Prosecutors Object to Ex-Penn State Administrators Request for Pre-Trial Appeal

[step.eng69]

I didn't see this article posted on the board. If already posted, sorry for wasting you time.

Prosecutors Object to Ex-Penn State Administrators Request for Pre-Trial Appeal
by Geoff Rushton on February 21, 2017 11:20 AM

Link: http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...strators-request-for-pretrial-appeal,1471241/

Former Penn State President Graham Spanier. StateCollege.com file photo
Click photo for gallery

Prosecutors last week filed a brief opposing the request by three former Penn State administrators to have Pennsylvania Superior Court hear a pre-trial appeal that they believe could result in the remaining charges against them being dismissed before next month's scheduled trial.

Attorneys for former Penn State President Graham Spanier, former athletic director Tim Curley and former vice president Gary Schultz, had asked for specially-presiding Judge John Boccabella to certify a motion for appeal before their trial on charges of endangering the welfare of children and conspiracy related to their alleged handling of a 2001 report about Jerry Sandusky.

Attorneys for each man wrote that a ruling in their favor on any of their arguments regarding several questions of law could result in the charges being dismissed or "substantially alter the scope of this case and the upcoming trial."

Deputy Attorneys General Laura Ann Ditka and Patrick Schulte wrote in their response that "An immediate appeal will not materially advance the ultimate termination of this matter and will only further delay the proceedings, which have already been delayed by the defendant in excess of five years."

Bocabella quashed charges of failure to report suspected child abuse earlier this month, but denied motions for the child endangerment and conspiracy charges to be dismissed.

The former administrators want another court to review Bocabella's decision on those arguments, which include

- The statute of limitations has passed and prosecutors are using an absence of action to extend it;

- In their positions they did not provide direct care for children and that the child endangerment statute does not apply to them;

- Prosecutors are charging them under changes to the law that occurred years after the 2001 incident;

- The conspiracy charge should be dismissed because Superior Court had already dismissed a single consolidated conspiracy charge.

Prosecutors say Bocabella already correctly ruled on those arguments based on precedent and that the three men do "not articulate a claim on which it may file an interlocutory appeal as of right." They wrote that an interlocutory appeal cannot be a "substitute for matters that can be raised on direct appeal."

The defendants don't necessarily need Bocabella's endorsement for Superior Court to hear their appeal. The previous judge in the case, Todd Hoover, denied requests to certify interlocutory appeals in 2015, but a panel of Superior Court judges took them up. That resulted in felony charges of perjury, obstruction and conspiracy being quashed in January 2016, a decision that was upheld by Superior Court in March 2016.

The charges of endangering the welfare of children and conspiracy to commit the same, both third-degree felonies, stem from their handling of former Penn State football assistant Mike McQueary's 2001 report of seeing Jerry Sandusky, by then retired from his position as Penn State's defensive coordinator, with a boy in a campus locker room shower. McQueary has testified that he told Curley and Schultz that he witnessed sexual abuse, while Curley and Schultz maintain he did not and that he described "horseplay." Spanier also says he was not told the incident was sexual in nature.

When Sandusky was charged with child sexual abuse in November 2011, Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury related to their testimony before the investigating grand jury in the case, as well as child endangerment and failure to report for what prosecutors claimed was their handling of earlier reports about Sandusky and possible abuse. Spanier was charged the following year on similar grounds and at the same time Curley and Schultz had the obstruction and conspiracy charges added.

The felony perjury, obstruction and conspiracy to commit perjury charges against all three were quashed by Pennsylvania Superior Court after attorneys for the former Penn State officials successfully argued that former university counsel Cynthia Baldwin's own grand jury testimony violated their attorney-client privilege, and that she did not explain to them that she was representing the university and not them individually when each testified before the grand jury investigating Sandusky.

Jury selection in the case is currently scheduled for March 20.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

I didn't see this article posted on the board. If already posted, sorry for wasting you time.

Prosecutors Object to Ex-Penn State Administrators Request for Pre-Trial Appeal
by Geoff Rushton on February 21, 2017 11:20 AM

Link: http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...strators-request-for-pretrial-appeal,1471241/

Former Penn State President Graham Spanier. StateCollege.com file photo
Click photo for gallery

Prosecutors last week filed a brief opposing the request by three former Penn State administrators to have Pennsylvania Superior Court hear a pre-trial appeal that they believe could result in the remaining charges against them being dismissed before next month's scheduled trial.

