ADVERTISEMENT

Why the Paternos didn't do this.....I'll never understand

The difference in the Baylor case is they are a private University (that receives Federal funds), so the Texas equivalent of PA Sunshine law doesn't apply to them and they can basically do and say what they want and not have to release any backup. What's going to have to happen here is find a way to file suit against Pepper Hamilton in the Philly courts where their offices (and the data, and presumably where some of the work was likely done -to get jurisdiction) are located, and precedent has already been made that Pepper's contract with Baylor is not for legal advice, rather is a consulting contract, rendering the ACP and Work Product arguments moot.

Atty John Eddie Williams of Bears for Reform has previously made a public statement he thinks they won't have to, probably because they have such powerhouses as former Texas Governor White and a few others on their team and deep pockets available to do what they think they need to do. IMHO they will have to take legal action in the long run, unless these people have some really good "dirt" on some of the Regents and are letting them know that behind closed doors.

Seems like the PA Sunshine law barely applies to PSU. Bagwell had to seek his FOIA stuff thru Tomalis at PA DOE.
 
One thing I do know: Wick Sollers is on the record (in April 2012), saying he has "indisputable evidence" that Joe did not know about 1998 in 2001.

How about the "cajones" to release their "indisputable evidence"? That would be another way to fight the battle. But this "indisputable evidence" continues to be unknown.

I maintain Sollers was full of crap when he made that statement. IMO, he has nothing. Isn't that a fair conclusion after 56 months of waiting?

How can a person have indisputable evidence that he didn't know something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mixolydian
The courts said that Penn State had to be named as co-defendant in Paterno v NCAA. What am I missing here?

So the Paterno family named PSU as a nominal defendant and were seeking no damages from them. I think the Paterno family loves PSU too much to go after them. I'm pretty sure he could have won a huge settlement.
 
So the Paterno family named PSU as a nominal defendant and were seeking no damages from them. I think the Paterno family loves PSU too much to go after them. I'm pretty sure he could have won a huge settlement.
1 - And this is a minor point - the Paterno Family did NOT name PSU as a nominal defendant. The plaintiffs were required - by Judge Leete - to include PSU as a nominal defendant
We don't need to go back and revisit all the legal technicalities that brought that about - do we?

2 - Much more importantly - - - MUCH MORE - - - Steve Garban.....John Surma.....Rodney Erickson......Ira Lubert.......Paul Silvis etc etc etc are NOT "PSU"
It would have been (should have been?) a completely different legal proceeding, a completely different "narrative" (though I hate that term) if those c$cks$cking Scoundrels had been named and attached.........if we didn't instead have a suit limited to tangential, inconsequential pimps like Emmert, and instead saw a "spade being called a spade"

As I've said in the past - not my ox being gored, not my call to make

-------------------

More importantly:
We see this effect in just about every legal proceeding over the last five years.......most of which we DO HAVE a stake in the game, and a right to expect/demand/require more

For example:

What if the "victims" had actually pursued action and discovery against the c$cks$ckers who were responsible (assuming the "victims" were indeed victims)?
What if - instead of agreeing to easy $$$$, and having Ira Lubert use OUR $$$$ to buy his protection - they actually pursued "truth" (LOL) by attaching Raykovitz, 2ndMile, ....... and wherever that trail may lead (DPW?, CYS?, OAG?)

It would take volumes to go through the collective "works" of Corbett, Fina, Beemer, Kelly, Wolf, Kane, Gansler, Abraham etc etc etc etc - - - all of whom violated their responsibilities and bent us all over, time and again

We've been getting our collective dicks tugged for five years - - - by damn near EVERYONE involved in this fiasco
Many of those folks doing the "tugging" are those folks with responsibilities and obligations to represent our interests and the interests of society at large
And they are just a huge collection of leg-pissing, hypocritical, political a$$holes.

And- to date NO ONE with standing and responsibility has even tried to stand up for the pursuit of ANYTHING even resembling a close facsimile of "the truth".
 
