Unfortunately, no matter how much we might want it to not be so (and as I have stated elsewhere):
________________
The NCAA's "victory statement" was a disgusting, bile-inducing bit of rhetoric.
That said, if folks are interested in this issue, they probably ought to read the original suit as it was filed in 2013 (or re-read it if they have not done so recently) ........ before deciding how much weight to apply to Slaten's interpretation.
https://www.scribd.com/…/144…/Joe-Paterno-s-family-sues-NCAA
The charges filed against the (incorrect) Defendants were:
Breach of Contract (2 Charges), Disparagement, Interference, Defamation, and Conspiracy.
Certainly, the final outcome did not include defeat of the Defendants - either in fact or in punishment - wrt any of those charges.
Nor were any of the proposed avenues of Relief (punishments against the Defendants) imposed.
It's a massive, bloody shame - IMO
We can argue about WHY that was the outcome.
We can become angered at the PERCIEVED INJUSTICE of the outcome.
But - we cannot wave a magic wand and make it NOT BE the outcome.
________________
Reviewing the 6 Charges:
The two Breach charges:
Similar language in each charge....essentially:
"The agreement between the NCAA and Penn State contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that requires the NCAA and its officials to refrain from taking unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable actions that have the effect of depriving Plaintiffs of their rights under the agreement.
The NCAA materially breached its contractual obligations and violated the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by, among other things and in addition to the conduct described above, failing to afford Plaintiffs, as adversely affected individuals, “fairness” when acting in this matter."
Outcome:
AS SOME OF US "MENTIONED" (vociferously) at the time, while the
"Corman Victory" was being "celebrated" by our BOT:
- In 180 degree opposition to these charges, the CD 2.0 (The "Corman Victory") mandated and documented that (and was agreed to by UNANIMOUS consent of the PSU BOT):
"...Penn State acknowledges the NCAA's legitimate and good faith interest and concern regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter..." (Compare this statement - UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMED by the PSU BOT in the "Corman VIctory"....with the bolded portion of the allegations in the "Paterno Suit". Then Laugh or Cry....your choice 
)
Result of Charge? Defeat
The "Corman Victory" did more to defeat the "Paterno Suit" than any other event over the last 4 years.
____________
Interference Charge:
"As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful, arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs have been unable to secure comparable employment opportunities in their chosen field.
As a direct and proximate result of these actions by Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered economic loss, opportunity loss, reputational damage, emotional distress, and other damages."
Result of Charge? Defeat
____________
Disparagement Charge:
"The statements in the Consent Decree regarding Joe Paterno’s character and conduct were libel per se, because they imputed dishonest conduct to Joe Paterno.
These statements were widely disseminated by the NCAA, on its website and through numerous press outlets across the country.
Defendants either intended the publication of these statements to cause pecuniary loss or reasonably should have recognized that publication would result in pecuniary loss to the Estate and Family of Joe Paterno.
The Estate and Family of Joe Paterno did in fact suffer pecuniary loss,
reputational harm, and other damages, as a result of the publication of these statements due to the actions of third persons relying on the statements. The commercial interests and value of the Estate and Family of Joe Paterno substantially and materially declined as a direct result of Defendants’ conduct.
Defendants either knew that the statements they made and published were false or acted in reckless disregard of their falsity.
Defendants’ conduct was malicious and outrageous and showed a reckless
disregard for Joe Paterno’s rights."
Result of Charge? Defeat
____________
Defamation Charge:
"After the issuance of the Consent Decree, the NCAA and its officials, including
Emmert and Dr. Ray, stated that the issues they sought to address in the Consent Decree were “about the whole institution,” and that “the Freeh Report . . . revealed [matters] that suggest really inappropriate behavior at every level of the university.”
These and other statements were entirely unsupported by evidence and made with intentional, reckless, or negligent disregard for their truth.
The statements were published in the Consent Decree, which the NCAA
disseminated to the entire world on its website, or were made in front of large audiences and disseminated through national news media.
These statements concerned the members of the Penn State community. They
were false, defamatory, and irreparably harmed Plaintiffs’ reputations and lowered them in the estimation of the nation. Every recipient of the statements understood their defamatory meaning and understood that the Plaintiffs, individual members of the Penn State community between 1998 and 2011, were the objects of the communication.
The publication of the statements resulted in actual harm to Plaintiffs because it
adversely affected their reputations; caused them emotional distress, mental anguish, and humiliation; and inflicted financial and pecuniary loss on them.
The NCAA had no privilege to publish the false and defamatory statements, or if
it did, it abused that privilege."
Result of Charge? Defeat
____________
Conspiracy Charge:
"Among other things, Emmert, Dr. Ray, and other unknown NCAA employees, along with the Freeh firm, agreed to:
a. bypass the NCAA’s rules and procedural requirements in conducting the
Penn State investigation;
b. deprive Plaintiffs of their rights, including their rights to notice and an
opportunity to be heard, before imposing unprecedented sanctions; and
c. impose sanctions on Penn State based on an investigation that did not
consider whether Penn State had violated any of the NCAA’s rules.
Emmert, Dr. Ray, and other NCAA employees, along with the Freeh firm, acted with malice. They intended to injure Plaintiffs through their actions or acted in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. They had no valid justification for their actions.
Emmert, Dr. Ray, and other NCAA employees, along with the Freeh firm,
performed a series of overt acts in furtherance of this conspiracy, including but not limited to the following:
a. the Executive Committee and Dr. Ray purported to grant Emmert
authority to investigate Penn State and impose sanctions, despite knowing they did not have the power to do so;
b. Emmert, Dr. Ray, and other NCAA employees worked closely and
coordinated with the Freeh firm to help it prepare a report that they knew or should have known included false conclusions that had not been reached by means of an adequate investigation;
c. Emmert advised President Erickson that the NCAA would use the Freeh
Report as a substitute for its own investigation, in reckless disregard of the falsity and inadequacy of that report, and the various NCAA procedural rules violations committed thereby;
d. unknown NCAA employees communicated to Penn State’s counsel that
the “death penalty” was on the table for Penn State, despite knowing that no such penalty could have lawfully been imposed under the NCAA rules;
e. Emmert threatened that if Penn State went to the media, the death penalty
would be certain, thus extorting silence from President Erickson; and
f. Emmert imposed the Consent Decree on Penn State based on the
allegations in the Freeh Report, although doing so was impermissible under the NCAA’s own rules.
As a result of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs suffered actual damages.
Defendants’ conduct in engaging in this civil conspiracy was malicious and
outrageous and showed a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights."
Result of Charge? Defeat
____________
Relief Requested by Plaintiffs (penalties desired against the Defendants):
RELIEF REQUESTED:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the entry of judgment against each of the Defendants, and the following legal and equitable relief:
(1) A declaratory judgment that the actions of the Defendants were unlawful and constitute a violation of the Plaintiffs’ contractual and legal rights;
(2) A declaratory judgment that the NCAA-imposed Consent Decree was
unauthorized, unlawful, and void ab initio
(3) Issuance of a permanent injunction preventing the NCAA from further enforcing the Consent Decree or the sanctions improperly imposed therein;
(4) An award of compensatory damages for the tortious and improper conduct and breach of contract resulting in the losses and damages described herein;
(5) An award of punitive damages for outrageous, reckless, and intentional
misconduct resulting in the losses and damages described herein;
(6) Costs and disbursements of this action; and
(7) Any other legal or equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Results? None of those penalties imposed in the Defendants (NCAA et al)
__________
Alas.
There is a reason that the termination of the Suit is viewed as a thorough ass-kicking against the "right side"..... and a reason why the NCAA can "get away with" their disgusting chest-thumping.
