge will probably be in the position to give it to appease the people, State, and to "send a message".
'Tis true.
I have often marched to the beat of a different drummer when conscience required it.
Certainly not. They didn't need so to convict Sandusky on multiple counts for the shower incident. Having received convictions for Sandusky, they don't need to establish that a child or children were endangered as that has been established in the eyes of the law. Unless Sandusky gets a retrial and is acquitted then its a losing argument to try and establish that there really wasn't a victim.
You aren't curious that convictions were attained without victims? I guess as long as they are known to God,
That is not at all what I said. What I'm saying is that they already received those convictions so the State has no desire, interest, or benefit to re-prosecute those allegations. C/S/S would take a huge risk to pursue that abuse was phantom abuse because the State would simply respond that Sandusky has been convicted by his peers for CSA. Furthermore, once MM tells the abuse happened, which he will willing testify to, then C/S/S would only be responsible to report the suspected abuse and not interfere, not to judge or prove if it did or didn't happen. They need to prove that McQueary did not tell them what he now alleges, not whether what he alleges actually happened. Expect them to focus on McQuearys statement of what he "would" have told them from his previous testimony. They want to establish what he DID tell them, not what he thinks, wishes, hopes, or thought he said.
I do care whether there were victims for each allegation, but unless the victims totally recant or testify that Sandusky never abused them then it won't change anything. They may or may not be liars or phantoms, but if they were liars they have many more reasons to stick with their story now then before. I doubt that we'll ever know for certainty if the shower victim was ever abused by Sandusky, but I do feel that strongly that McQuearies story about that night isn't consistent with his actions nor those of his father, Dranov, or others that night so I doubt things occured they way he described. I think his memory is augmented over the passage of time and that change is the bind that C/S/S now find themselves in.
In 2014, when Karen Peetz declared it was all a distant memory.
No, I have it right. The defense has filed motions, appealed the rulings, and filed more motions. They've never pushed for trial.
On top of that they used a GJ which pretty much removes all liability for the State.
The charges that remain have ample evidence to support them.
Endangering the Welfare of Children is not a crime that is punishable by loss of pension. Perjury, on the other hand, is. That's why the dropping of those charges was huge for Curley, Schultz, and Spanier (assuming that their pensions are with the state of PA - which is a big assumption),
The Pennsylvania crimes listed under the Pension Forfeiture Act are:
- ·theft by deception
- ·theft by extortion
- ·theft of services
- ·theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received
- ·forgery
- ·tampering with records or identification
- ·misapplication of entrusted property and property of government or financial institutions
- ·bribery in official and political matters
- ·threats and other improper influence in official and political matters
- ·perjury
- ·false swearing
- ·unsworn falsification to authorities
- ·false reports to law enforcement authorities
- -witness or informant taking bribe
- ·tampering with or fabricating physical evidence
- ·tampering with public records or information
- ·intimidation of witnesses or victims
- ·retaliation against witness, victim or party
- ·obstructing administration of law or other governmental function
- ·official oppression, speculating or wagering on official action or information
- -the following crimes when committed by a school employee against a student: rape, statutory sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, and indecent exposure
LMAO
What about the ones that don't (remain)?
Good Grief
Conveniently oblivious, once again
All those legal bills are the reason it hasn't gone to trial yet.Hmmmmmm
Charge someone with a crime - that you KNOW is bogus........that, even in the best possible light is outside of the SOL
For FIVE YEARS continue on in efforts to maintain that charge - causing the defendants to expend 100s of thousands of dollars (and "how do you even add it all up" costs in collateral damage).......
until finally a Judge says WTF? And tosses the charges (should have done so on account of "prosecutorial stupidity and arrogance")
Nope. No case there.
I know the BWI legal experts have already decided in C/S/S favor, but outside the echo chamber there's no grounds to sue.
I clearly said they used a GJ which pretty much removes any liability on the State's part.
You'd have to prove they knowingly withheld evidence to even get it heard.
Having a charge dismissed, and a new AG choosing not to refile, isn't proof of a fraudulent charge.
Agreed - and to prove it, I need only point out that both a jury and a judge decided in McQueary's whistleblower suit that his testimony was credible to the extent that he was actually awarded more $$$ than he was asking for. That said, I'm quite willing to wager that there probably aren't 10 people on this board whose minds changed re McQueary. Same thing will happen to Curley et al regardless of what happens at a trial.
WTF are you even talking about?
You sit in this echo chamber repeating the same "settled" talking points you've all agreed upon. It doesn't make them true.
The fact is there's evidence that C/S/S made a conscious decision to change course from notifying DFW directly. There's evidence that one them mentioned a concern about liability for not reporting it.
It doesn't matter what arguments you make, there's evidence to support the charge. The arguments should be made to a jury.
So you're saying that the entire proof in this case rests in the 17 e-mails Freeh chose to include in his report. 17 e-mails to construct and maintain a "conspiracy" that lasted for 10 years? Are you telling us that in the other 3,499,983 e-mails personally reviewed by Freeh, there's nothing else that could be related to the case? Nothing that might be exculpatory or show that Freeh's agenda is bullshit?
I guess all those other e-mails are about Cindy Baldwin's yoga pants.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-
