Spanier targeting Lubert

[bjf1991]

Nellie, perhaps you (or others who are reading this) can jog my memory here....

wasn't there an early report that stated that the GJ who indicted C&S for perjury was NOT the GJ who heard them testify? Rather, the GJ who heard them found them credible, while the GJ who heard McQ was the one who indicted C&S? Meaning, they found McQ credible, which contradicted the C&S testimony as to what McQ told C&S? Yet, all the non-McQ testimony has been consistent with what was relayed to them by McQ, if I understand.

I'm open to me 'misremembering' here. To me, I always thought this was an important aspect of their indictment that seems to get lost in the wash. But I'm not well-versed in how the GJ system usually works in such instances.

You've basically got it right......I'm sure Jimmy W could cite chapter and verse of the entire chronology

From a practical standpoint, GJ proceedings in PA (and the GJs in this fiasco, for sure) "work" like this......which is why nearly every state in the Union no longer use them (I forget the exact breakdown by state - but you could look it up):

1 - Prosecutors have a case that they "can't make"......don't have the evidence to bring charges wrt whatever alleged crime they are investigating.

2 - The Prosecutors compel a list of folks that they feel are relevant......and bring them into a room......and ask them the questions they want to ask them (there is no opportunity for the relevant "defendants" - based on the alleged crimes being investigated - to present or compel any evidence ......or, even to know they are being investigated)

3 - The Prosecutors perform these acts in front of a group of spectators (AKA the Grand Jury)

4 - After presenting the arguments they want to present, the Prosecutors draw up a document (a "Presentment") which outlines what they believe the testimony provided . They then take that "Presentment", and waive it around in a room - - - in the presence of the Spectators (who may - or may not - have even been the spectators who heard the witness testimony) and say

"This all sound good to you guys?"

5 - The spectators - who may or may not have even heard the testimonies - may or may not read the "Presentment"......but in either case, they respond with:

"Sure, whatever. Can we go home now - - - - or is it time for lunch?"

6 - The Prosecutors now go forward with their case - knowing it has been "blessed" by the sacred rites of the PA Grand Jury.



That is the "Justice" system in PA under the Grand Jury process.


Next question?

________________

https://www.nacdl.org/criminaldefense.aspx?id=10372&libID=10345

"....William J. Campbell, former federal district judge in Chicago: “Today, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury.”
What this means is that the grand jury is a secret ex parte proceeding where the evidence is presented by the prosecutor and the grand jury votes whether to indict without ever hearing from the court or defense counsel.
Under these circumstances the grand jurors tend to bond with the prosecutor and indict when the prosecutor indicates there should be an indictment.
The grand jury today functions primarily as a tool of the prosecutor. Employing the power of compulsory process in a secret proceeding, the prosecutor investigates and determines, with virtually no check, who will be indicted and for what...."

 

[bjf1991]

Uh oh. Did I hurt your feelings?

 

[sluggo72]

Because he doesn't want to go to jail. Congrats to him on worming his way out of it.

The facts to what MM conveyed to Dr. D. were exactly as I presented them in that post you replied to. If you don't agree that the authorities should have been contacted based on those three points, then we just aren't going to agree. Just know that because they weren't reported, Penn State got screwed and so did the victims. So you can continue to fight it until the cows go home and get pissed that no one outside of this message board agrees with you, but just know that it's not going to change anything. Dr. D is part of the group that ultimately screwed Penn State... glad you have his back.

here's the problem you have, it was reported outside of PSU, to both the TSM and CPS (child protective services or a similar agency)

 

[getmyjive11]

What you are doing, is bringing your circular argument distraction routine to a thread that is about another topic entirely. And you and the others of the same ilk do it on every single thread.

This is why some people are convinced and/or suspect you 3-4-5 people of being assigned to distract from factual topics under discussion because they are getting too close to the truth about the original topic.

How is referring back to sworn testimony a "distraction routine?" You all come on here are bring forth conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory to point the finger at everyone except for the men who were actually involved in 2001. It's amazing to watch. I don't think you all realize how crazy you sound.