Attorneys for former Penn State President Graham Spanier, former athletic director Tim Curley and former vice president Gary Schultz, had asked for specially-presiding Judge John Boccabella to certify a motion for appeal before their trial on charges of endangering the welfare of children and conspiracy related to their alleged handling of a 2001 report about Jerry Sandusky.

Attorneys for each man wrote that a ruling in their favor on any of their arguments regarding several questions of law could result in the charges being dismissed or "substantially alter the scope of this case and the upcoming trial."

Deputy Attorneys General Laura Ann Ditka and Patrick Schulte wrote in their response that "An immediate appeal will not materially advance the ultimate termination of this matter and will only further delay the proceedings, which have already been delayed by the defendant in excess of five years."

Bocabella quashed charges of failure to report suspected child abuse earlier this month, but denied motions for the child endangerment and conspiracy charges to be dismissed.

The former administrators want another court to review Bocabella's decision on those arguments, which include

- The statute of limitations has passed and prosecutors are using an absence of action to extend it;

- In their positions they did not provide direct care for children and that the child endangerment statute does not apply to them;

- Prosecutors are charging them under changes to the law that occurred years after the 2001 incident;

- The conspiracy charge should be dismissed because Superior Court had already dismissed a single consolidated conspiracy charge.

Prosecutors say Bocabella already correctly ruled on those arguments based on precedent and that the three men do "not articulate a claim on which it may file an interlocutory appeal as of right." They wrote that an interlocutory appeal cannot be a "substitute for matters that can be raised on direct appeal."

The defendants don't necessarily need Bocabella's endorsement for Superior Court to hear their appeal. The previous judge in the case, Todd Hoover, denied requests to certify interlocutory appeals in 2015, but a panel of Superior Court judges took them up. That resulted in felony charges of perjury, obstruction and conspiracy being quashed in January 2016, a decision that was upheld by Superior Court in March 2016.

The charges of endangering the welfare of children and conspiracy to commit the same, both third-degree felonies, stem from their handling of former Penn State football assistant Mike McQueary's 2001 report of seeing Jerry Sandusky, by then retired from his position as Penn State's defensive coordinator, with a boy in a campus locker room shower. McQueary has testified that he told Curley and Schultz that he witnessed sexual abuse, while Curley and Schultz maintain he did not and that he described "horseplay." Spanier also says he was not told the incident was sexual in nature.

When Sandusky was charged with child sexual abuse in November 2011, Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury related to their testimony before the investigating grand jury in the case, as well as child endangerment and failure to report for what prosecutors claimed was their handling of earlier reports about Sandusky and possible abuse. Spanier was charged the following year on similar grounds and at the same time Curley and Schultz had the obstruction and conspiracy charges added.

The felony perjury, obstruction and conspiracy to commit perjury charges against all three were quashed by Pennsylvania Superior Court after attorneys for the former Penn State officials successfully argued that former university counsel Cynthia Baldwin's own grand jury testimony violated their attorney-client privilege, and that she did not explain to them that she was representing the university and not them individually when each testified before the grand jury investigating Sandusky.

Jury selection in the case is currently scheduled for March 20.

Quite creative prosecution:
- The statute of limitations has passed and prosecutors are using an absence of action to extend it;

- In their positions they did not provide direct care for children and that the child endangerment statute does not apply to them;

- Prosecutors are charging them under changes to the law that occurred years after the 2001 incident;

- The conspiracy charge should be dismissed because Superior Court had already dismissed a single consolidated conspiracy charge.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I didn't see this article posted on the board. If already posted, sorry for wasting you time.

Prosecutors Object to Ex-Penn State Administrators Request for Pre-Trial Appeal
by Geoff Rushton on February 21, 2017 11:20 AM

Link: http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...strators-request-for-pretrial-appeal,1471241/

Former Penn State President Graham Spanier. StateCollege.com file photo
Click photo for gallery

Prosecutors last week filed a brief opposing the request by three former Penn State administrators to have Pennsylvania Superior Court hear a pre-trial appeal that they believe could result in the remaining charges against them being dismissed before next month's scheduled trial.