Last edited:
1 - And this is a minor point - the Paterno Family did NOT name PSU as a nominal defendant. The plaintiffs were required - by Judge Leete - to include PSU as a nominal defendant
We don't need to go back and revisit all the legal technicalities that brought that about - do we?

2 - Much more importantly - - - MUCH MORE - - - Steve Garban.....John Surma.....Rodney Erickson......Ira Lubert.......Paul Silvis etc etc etc are NOT "PSU"
It would have been (should have been?) a completely different legal proceeding, a completely different "narrative" (though I hate that term) if those c$cks$cking Scoundrels had been named and attached.........if we didn't instead have a suit limited to tangential, inconsequential pumps like Emmert, and instead saw a "spade being called a spade"

As I've said in the past - not my ox being gored, not my call to make

-------------------

More importantly:
We see this effect if just about every legal proceeding over the last five years.......most of which we DO HAVE a stake in the game, and a right to expect/demand/require more

For example:

What if the "victims" had actually pursued action and discovery against the c$cks$ckers who were responsible (assuming the "victims" were indeed victims)?
What if - instead of agreeing to easy $$$$, and having Ira Lubert use OUR $$$$ to buy his protection - they actually pursued "truth" (LOL) by attaching Raykovitz, 2ndMile, ....... and wherever that trail may lead (DPW?, CYS?, OAG?)

It would take volumes to go through the collective "works" of Corbett, Fina, Beemer, Kelly, Wolf, Kane, Gansler, Abraham etc etc etc etc - - - all of whom violated their responsibilities and bent us all over, time and again

We've been getting our collective dicks tugged for five years - - - by damn near EVERYONE involved in this fiasco
Many of those folks doing the "tugging" are those folks with responsibilities and obligations to represent our interests and the interests of society at large
And they are just a huge collection of leg-pissing, hypocritical, political a$$holes
I'm sure that the BOT is indemnified by the university. Suing BOT members would be equivalent to suing PSU, correct?
 
Any statements after Joe's death are not actionable under most states' laws. So you are largely correct -- you don't understand.

Splitting hairs aren't we Dem? I think later in the thread bjf makes his point. Not one culprit has been named in 5 years time for anything. Not a lawyer but surely as easy as lawsuits are something could get filed if they wanted to.

Things that make me wonder,
the closer people get to the situation [you and the A-9, specifically] the quieter they become. hmm?????
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJD88 and bjf1991
Not a fan of bjf's rather colorful language but I think he wins this discussion. Five years after the fact and not one of the bad guys [Surma, Ira, Garban et al on BOT, AG's office, Corbutt, TSM] has had even an iota or scrutiny.
The only good things that have occurred happened at the ballot box.
 
I'm sure that the BOT is indemnified by the university. Suing BOT members would be equivalent to suing PSU, correct?
No

The ONLY impact that would have....is if, somewhere down the road, financial penalties were assessed, the check COULD (possibly) be cut from the PSU bank account.....and quite frankly, who cares who's bank account the $$$ comes from (if the over-riding goal is to get to the "truth")
At least conceivably - - - but even that is quite unlikely, since any "penalty-inducing" conduct would likely fall outside of any coverage parameters

Everything else, the discovery process, depositions, responsibilities and torts, etc etc etc is completely different

So........in answer to your question....No
 
Last edited:
Splitting hairs aren't we Dem? I think later in the thread bjf makes his point. Not one culprit has been named in 5 years time for anything. Not a lawyer but surely as easy as lawsuits are something could get filed if they wanted to.

