Don't you have the "Discount Double Check" option with your coverage?
Or is it the "Discount Dubious Double Cross Check"?
Last edited:
PSU insurance company lawsuits
- Thread starter PSUEngineerx2
- Start date
Or is it the "Discount Dubious Double Cross Check"?
Are they even allowed to present witnesses to crimes that never were, nor ever could be, prosecuted? Unless SOL doesn't apply?
And even if they could the amount of time between when they allegedly witnessed it, in the 70's, and now would open the door for Sandusky's lawyers to kill them on cross. It would almost certainly bolster the defense's claim that it was, if nothing else, ambiguous enough to be seen as innocent but inappropriate behavior.
Those are two possible reasons. I have no opinion on the veracity of these alleged depositions existence.
Yep. Whether it was your intention or not....I think you laid it out:
Either:
A - there "ain't no laundry list of folks with eyewitness evidence of Sandusky's historical malfeasance wrt illicit interactions w/ kids"
or
B - the prosecution - for someone inexplicable reason - decided not to use this information at trial (and they certainly could have, and - if they had such information - SHOULD have, even if for no other reason than to not let their one eyewitness be put in the zim-zam).
Whether the truth is "A" or "B", I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions either way......but I do feel pretty confident that "Towny" is not FOS....and if I take Towny at his word, and I have no reason to doubt his honesty, as he said:
"There have been several people deposed and on the record as such including several previous assistant coaches"
Then the prosecutors ARE claiming - now - that they do have such a "laundry list".
If what Towny says is true, then either "A" or "B" has to be true, which would then make me VERY confident in saying that the prosecutors.....at the very least.....are a bunch of scumbags who are deserving of at least a nice big slice of responsibility for this whole f-ed up affair.
Let's focus on what is important here - answer the private donation call to renovate Lasch building so that an entrance paved with gold can bring the building "up to date." It is past time to cut off the child's allowance.
I've mentioned before: Back in the day, they may have thought they were seeing indication of homosexual behavior....not recognizing that it was indication of possible CSA. Times were different back then.
And, JS had some say on who got to keep scholarships, etc.....injured players for example. Probably who got to keep jobs as well. IOW, there was incentive for people to not see things, or invent excuses/explanations for what they did see.
So, I think there is something here. I am remembering a couple of conversations in a dorm room in the 74-75-76 time period which serve as a basis for what I have written here.
And, yes, it is nightmarish.
Last edited:
Pretty sure Towny is relaying what he's hearing from the prosecution - that more people have come forward with additional information in recent interviews (not known/available at trial). It's anyone's guess as to what kind of information that might be. Doesn't seem like there was ever a preponderance of actionable intel, but who knows. If true, it would further validate everything Jim Clemente said about PCSOs and how they fool entire communities out in the open, in plain sight. But maybe the prosecution's up to more dirty tricks. Wonder if we'll ever know the real story here.
I don't quite understand what this means.
I believe you, and I believe that 99+% of the people sharing our time there would say the exact same thing.
I am not certain PMA has such a strong case to deny coverage on this. I believe the allegations of negligence against Penn State are not that they performed the acts against the young boys, but that they allowed them to happen and did not stop them when they had information they were occurring, amount other things. I am not an atty. and have not read the policy, but the denial of coverage may not stand up. You would have to read the policy exclusion very closely. If it is vague, the court should find in favor of Penn State.
I also drove ambulance for the University, One of us was at the bench, one with the ambulance, we switched off. Never heard a thing. My partner and I worked nearly every game.
Last edited:
It is reasonable to conclude that PSU will argue that the exclusion does not apply, along the lines you suggest. Imagine being the attorney that has to make that argument.
If I were handling this for PMA I would have reviewed the actions of the BOT in hiring Freeh and then allowing him to announce his findings to the public. That certainly jeopardized PMAs ability to defend against any lawsuits. An insured is required to cooperate with the insurance company, not work against them. I am uncertain of the timing of PMAs denial of coverage and if that occurred prior to Freeh being hired, although I don't think so.
For me the question remains, is the BOT willing to risk disclosure of their depositions. Will they have a choice?
Any wise organization has a rainy day fund. As they should. And all that demonstrates is fiscal prudence--not that they "have enough". When the state contribution to the "state university" is essentially less than the difference between in state and out of state tuition, the state isn't doing enough. I believe the contribution is between 4-8% of PSU's budget (and out of that comes the ag extension offices, which the Commonwealth *really* should be paying for). In my day, it was about 50%. I realize those days are not coming back--but the Commonwealth does short-change PSU every chance they can get.
The crystal ball says that PMA and PSU will reach a settlement that involves a modest payment (perhaps $5-10 million) to PSU. The terms of the settlement will be confidential.
The Cabal will spin this as a victory ("the outcome shows that PSU acted in accordance with its insurance coverage..."), just like they did with the judge's decision to release the Freeh files to the alumni trustees.
The typical Penn Stater will either not notice or will buy the spin.
The Cabal will spin this as a victory ("the outcome shows that PSU acted in accordance with its insurance coverage..."), just like they did with the judge's decision to release the Freeh files to the alumni trustees.
The typical Penn Stater will either not notice or will buy the spin.
Hopefully Mr. Hanger asks some tough questions about this, should that occur. If he's angry about dorms being built, this should really piss him off.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Penn State created a slush fund from interest on loans it gave to itself.
Sounds like something right out of "Catch-22"
is Milo Minderbinder running the BoT?
What's good for M & M Enterprises will be good for the country
Sounds like something right out of "Catch-22"
is Milo Minderbinder running the BoT?
What's good for M & M Enterprises will be good for the country
Five to tenM is a drop in the bucket. I can't see PMA paying anything when the OG BoT once again circumvented the system in place.
------
This certainly could be the main reason for the cover up. If the press would jump on this...... the rigged elections, the conflict of interest in insuring PSU, illegally changing the bylaws in selecting B & I trustees to hold onto power ....it could destroy not only the BoT but also PMA. And a lot of politicians that are in their control. Add in various corruption/money laundering/ slush funds between BoT and TSM. So tearing down Joe and the football program is small potatoes.