Attorneys for former Penn State President Graham Spanier, former athletic director Tim Curley and former vice president Gary Schultz, had asked for specially-presiding Judge John Boccabella to certify a motion for appeal before their trial on charges of endangering the welfare of children and conspiracy related to their alleged handling of a 2001 report about Jerry Sandusky.

Attorneys for each man wrote that a ruling in their favor on any of their arguments regarding several questions of law could result in the charges being dismissed or "substantially alter the scope of this case and the upcoming trial."

Deputy Attorneys General Laura Ann Ditka and Patrick Schulte wrote in their response that "An immediate appeal will not materially advance the ultimate termination of this matter and will only further delay the proceedings, which have already been delayed by the defendant in excess of five years."

Bocabella quashed charges of failure to report suspected child abuse earlier this month, but denied motions for the child endangerment and conspiracy charges to be dismissed.

The former administrators want another court to review Bocabella's decision on those arguments, which include

- The statute of limitations has passed and prosecutors are using an absence of action to extend it;

- In their positions they did not provide direct care for children and that the child endangerment statute does not apply to them;

- Prosecutors are charging them under changes to the law that occurred years after the 2001 incident;

- The conspiracy charge should be dismissed because Superior Court had already dismissed a single consolidated conspiracy charge.

Prosecutors say Bocabella already correctly ruled on those arguments based on precedent and that the three men do "not articulate a claim on which it may file an interlocutory appeal as of right." They wrote that an interlocutory appeal cannot be a "substitute for matters that can be raised on direct appeal."

The defendants don't necessarily need Bocabella's endorsement for Superior Court to hear their appeal. The previous judge in the case, Todd Hoover, denied requests to certify interlocutory appeals in 2015, but a panel of Superior Court judges took them up. That resulted in felony charges of perjury, obstruction and conspiracy being quashed in January 2016, a decision that was upheld by Superior Court in March 2016.

The charges of endangering the welfare of children and conspiracy to commit the same, both third-degree felonies, stem from their handling of former Penn State football assistant Mike McQueary's 2001 report of seeing Jerry Sandusky, by then retired from his position as Penn State's defensive coordinator, with a boy in a campus locker room shower. McQueary has testified that he told Curley and Schultz that he witnessed sexual abuse, while Curley and Schultz maintain he did not and that he described "horseplay." Spanier also says he was not told the incident was sexual in nature.

When Sandusky was charged with child sexual abuse in November 2011, Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury related to their testimony before the investigating grand jury in the case, as well as child endangerment and failure to report for what prosecutors claimed was their handling of earlier reports about Sandusky and possible abuse. Spanier was charged the following year on similar grounds and at the same time Curley and Schultz had the obstruction and conspiracy charges added.

The felony perjury, obstruction and conspiracy to commit perjury charges against all three were quashed by Pennsylvania Superior Court after attorneys for the former Penn State officials successfully argued that former university counsel Cynthia Baldwin's own grand jury testimony violated their attorney-client privilege, and that she did not explain to them that she was representing the university and not them individually when each testified before the grand jury investigating Sandusky.

Jury selection in the case is currently scheduled for March 20.

Hopefully these guys get their lives back.

 

[step.eng69]

Hopefully these guys get their lives back.

Actually Karen & I thought Tim C. would be dead by the time this trial came to fruition.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

Actually Karen & I thought Tim C. would be dead by the time this trial came to fruition.

And sadly, were that to have been the case, the inept/corrupt OAG would continue citing Tim's "ongoing absence of action" from the grave...

 

[Stufftodo]

Quite creative prosecution:
- The statute of limitations has passed and prosecutors are using an absence of action to extend it;

- In their positions they did not provide direct care for children and that the child endangerment statute does not apply to them;

- Prosecutors are charging them under changes to the law that occurred years after the 2001 incident;

- The conspiracy charge should be dismissed because Superior Court had already dismissed a single consolidated conspiracy charge.

- There may be precedent that says otherwise. One was cited in their first preliminary hearing.

- The Lynn decision says otherwise.

- While the law may have been amended, Endangerment existed in 2001. Schreffler actually suggested it be used against Sandusky in 1998.

- I'm of the opinion that the Superior Court can interpret its own ruling and that, if convicted, they can overturn the conviction.

I would note, however, that even a successful appeal could lead to review by the Supreme Court, which would open CSS up to being charged on a consolidated conspiracy charge anew.

 

[step.eng69]

Quite creative prosecution:
- The statute of limitations has passed and prosecutors are using an absence of action to extend it;

- In their positions they did not provide direct care for children and that the child endangerment statute does not apply to them;

- Prosecutors are charging them under changes to the law that occurred years after the 2001 incident;

- The conspiracy charge should be dismissed because Superior Court had already dismissed a single consolidated conspiracy charge.

I thought the conspiracy charges were dismissed from the earlier court ruling, but they show up in the article. When I saw that charge I decided to post and one of the board siblings will probably give an explanation to the “conspiracy” charges still on the menu.

 

[JoeBatters1]

" .... will only further delay the proceedings, which have already been delayed by the defendant in excess of five years."

Sounds a little bit disingenuous by the prosecution - didn't Hoover take something like 2 years to initially rule on the Baldwin charges which were eventually overturned by the superior court? Never got the sense the prosecution was ever strongly pushing for this to go to trial over the past 5 plus years. Here's hoping the superior court hears the appeal and ends this charade.

 

[JoeBatters1]

Like flies to shitt.

"Stufftodo, post: 2657007"

 

[WeR0206]

" .... will only further delay the proceedings, which have already been delayed by the defendant in excess of five years."

Sounds a little bit disingenuous by the prosecution - didn't Hoover take something like 2 years to initially rule on the Baldwin charges which were eventually overturned by the superior court? Never got the sense the prosecution was ever strongly pushing for this to go to trial over the past 5 plus years. Here's hoping the superior court hears the appeal and ends this charade.

Yeah, funny how the prosecutors left that part out...how Hoover sat on motions by the defendants for YEARS twiddling his thumbs...yep, that's all CSS' fault...what a bunch of corrupt aholes the PAOAG are.

 

[dshumbero]

- There may be precedent that says otherwise. One was cited in their first preliminary hearing.

- The Lynn decision says otherwise.

- While the law may have been amended, Endangerment existed in 2001. Schreffler actually suggested it be used against Sandusky in 1998.

- I'm of the opinion that the Superior Court can interpret its own ruling and that, if convicted, they can overturn the conviction.

I would note, however, that even a successful appeal could lead to review by the Supreme Court, which would open CSS up to being charged on a consolidated conspiracy charge anew.

Jockstrap, take your Lynn decision and jam it right up you blowhole. More of your PL moron bs.

 

[didier]

I thought the conspiracy charges were dismissed from the earlier court ruling, but they show up in the article. When I saw that charge I decided to post and one of the board siblings will probably give an explanation to the “conspiracy” charges still on the menu.

Originally there was conspiracy to perjure, conspiracy to obstruct, and conspiracy to endanger. For reasons not clear the OAG bundled all three into one conspiracy charge. When the superior court ruled they tossed they seemingly tossed the conspiracy charge although it appears by their language they were really tossing conspiracy to perjure and conspiracy to obstruct. Both the regular perjury and obstruction charges were tossed so not surprising conspiracy followed suit. It seems to me, though, that conspiracy to endanger survives or at least the Superior court was not intending to toss that charge, but their ruling wasn't worded clearly.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

" .... will only further delay the proceedings, which have already been delayed by the defendant in excess of five years."

Sounds a little bit disingenuous by the prosecution - didn't Hoover take something like 2 years to initially rule on the Baldwin charges which were eventually overturned by the superior court? Never got the sense the prosecution was ever strongly pushing for this to go to trial over the past 5 plus years. Here's hoping the superior court hears the appeal and ends this charade.

How about all the charges that were thrown out after like 4 years..... Whose fault is all the wasted years arguing specious charges??? How about multiple findings of "prosecutorial misconduct" related to charges being thrown out, etc... Whose fault is it that prosecutors and defendants have wasted years preparing for charges that were thrown out because they were SPECIOUS and born of intentional PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT?!?!

 

[coveydidnt]

How about all the charges that were thrown out after like 4 years..... Whose fault is all the wasted years arguing specious charges??? How about multiple findings of "prosecutorial misconduct" related to charges being thrown out, etc... Whose fault is it that prosecutors and defendants have wasted years preparing for charges that were thrown out because they were SPECIOUS and born of intentional PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT?!?!

What charges were thrown out?

Dropped.

 

[WeR0206]

If folks haven't been keeping up on the recent Seth Williams drama, I'd recommend you take a look. It seems like the whole Lynn case was built on a foundation of sand a la the CSS case, one could say the Philly DA used the same game plan to maliciously charge Lynn as the OAG used to charge CSS (these plans just so happened to use scapegoats instead of going after the real culprits).

The central PA and Philly media should be ashamed for allowing themselves to be used by corrupt prosecutors re: the CSS and Lynn cases, eating everything the prosecutors said up as if it was gospel.

Link to article taking about Lynn case and Williams' corruption.

 

[lionlurker]

Hopefully these guys get their lives back.

Not unless they move to Australia.

 

[lionlurker]

Actually Karen & I thought Tim C. would be dead by the time this trial came to fruition.

I'm sure some of our leaders were hoping.

 

[lionlurker]

- There may be precedent that says otherwise. One was cited in their first preliminary hearing.

- The Lynn decision says otherwise.

- While the law may have been amended, Endangerment existed in 2001. Schreffler actually suggested it be used against Sandusky in 1998.

- I'm of the opinion that the Superior Court can interpret its own ruling and that, if convicted, they can overturn the conviction.

I would note, however, that even a successful appeal could lead to review by the Supreme Court, which would open CSS up to being charged on a consolidated conspiracy charge anew.

The size of your imagination is only rivaled by the amount of your arrogance.

But the reason you're here is because you and your handlers already know what the end game is.

 

[bdgan]

My gut tells me that no judge is going to want to be responsible for dismissing the remaining charges on such an emotional case. The judge would be destroyed by the national media.

Also I'm not sure we want the charges dismissed. The reasons are all technicalities like statute of limitations and not legally responsible for the care of children. Isn't a trial the only chance we have to hear the truth about what MM actually told C&S?

 

[lionlurker]

I, for one, want to see this go forward in order to get certain people on the witness stand. I have no fear of a conviction, nor do the CSS lawyers. I know their job is to make the charges go away, but I would rather see some people be asked questions under oath, facing competent attorneys.

 

[step.eng69]

Originally there was conspiracy to perjure, conspiracy to obstruct, and conspiracy to endanger. For reasons not clear the OAG bundled all three into one conspiracy charge. When the superior court ruled they tossed they seemingly tossed the conspiracy charge although it appears by their language they were really tossing conspiracy to perjure and conspiracy to obstruct. Both the regular perjury and obstruction charges were tossed so not surprising conspiracy followed suit. It seems to me, though, that conspiracy to endanger survives or at least the Superior court was not intending to toss that charge, but their ruling wasn't worded clearly.

Thank you didier, good memory, mine is failing.

 

[PSU2UNC]

- There may be precedent that says otherwise. One was cited in their first preliminary hearing.
Just because it was cited, doesn't mean it is applicable.

- The Lynn decision says otherwise.
Lynn situation was totally different. He was in charge of investigating allegations of abuse. Not the case here.

- While the law may have been amended, Endangerment existed in 2001. Schreffler actually suggested it be used against Sandusky in 1998.
It did exist, but the requirements for it to apply to CSS are not there, even in the new law.

.

 

[LundyPSU]

Is PSU now countersuing Spanier? Looks like a new filing today. Sorry if this is old news.

 

[ChiTownLion]

If folks haven't been keeping up on the recent Seth Williams drama, I'd recommend you take a look. It seems like the whole Lynn case was built on a foundation of sand a la the CSS case, one could say the Philly DA used the same game plan to maliciously charge Lynn as the OAG used to charge CSS (these plans just so happened to use scapegoats instead of going after the real culprits).

The central PA and Philly media should be ashamed for allowing themselves to be used by corrupt prosecutors re: the CSS and Lynn cases, eating everything the prosecutors said up as if it was gospel.

Link to article taking about Lynn case and Williams' corruption.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Yeah, funny how the prosecutors left that part out...how Hoover sat on motions by the defendants for YEARS twiddling his thumbs...yep, that's all CSS' fault...what a bunch of corrupt aholes the PAOAG are.

And no doubt they put some kind of hex on Judge Hoover that made him get sick and die.

 

[indynittany]

I, for one, want to see this go forward in order to get certain people on the witness stand. I have no fear of a conviction, nor do the CSS lawyers. I know their job is to make the charges go away, but I would rather see some people be asked questions under oath, facing competent attorneys.

I have no doubt of their innocence, but I am less confident they will get a fair trial.

 

[lionlurker]

I think the law is so obviously heavily slanted in their favor, that at the very least nothing would withstand an appeal. And the lower court judge knows this, as well.

If he does what the insiders tell him to do, and it gets successfully appealed, this judge's career is over. Which is why we are where we are.

 

[chrisrn1965]

" .... will only further delay the proceedings, which have already been delayed by the defendant in excess of five years."

Sounds a little bit disingenuous by the prosecution - didn't Hoover take something like 2 years to initially rule on the Baldwin charges which were eventually overturned by the superior court? Never got the sense the prosecution was ever strongly pushing for this to go to trial over the past 5 plus years. Here's hoping the superior court hears the appeal and ends this charade.

Exactly Hoover was a joke and a disgrace. The fact that Freeh wanted him to preside over Spanier's suit against him tells you all that you need to know.

 

[Stufftodo]

I thought the conspiracy charges were dismissed from the earlier court ruling, but they show up in the article. When I saw that charge I decided to post and one of the board siblings will probably give an explanation to the “conspiracy” charges still on the menu.

There are two conspiracy charges still on the docket as of today.

 

[Peetz Pool Boy]

- There may be precedent that says otherwise. One was cited in their first preliminary hearing.

- The Lynn decision says otherwise.

- While the law may have been amended, Endangerment existed in 2001. Schreffler actually suggested it be used against Sandusky in 1998.

- I'm of the opinion that the Superior Court can interpret its own ruling and that, if convicted, they can overturn the conviction.

I would note, however, that even a successful appeal could lead to review by the Supreme Court, which would open CSS up to being charged on a consolidated conspiracy charge anew.

With each post, you're gradually exposing your "identity".

You do realize that your posts can be held against you "at a future date" don't you?

 

[Stufftodo]

With each post, you're gradually exposing your "identity".

You do realize that your posts can be held against you "at a future date" don't you?

I neither confirm nor deny my identity. I have indicated that I will reveal it once the criminal trial is underway.

Further, those who need to know it, already do. I think a few wish they didn't.

 

[bjf1991]

I neither confirm nor deny my identity. I have indicated that I will reveal it once the criminal trial is underway.

Further, those who need to know it, already do. I think a few wish they didn't.

We ALL wish we didn't - - - aside from the nice comedic break

 

[Stufftodo]

We ALL wish we didn't - - - aside from the nice comedic break

I'm fairly sure you will really wishing it, when the trial comes around. It would be the same if the case is dismissed. I doubt if you will find anything funny about it. You would probably be tearing your your hair out, if you had any left.

I do find you quite amusing, but the Board does not need another jester. The alumni keeps electing a few.

 

[lionlurker]

I neither confirm nor deny my identity. I have indicated that I will reveal it once the criminal trial is underway.

Further, those who need to know it, already do. I think a few wish they didn't.

Add overblown sense of self-importance to your list of defects.

 

[Lion84]

What charges were thrown out?

Dropped.

Because they wod have been thrown out - satisfied.

 

[dshumbero]

I'm fairly sure you will really wishing it, when the trial comes around. It would be the same if the case is dismissed. I doubt if you will find anything funny about it. You would probably be tearing your your hair out, if you had any left.

I do find you quite amusing, but the Board does not need another jester. The alumni keeps electing a few.

Why do we need to be " afraid, very, very afraid" of your Penn Live bullshit JockstrapJohn?

 

[step.eng69]

View embedded media

Very good read Chi, give my best to Ray. Posting some of the twitter info here is a benefit for me because I don't tweeter.

 

[NittPicker]

I know it's a part of the legal game but why would the OAG object to this? If I was a prosecutor, felt my case was based on solid evidence and the defense filed a motion I'd say, "Bring it on. I'll destroy you in court."

 

[step.eng69]

With each post, you're gradually exposing your "identity".

You do realize that your posts can be held against you "at a future date" don't you?

stufftodo
A.K.A​

​

 

[step.eng69]

I neither confirm nor deny my identity. I have indicated that I will reveal it once the criminal trial is underway.

Further, those who need to know it, already do. I think a few wish they didn't.

Well, you have my ear. Is it necessary to wait?