 

[Nellie R]

No, my argument is based on sworn testimony by multiple people.

Please stay on topic. This thread is about the Second Amended Complaint in Spanier V PSU, specifically the naming of 3rd parties, one in particular, para 16. Lubert.

So, what are your thoughts on the Second Amended Complaint filed on January 12th and posted to the court website on the 16th? After having read it thoroughly, that is.

 

[Nellie R]

How is referring back to sworn testimony a "distraction routine?" You all come on here are bring forth conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory to point the finger at everyone except for the men who were actually involved in 2001. It's amazing to watch. I don't think you all realize how crazy you sound.

Please stay on topic. This thread is about the Second Amended Complaint in Spanier V PSU, specifically the naming of 3rd parties, one in particular, para 16. Lubert.

So, what are your thoughts on the Second Amended Complaint filed on January 12th and posted to the court website on the 16th? After having read it thoroughly, that is.

 

[getmyjive11]

here's the problem you have, it was reported outside of PSU, to both the TSM and CPS (child protective services or a similar agency)

There is no evidence that it was ever reported to CPS. And that's nice that it was reported to TSM, but how was it reported to them? That there was "horseplay" between Sandusky and a boy in a shower?

 

[towny87.1]

No, he hasn't changed lawyers. No he's not "losing a lot". No, it's not a "new lawsuit".

Oh good lord..... you always have your undies in a knot........

Spanier had everything tossed out in his initial lawsuit against PSU except for the portion he was mad that he didn't get a new computer

He made every attempt to stall and keep out certain items from MM's suit and all of those attempts failed.

Spanier lost several motions to prevent certain emails from being turned over and he lost on those motions, PSU was ordered in 2015 to provide them to the plaintiff and still hasn't provided them. I guess they won't be needed after all.

his latest lawsuit was completely tossed out with the judge saying it read like a novel but he can refile. That would actually be a new lawsuit if and when it is refiled.............

CSS are not my enemy - I just have the opinion that they lied and they did. Curley specifically mentions 98 in emails and speaks of threatening Jerry with knowing about 98 and yet he tells the GJ and State Police nope don't know anything about it. laughable all of the excuses you make for the admins on intentionally forgetting the past. Plenty of other examples which have been hashed over and over and over..........

 

[getmyjive11]

Please stay on topic. This thread is about the Second Amended Complaint in Spanier V PSU, specifically the naming of 3rd parties, one in particular, para 16. Lubert.

So, what are your thoughts on the Second Amended Complaint filed on January 12th and posted to the court website on the 16th? After having read it thoroughly, that is.

My thought is that Lubert wasn't there in 2001 so it's irrelevant with regards to the actions that took place at that time.

 

[Nellie R]

Oh good lord..... you always have your undies in a knot........

Spanier had everything tossed out in his initial lawsuit against PSU except for the portion he was mad that he didn't get a new computer

He made every attempt to stall and keep out certain items from MM's suit and all of those attempts failed.

Spanier lost several motions to prevent certain emails from being turned over and he lost on those motions, PSU was ordered in 2015 to provide them to the plaintiff and still hasn't provided them. I guess they won't be needed after all.

his latest lawsuit was completely tossed out with the judge saying it read like a novel but he can refile. That would actually be a new lawsuit if and when it is refiled.............

CSS are not my enemy - I just have the opinion that they lied and they did. Curley specifically mentions 98 in emails and speaks of threatening Jerry with knowing about 98 and yet he tells the GJ and State Police nope don't know anything about it. laughable all of the excuses you make for the admins on intentionally forgetting the past. Plenty of other examples which have been hashed over and over and over..........

This is not an undies discussion.

The lawsuit is still under the same link, case number, docket number, etc. If it was a new lawsuit, there would be a new docket number and possibly a new judge assigned.

These are facts, not undies.

 

[Nellie R]

My thought is that Lubert wasn't there in 2001 so it's irrelevant with regards to the actions that took place at that time.

Wait, you are now claiming Lubert was not on the PSU Board of Trustees in 2011? That would be a bombshell!

 

[getmyjive11]

Wait, you are now claiming Lubert was not on the PSU Board of Trustees in 2001? That would be a bombshell!

He wasn't part of the decision process nor has anything come out that he was informed of the situation at that time. So no, "he wasn't there."

 

[Nellie R]

There is no evidence that it was ever reported to CPS. And that's nice that it was reported to TSM, but how was it reported to them? That there was "horseplay" between Sandusky and a boy in a shower?

There is no evidence it wasn't.

 

[sluggo72]

There is no evidence that it was ever reported to CPS. And that's nice that it was reported to TSM, but how was it reported to them? That there was "horseplay" between Sandusky and a boy in a shower?

you talk about sworn testimony, it is GS sworn testimony it was reported. Prove him wrong.

 

[AldenT]

Oh good lord..... you always have your undies in a knot........

Spanier had everything tossed out in his initial lawsuit against PSU except for the portion he was mad that he didn't get a new computer

He made every attempt to stall and keep out certain items from MM's suit and all of those attempts failed.

Spanier lost several motions to prevent certain emails from being turned over and he lost on those motions, PSU was ordered in 2015 to provide them to the plaintiff and still hasn't provided them. I guess they won't be needed after all.

his latest lawsuit was completely tossed out with the judge saying it read like a novel but he can refile. That would actually be a new lawsuit if and when it is refiled.............

CSS are not my enemy - I just have the opinion that they lied and they did. Curley specifically mentions 98 in emails and speaks of threatening Jerry with knowing about 98 and yet he tells the GJ and State Police nope don't know anything about it. laughable all of the excuses you make for the admins on intentionally forgetting the past. Plenty of other examples which have been hashed over and over and over..........

Mike is either a coward or a liar, and also a loser. Can't find a job? Sue. What a pos.

CSS can rot if they knew and lied. But we know Mike never went to the cops. And now he's a millionaire. What a world.

 

[Nellie R]

He wasn't part of the decision process nor has anything come out that he was informed of the situation at that time. So no, "he wasn't there."

Wrong "decision process". Are you going to read the case now and realize what topic you are posting on?

 

[getmyjive11]

There is no evidence it wasn't.

Oh good. Another conspiracy theory. Great.

 

[WDLion]

Oh good lord..... you always have your undies in a knot........

Spanier had everything tossed out in his initial lawsuit against PSU except for the portion he was mad that he didn't get a new computer

He made every attempt to stall and keep out certain items from MM's suit and all of those attempts failed.

Spanier lost several motions to prevent certain emails from being turned over and he lost on those motions, PSU was ordered in 2015 to provide them to the plaintiff and still hasn't provided them. I guess they won't be needed after all.

his latest lawsuit was completely tossed out with the judge saying it read like a novel but he can refile. That would actually be a new lawsuit if and when it is refiled.............

CSS are not my enemy - I just have the opinion that they lied and they did. Curley specifically mentions 98 in emails and speaks of threatening Jerry with knowing about 98 and yet he tells the GJ and State Police nope don't know anything about it. laughable all of the excuses you make for the admins on intentionally forgetting the past. Plenty of other examples which have been hashed over and over and over..........

When did they become aware of the 98 incident. In 98 or after the 2001 incident?

 

[Bob78]

You've basically got it right......I'm sure Jimmy W could cite chapter and verse of the entire chronology

From a practical standpoint, GJ proceedings in PA (and the GJs in this fiasco, for sure) "work" like this......which is why nearly every state in the Union no longer use them (I forget the exact breakdown by state - but you could look it up):

1 - Prosecutors have a case that they "can't make"......don't have the evidence to bring charges wrt whatever alleged crime they are investigating.

2 - The Prosecutors compel a list of folks that they feel are relevant......and bring them into a room......and ask them the questions they want to ask them (there is no opportunity for the relevant "defendants" - based on the alleged crimes being investigated - to present or compel any evidence ......or, even to know they are being investigated)

3 - The Prosecutors perform these acts in front of a group of spectators (AKA the Grand Jury)

4 - After presenting the arguments they want to present, the Prosecutors draw up a document (a "Presentment") which outlines what they believe the testimony provided . They then take that "Presentment", and waive it around in a room - - - in the presence of the Spectators (who may - or may not - have even been the spectators who heard the witness testimony) and say

"This all sound good to you guys?"

5 - The spectators - who may or may not have even heard the testimonies - may or may not read the "Presentment"......but in either case, they respond with:

"Sure, whatever. Can we go home now - - - - or is it time for lunch?"

6 - The Prosecutors now go forward with their case - knowing it has been "blessed" by the sacred rites of the PA Grand Jury.



That is the "Justice" system in PA under the Grand Jury process.


Next question?

Ok, thanks. (and ham sandwiches, all across the state, cower in fear).

 

[Nellie R]

You've basically got it right......I'm sure Jimmy W could cite chapter and verse of the entire chronology

From a practical standpoint, GJ proceedings in PA (and the GJs in this fiasco, for sure) "work" like this......which is why nearly every state in the Union no longer use them (I forget the exact breakdown by state - but you could look it up):

1 - Prosecutors have a case that they "can't make"......don't have the evidence to bring charges wrt whatever alleged crime they are investigating.

2 - The Prosecutors compel a list of folks that they feel are relevant......and bring them into a room......and ask them the questions they want to ask them (there is no opportunity for the relevant "defendants" - based on the alleged crimes being investigated - to present or compel any evidence ......or, even to know they are being investigated)

3 - The Prosecutors perform these acts in front of a group of spectators (AKA the Grand Jury)

4 - After presenting the arguments they want to present, the Prosecutors draw up a document (a "Presentment") which outlines what they believe the testimony provided . They then take that "Presentment", and waive it around in a room - - - in the presence of the Spectators (who may - or may not - have even been the spectators who heard the witness testimony) and say

"This all sound good to you guys?"

5 - The spectators - who may or may not have even heard the testimonies - may or may not read the "Presentment"......but in either case, they respond with:

"Sure, whatever. Can we go home now - - - - or is it time for lunch?"

6 - The Prosecutors now go forward with their case - knowing it has been "blessed" by the sacred rites of the PA Grand Jury.



That is the "Justice" system in PA under the Grand Jury process.


Next question?

Awesome post. I think it's only 4 states that still use a "Presentment document". All the rest use bill or no bill, IIRC.

 

[drblue1977]

You have a boy and a man showering together (in a building that was empty) and a witness visibly distraught and claiming that he heard sexual noises. I'm sorry, but that's plenty of information to contact police. That's not working back from what we know now.

Perhaps, but MM, JM and Doc D who had the info..........first hand..........thought otherwise. Your thoughts..........nevermind!

 

[Nellie R]

Oh good. Another conspiracy theory. Great.

Beg pardon? Because you do not understand the CPSL or the protocols, it's a conspiracy? Because a trial has not happened yet, facts about these protocols, including expunging unfounded indications, is also a "conspiracy"?

 

[getmyjive11]

you talk about sworn testimony, it is GS sworn testimony it was reported. Prove him wrong.

It was reported to whom? TSM? I'm sure it was. I am asking how it was reported? As horsing around?

 

[drblue1977]

There is no evidence that it was ever reported to CPS. And that's nice that it was reported to TSM, but how was it reported to them? That there was "horseplay" between Sandusky and a boy in a shower?

Can you tell where the statement from JR saying "so, your telling me Jerry is a pedophile" was was concerning? That is the first thing that would go through my mind after hearing horseplay and towel snapping.

 

[getmyjive11]

Beg pardon? Because you do not understand the CPSL or the protocols, it's a conspiracy? Because a trial has not happened yet, facts about these protocols, including expunging unfounded indications, is also a "conspiracy"?

Literally no one other than Schultz indicated that CPS was contacted, and Schultz gave a "well, I think that CPS was contacted but I don't recall who did it and I don't even recall if I did it." Yeah, okay. Yet the emails that were uncovered didn't indicate that at all. It just pointed to TSM being contacted.

 

[sluggo72]

It was reported to whom? TSM? I'm sure it was. I am asking how it was reported? As horsing around?

no in open court GS testified that they reported it to CPS or the same agency as last time. It is not my job, or GS to ask follow on questions. The court choose not to. Prove him wrong.

 

[AvgUser]

Louis Freeh deceived all of us knowingly and willingly.

THIS I want to know in more detail...<dream sequence begins...>

If this is true and if this can be exposed, this is the kind of PR that PSU alums needs in the open to once and for all correct the narrative

 

[Nellie R]

Literally no one other than Schultz indicated that CPS was contacted, and Schultz gave a "well, I think that CPS was contacted but I don't recall who did it and I don't even recall if I did it." Yeah, okay. Yet the emails that were uncovered didn't indicate that at all. It just pointed to TSM being contacted.

Testimony has not yet begun in the actual case, which is not even the case under discussion in this thread.

At that time, unless charges based on retroactive applications of the law are thrown out beforehand, I'm sure those questions will be asked as well as subjected to cross.

So, what are your thoughts on the Second Amended Complaint in Spanier v PSU, filed on January 12th, and posted to the Court website on January 16th, that mentions 3rd parties, specifically paragraph 16, Lubert, or any of the other 3rd parties mentioned?

 

[towny87.1]

When did they become aware of the 98 incident. In 98 or after the 2001 incident?

Actually good point - the email in feb 2001 discussing the "first situation" doesn't mention that it was 98. Does anyone know actually when the so called "first situation" was.

either way there was another situation they were all aware and discussing and somehow even threaten Jerry they knew about it in 2001.

but I guess technically when curely was asked if he knew about any other incidents they were "situations" so Tim should be fine.

 

[getmyjive11]

no in open court GS testified that they reported it to CPS or the same agency as last time. It is not my job, or GS to ask follow on questions. The court choose not to. Prove him wrong.

GS didn't know who supposedly reported it. Hell, he was asked if he was the one who reported it and he conveniently couldn't remember. The emails that were discovered show a plan that did not include CPS. Neither Curley nor Spanier testified that CPS was contacted. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing even close to concrete supporting Schultz claim (not even from himself).

 

[lionlurker]

Literally no one other than Schultz indicated that CPS was contacted, and Schultz gave a "well, I think that CPS was contacted but I don't recall who did it and I don't even recall if I did it." Yeah, okay. Yet the emails that were uncovered didn't indicate that at all. It just pointed to TSM being contacted.

Which is why we need to get this all into court, under oath.

Look, we know where you are coming from in your point of view. How do you explain the apparent lack of interest in taking these guys to trial, if they committed a crime here? If it's all so cut and dried as you seem to think it is, in their case.

 

[coveydidnt]

How is referring back to sworn testimony a "distraction routine?" You all come on here are bring forth conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory to point the finger at everyone except for the men who were actually involved in 2001. It's amazing to watch. I don't think you all realize how crazy you sound.

I do not understand. Otherwise intelligent individuals cannot see the difference between

"Not required to call police" and
"Not permitted to call police"

Then they simply refuse to admit that most of the whole scandal in 2011 is avoided, entirely if Someone had called the police back in 2001. Even anonymously.

 

[getmyjive11]

Testimony has not yet begun in the actual case, which is not even the case under discussion in this thread.

At that time, unless charges based on retroactive applications of the law are thrown out beforehand, I'm sure those questions will be asked as well as subjected to cross.

So, what are your thoughts on the Second Amended Complaint in Spanier v PSU, filed on January 12th, and posted to the Court website on January 16th, that mentions 3rd parties, specifically paragraph 16, Lubert, or any of the other 3rd parties mentioned?

I already said, my thought is that nothing has shown that Lubert was involved in the decision making process in 2001.

 

[Nellie R]

I already said, my thought is that nothing has shown that Lubert was involved in the decision making process in 2001.

Confirmation you still don't know this is not about 2001, rather decisions made/actions taken starting in 11/2011 and thereafter by the PSU Board of Trustees.

 

[bjf1991]

Awesome post. I think it's only 4 states that still use a "Presentment document". All the rest use bill or no bill, IIRC.

That sounds right.

I think about 20 states (+/-) use GJ for very specific, limited situations (Public Corruption? Stuff like that).

But, aside from the Feds (who abuse the GJ system like it was the "Rented Mule of a Red-Headed Stepchild")...........I don't think there is another "Jurisdiction" that rivals Pennsylvania in GJ abuse.

_________________________________________


From a document written by the ABA (American Bar Association):


What is the purpose of the grand jury?
The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment.

The original purpose of the grand jury was to act as a buffer between the king (and his prosecutors) and the citizens. Critics argue that this safeguarding role has been erased, and the grand jury simply acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor.

• 
  ............ The power is virtually in complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or her good faith.
  

Does anyone screen grand jurors for biases or other improper factors?

No. Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for biases or other improper factors.

How independent is the grand jury?

The grand jury is independent in theory, and although the instructions given to the grand jurors inform them they are to use their judgment, the practical realities of the situation mitigate against it.
The grand jury hears only cases brought to it by the prosecutor. The prosecutor decides which witnesses to call. The prosecutor decides which witnesses will receive immunity. The basic questioning is done by the prosecutor on a theory he or she articulates. The grand jury members are generally permitted to ask questions at the end of a witness’s testimony. The prosecutor generally decides if he or she has enough evidence to seek an indictment. Occasionally the grand jurors may be asked whether they would like to hear any additional witnesses, but since their job is only to judge what the prosecutor has produced, they rarely ask to do so.
The prosecutor drafts the charges and reads them to the grand jury. There is no requirement that the grand jury be read any instructions on the law, and such instructions are rarely given.

 

[getmyjive11]

Which is why we need to get this all into court, under oath.

Look, we know where you are coming from in your point of view. How do you explain the apparent lack of interest in taking these guys to trial, if they committed a crime here? If it's all so cut and dried as you seem to think it is, in their case.

Because, they probably didn't do anything illegal because of the poorly written laws back in 2001. Once again, we are getting into where these actions likely were not criminal at the time (again, because of poorly written laws), but they put PSU in a position to get thumped and were a disservice to the victims.

 

[coveydidnt]

Which is why we need to get this all into court, under oath.

Look, we know where you are coming from in your point of view. How do you explain the apparent lack of interest in taking these guys to trial, if they committed a crime here? If it's all so cut and dried as you seem to think it is, in their case.

"These guys" meaning CSS? They themselves have delayed over and over again. If they wanted this to go to trial it already would have.

Another reason why I am sick & tired of presuming their innocence (which I do).

Its possible, you know, to be innocent, and yet still have failed to do the right thing.

 

[AvgUser]

you keep forgetting that if CSS told the truth to the GJ and investigators JVP wouldn't need vindication......

C&S did tell the truth.

It's also been proven that the State (i.e., GJP) intentionally lied re: anal intercourse, which is the match that lit everything.

It. Was. A. Lie.

 

[getmyjive11]

Confirmation you still don't know this is not about 2001, rather decisions made/actions taken starting in 11/2011 and thereafter by the PSU Board of Trustees.

No. This is about 2001. The decisions later were made because those men in 2001 put us in this position. Many of those decisions were poor, but that doesn't excuse the actions from 2001.

 

[getmyjive11]

"These guys" meaning CSS? They themselves have delayed over and over again. If they wanted this to go to trial it already would have.

Another reason why I am sick & tired of presuming their innocence (which I do).

Its possible, you know, to be innocent, and yet still have failed to do the right thing.

^^^This is exactly the point.