Things that make me wonder,
the closer people get to the situation [you and the A-9, specifically] the quieter they become. hmm?????
I'm under a court order re: my role.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nellie R
Surma, Garban, Erickson, etc etc etc aren't "Penn State"

[Of course, "Penn State" - but NOT the actual responsible parties - WAS later added to the suit by order of Judge Leete as a nominal defendant.
So how did THAT strategy work out? ........ Yes, that is a rhetorical question - - - - it "worked out" like a shit sandwich]


As I've said before (many times), it ain't my ox being gored, and it ain't my call to make........but how much different might our current situation be? How much different might the so-often-discussed "narrative" be? - If those Scoundrels (Surma, Garban, Erickson etc etc etc) had been named - either in place of, or in addition to low level pimps like Mark Emmert, Eddie Ray and the NCAA

I can't find any way to believe that "going after the right guys" (or at least the guys who were most responsible and despicable) wouldn't have DRAMATICALLY AND POSITIVELY impacted the situation

It's not the first suit we've seen where the wrong parties were named as the defendants (or, at the least, the MOST relevant parties were given a pass).
Hell, truth be told, I'm not sure if we have seen ONE SINGLE suit filed anywhere in this entire legal plate of spaghetti, where the most responsible defendants WERE named!

Those decisions have been a huge drag, a huge anchor, in trying to move forward to something that might be referred to as the "truth" in this entire fiasco........and led to most of the legal maneuverings over the last five years being nothing more than colossal wastes of time, money, and effort (for everyone but the "lawyers" of course, who have parlayed the fiasco into multiple winning POWERBALL tickets)
Your question was "why." I offered an explanation as to why (which while just my speculation, certainly appears to be the case). That you disagree with the merits of my proffered rationale is irrelevant to the question you posed. I would tend to agree with you that a direct lawsuit against Penn State would have been the more prudent LEGAL strategy, but I think it is quite clear that the Paterno family just did not want to sue Penn State. I can understand that.
 
Your question was "why." I offered an explanation as to why (which while just my speculation, certainly appears to be the case). That you disagree with the merits of my proffered rationale is irrelevant to the question you posed. I would tend to agree with you that a direct lawsuit against Penn State would have been the more prudent LEGAL strategy, but I think it is quite clear that the Paterno family just did not want to sue Penn State. I can understand that.
Actually, you went in a completely different direction
Which is fine - I don't care - but you suggested that perhaps the Plaintiffs didn't want to "sue PSU" for various reasons

My "question/comment" was wrt attaching folks like Surma , Garban, Erickson etc ........NOT "PSU"
2 ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS - - - obviously
 
Actually, you went in a completely different direction
Which is fine - I don't care - but you suggested that perhaps the Plaintiffs didn't want to "sue PSU" for various reasons

My "question/comment" was wrt attaching folks like Surma , Garban, Erickson etc ........NOT "PSU"
2 ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS - - - obviously
If they are indemnified, suing them would be suing the university.
 
You haven't even made a semi-logical argument as to how the Paternos were supposed to sue for slander.
Not the argument I'm making.....not making ANY "argument" at all
And any "semi-logical" argument would be "semi" over your head, you Circle-Jerk King Wanna-Be

Go jerk your circle elsewhere

Ciao
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kingfarouk13
I always thought the primary reason the Paternos' went to court was to get the full story exposed. I've felt for a long time that the family and the legal team know everything about everyone that they need to know. The issue is to get those facts out to the public. Another report sponsored by the family will only be viewed as biased and self serving. Those same facts revealed in court will have a different impact. Perhaps the strategy was formulated to attack the weakest link. If its testicles are trapped in a legal vice, the NCAA will gladly reveal who did and said what during the process representing PSU.
Since MM has been awarded millions, I know many including myself have speculated how much The Paternos' might be awarded in a similar legal action. I just don't think the monetary settlement was ever their goal. I would bet that the family has been asked many times what it would take to make this go away.
 
Not the argument I'm making.....not making ANY "argument" at all
And any "semi-logical" argument would be "semi" over your head, you Circle-Jerk King Wanna-Be

Go jerk your circle elsewhere

Ciao
Sure you were making an argument... it was just stupid and nonsensical so you bailed on it.
 
How is there precident in PA? The Corman case was predicated on the PA law requiring fines to stay within the state of PA (also why B10 wasn't a party). How would this law apply to the Baylor case?

The other big difference here is that Briles has ZERO interest in seeing this case go to trial.
The topic was governance reform and how the Bears For Reform might have to go about getting at the Pepper Hamilton data, using precedent set in C V NCAA, the topic was not not Briles and not fines.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT