There are some reasonable points in there, but the author (presumably out of intent) misrepresents that nature of the public case against Paterno. It's basically a repeat of the apologist position from inside the reality distortion field.
Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged
- Thread starter Pesky Pole
- Start date
Which one?
I actually thought both articles continued the annoying duality of the coverage in different ways -- the Hartford Courant op-ed completely ignores the moral failings of everyone besides Sandusky; the Brooks piece in the NY Times suggests that anyone who doesn't want to kill PSU's football program doesn't take child rape seriously.
Amendola can CLAIM he found the victim that was witnessed by McQueary (victim 2 of GJ doc) all he want, Sandusky's biggest issue on the GJ doc is Victim 4. It starts off that portion of the document stating...
If Victim 4 testifies in a trial, it doesn't matter who Amendola parades out as the "supposed" victim 2, Sandusky is as good as convicted. Those seem to be the most documented and most serious of the charges of all the victims listed against Sandusky.
Really? On NPR last week, he defended the playing of the Nebraska game; E.J. Dionne took the tack you suggest. Anyway, what I got out of the Brooks piece was that people like to say they would behave in X fashion when presented with Y, when in a real-world situation, that often isn't the case. I liked his overall point about feeling superior and the self-righteousness that Pattis says is part of the drill, as it certainly is what I have seen via Facebook and from story commenters. This thread is an exception. The arguments here are thoughtful and compelling.
This jumped out at me from the Courant piece:
What charges? There aren't any, are there?
And that sort of speaks to some of the larger points, right?
Paterno was not convicted, he was fired by the Board of Trustees. As long as they break now laws in doing so, it is entirely within the purview of the Board to fire people because they think they are detrimental to the mission of the college on account of being bad people. Enabling sexual assault on campus probably qualifies.
Here's an interesting development:
"Joe Paterno transferred full ownership of his house to his wife, Sue, for $1 in July, less than four months before a sexual abuse scandal engulfed his Penn State football program and the university. "
"Lawrence A. Frolik, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in elder law, said that he had “never heard” of a husband selling his share of a house for $1 to his spouse for tax or government assistance purposes.
“I can’t see any tax advantages,” Frolik said. “If someone told me that, my reaction would be, ‘Are they hoping to shield assets in case if there’s personal liability?’ ” He added, “It sounds like an attempt to avoid personal liability in having assets in his wife’s name.” "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/sports/ncaafootball/in-july-paterno-transferred-ownership-of-home-to-his-wife-for-1.html?_r=2
"Joe Paterno transferred full ownership of his house to his wife, Sue, for $1 in July, less than four months before a sexual abuse scandal engulfed his Penn State football program and the university. "
"Lawrence A. Frolik, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in elder law, said that he had “never heard” of a husband selling his share of a house for $1 to his spouse for tax or government assistance purposes.
“I can’t see any tax advantages,” Frolik said. “If someone told me that, my reaction would be, ‘Are they hoping to shield assets in case if there’s personal liability?’ ” He added, “It sounds like an attempt to avoid personal liability in having assets in his wife’s name.” "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/sports/ncaafootball/in-july-paterno-transferred-ownership-of-home-to-his-wife-for-1.html?_r=2
Heard someone ask this today - what's stopping Amendola from putting some random dude in his 20's on the stand who's willing claim that he's one of the alleged unidentified victims? Assuming the real unidentified victims don't come forward to authorities, is that beyond the realm of possibility? Wouldn't be the most ethical of decisions, but we're talking about a guy that impregnated a 16 year old client.
Besides losing his law license and getting his ass thrown in prison you mean? Not much. Next time you hear someone ask that question you should run away as fast as you can so their stupid doesn't infect you.
I thought the same thing at the time. I wasn't asked the question, it was actually posed to Roger Cossack, ESPN legal analyst. He seemed to consider it a legitimate concern or at least something to be considered. Don't know if that speaks to his lack of legal prowess or if he was merely humoring the interviewer.
CNN has a reporter asking PSU's police department for the records of all these incidents and getting stonewalled. Apparently the University has a special waiver where they can withhold police reports unlike any normal police department.
No wonder they thought they could cover this up... They actually can.
No wonder they thought they could cover this up... They actually can.
I could be wrong here, but I don't think any police departments will hand over their reports to a reporter if it's an ongoing investigation. Also, isn't it common practice to seal reports of sex crimes where minors are the victims. I can see the point if it were after the case is closed and they had filed a Freedom of Information Act request.
Here's where CNN got their story from: http://mobile.pennlive.com/advpenn/db_272508/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=IjYhPVBJ
It doesn't help Graham Spanier's public image.
But it will likely change soon:
Apparently PSU lobbied for, and received exemption from an expansion of PA Right To Know law in 2007.
They are now using that exemption to specifically stonewall facts from this situation.
See details here
I believe the impetus for seeking that exemption under the law was a multi-year legal battle with the Patriot-News newspaper over releasing Joe Paterno's compensation. For years, the school refused the paper's requests to know how much JoePa was being paid. Finally, they sued and eventually, PSU was forced to provide a number. The number ($500K) turned out to be vastly under-stated. The real number was more like $1.3M.
But again, this is all a witch hunt by haters who want to ruin the good name of PSU and Paterno.
But again, this is all a witch hunt by haters who want to ruin the good name of PSU and Paterno.
Didn't read the article, but a couple of things from my experience in CT.
a) Selling your half of a house for $1 to spouse is essentially a gift. You throw some consideration in there to add consideration to the transaction, a mere peppercorn as it were. No gift tax for lifetime gift between spouses, either. IIRC, there also could be certain situations where a spouse going into nursing home would transfer ownership of the house to the community spouse for Title XIX purposes, but I'm guessing Joe's got too many assets for them to be eligible for Title XIX benefits (or they have long term care insurance). Maybe $1 is a sale in PA and thus analyzed differently.
b) The could be balancing their estates. Jo Pa likely has more assets to his name than wifey, so for estate planning purposes, they may be seeking to get as many assets in her name as possible so they both have equal estates, and thus who dies first wouldn't potentially have the negative effect of leaving assets you could otherwise pass to ones heirs tax-free on the table, so to speak. However, under the new fed estate tax law, if the surviving spouse has more assets, the surviving spouse's estate can "use" the unused estate tax credit from the first spouse to die = less need to balance estates. Regardless, it's still a good idea to do so because PA estate tax laws (if there are any) might not work the same way as the feds, and 2) the fed estate tax law sunsets end of 2012, so it could revert to previous analysis.
c) Joe's out of a job, they're applying to refinance, she's a better credit risk, so put the house to be mortgaged in her name and have her be the sole applicant ;-)
It'd be hard to prove fraud or evasion of creditors IMHO. At the same time, it wouldn't surprise me if protecting the asset (or Joe's portion of it) is part of the equation. But I don't know PA law (beyond Act 31, the worst law ever passed in America as far as I'm concerned - banned booze on private college campuses for minors the year I matriculated at a small private PA institution of higher learning).
I posted one of his articles way upthread, but Michael Weinreb of Grantland, Penn State alum whose dad is a professor at the university and who grew up with and knows a lot of the principals involved in the case, has been writing regularly and eloquently about it and about Penn State reaction. He went home last weekend and had another piece up today.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7238408/living-state-college
Thinking like Norm Pattis the civil rights attorney here, and with his thesis in mind that the leak of the grand jury testimony was illegal, could Paterno's firing be viewed as wrongful termination due to fruit of the poisoned tree?
I don't think head coach is the kind of job you can ever sue for wrongful termination over.
I assume, if you are thinking like Norm, you have full tin-foil headgear on.....
PSU had employees who testified to the grand jury. Their own police had done an investigation on the matter earlier. I don't think the school needed the leak of the testimony to fire paterno. They probably had enough on JoePa already....
And does Paterno really want to be deposed for a wrongful termination law suit? I'm guessing he won't.
I'd order a debate between you and Pattis on pay-per-view, it would be that much fun.
With Nip as the moderator. I've not dealt with Pattis in my practice, but my impression of him is he puts the "Devil" in Devil's Advocate.
I'll pop the popcorn.
This story has more legs than a millipede.
Report: Jerry Sandusky's charity official raised money for district judge who set his bail
Report: Jerry Sandusky's charity official raised money for district judge who set his bail
and of course Penn State interim football coach Tom Bradley was among those who testified in Sandusky case
There is a reason why some attorneys teach the law and others practice it. As Doug Beerabelli pointed out, there are a ton of reasons to transfer the ownership in your house to your spouse. We do it almost on a daily basis in my real estate practice. In most states, you have to put some sort of nominal consideration on the deed (ie. $1, or less than $100) in order to record the document. Not sure why Frolik wouldn't know of any of these reasons, but there are certainly a ton of plausible reasons other than the fact that he was trying to shield his assets from personal liability as a result of this scandal. Not sure how things work in PA, but a legitimate form of estate planning/tax planning is divesting oneself of as many assets as possible years before death or nursing homes to avoid "look back periods," etc.
I have no idea how this judge doesn't recuse herself, or isn't forced to. Shit, I know judges that will recuse themselves from a case that indirectly affects someone that they've ever played golf with, and this rises to a level way past that.
Yeah, this boggles the mind. It makes me wonder what sort of insular bubble their operating in that makes them think this is all kosher.
If this gets much worse, he may have to take the next step and recluse himself.
Its a perception issue that keeps me from letting the this transaction go. The timing on this transaction is a little to convenient given what has come out so far WRT the timeline of events.
I'm speculating, but if they re-did all their estate planning as part of this, you've got a lot less to hang your hat on regarding the timing issue. It's kinda common for old people to do and re-do their estate planning.
Yep, as Doug said, a lot of folks with the kind of money they likely have and at their age will sit down and redo their estate plannings on an almost annual basis, if not more frequently. Tax laws change every year, etc. Remember, she's only 71 and he's 84, so the likelihood is that she will outlive him and as such, it makes sense to start planning in this way. It would make even more sense for them to begin transferring property to their kids, but that's besides the point. Frankly, it could also mean that Joe is actually beginning to lose it mentally and they want him to sign notarized documents while he's still mentally capable of giving consent. There are tons of reasons for doing this at any time.
There is a story on Yahoo about this with a quote from one of Paterno's attorney:
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201111/joepas-real-estate-move-raises-suspicious-eyebrows
While I believe personally that Paterno was involved in this cover up and the whole administration at PSU stinks to high heaven, I'm not sure that this transaction can really be viewed in a below board way yet. And believe me, if it's found that this was made in anticipation of avoiding civil liability, the Courts would have absolutely no issues ordering the reversal of the transaction, so while I not only disagree that there are other tax/estate reasons for doing it, I'm less than convinced that avoiding personal liability would even be successful as the attorney cited in the first article states.
Maybe it's not just a football problem...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/abuse-victim-claims-penn-state-pedophilia-predates-sandusky-current-scandal-decades-article-1.978374?localLinksEnabled=false
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/abuse-victim-claims-penn-state-pedophilia-predates-sandusky-current-scandal-decades-article-1.978374?localLinksEnabled=false
The judge has opened herself to scrutiny by her poor judgment. There is overwhelming evidence of Sandusky's guilt, and he will spend the balance of his life in prison if he's convicted of even half the charges against him. Who thinks $100k unsecured bail with no electronic monitoring is appropriate under those circumstances?
It's natural to suspect an ulterior motive when smart people do stupid things, so I'm not surprised that a lot is being made of the judge's connections to The Second Mile. Fwiw, the story about the Chair of TSM raising campaign funds for her changed my mind -- she ought to recuse herself.
Pennsylvania recognizes tenancy by the entireties, so Paterno's creditors can't touch any assets he holds jointly with his wife unless she predeceases him. Therefore, liability avoidance wasn't the reason Paterno transferred ownership of their house to his wife's name alone.
It's natural to suspect an ulterior motive when smart people do stupid things, so I'm not surprised that a lot is being made of the judge's connections to The Second Mile. Fwiw, the story about the Chair of TSM raising campaign funds for her changed my mind -- she ought to recuse herself.
Pennsylvania recognizes tenancy by the entireties, so Paterno's creditors can't touch any assets he holds jointly with his wife unless she predeceases him. Therefore, liability avoidance wasn't the reason Paterno transferred ownership of their house to his wife's name alone.
What's amazing to me is that this judge passed this ruling regarding bail while the whole world was basically watching. In those circumstances her actions seem particularly unthinkable... It would seem to me that in a situation such as this that a judge would be far more careful with how they determined bail...unless this is typical for her... which is even scarier.
I'm going to assume the hearings were postponed for our lovely supremes to do this.
You have spent the better part of the last week taking every story, leak and theory, and using it to crucify Penn State, while implying that anything short of leveling the campus with a tactical nuke wouldn't be justice for the victims.I believe the impetus for seeking that exemption under the law was a multi-year legal battle with the Patriot-News newspaper over releasing Joe Paterno's compensation. For years, the school refused the paper's requests to know how much JoePa was being paid. Finally, they sued and eventually, PSU was forced to provide a number. The number ($500K) turned out to be vastly under-stated. The real number was more like $1.3M.
But again, this is all a witch hunt by haters who want to ruin the good name of PSU and Paterno.
Do you know what happened after they announced Paterno's salary? Nothing. Nothing at all. Nobody cared. Paterno's "It's none of your fucking business" is a response many people would give when asked their salary. Yes, he was a public employee and they were eventually forced to release the information. How the University and Paterno felt about inquiries to his salary gives us insight into their reaction to child molestation is beyond my feeble mind.
Yesterday you made a similiar statement about Sandusky's interview, but in the opposite direction. Concluding (paraphrase) the interview was just another example of defending Penn State/Paterno, and the people blindly supporting them. Which was strange, because the only thing I witnessed was an old man validating his recently acquired public persona of grade A sicko.
Her judgment was atrocious, and she'll probably lose her job the next time she's up for election (and deservedly so). I don't think she's corrupt, but like I said, her decision-making has been so poor that I can understand why people are suspicious.
It's eerily analogous to the "grown-ups stepping in" moment with the Board of Trustees putting the kaibosh on the university administration's attempt to go about local business as usual, isn't it?
Yes, very much so. It seems the wider Pennsylvania community feels it needs to exercise adult supervision over all the institutions in State College. I can't say I blame them.
Yes, I am the only person on this board and in the US who is reacting to the various stories and interviews re Penn State negatively. Thank you for noticing.
Wrap your "feeble mind" around this then -- I was adding relevant context to previous posts about the school's successful efforts in 2007 to be exempt from public records laws. Demanding -- and getting -- legislators create a law that prohibits the public and media from making inquiries into the salaries of employees at a public university is pretty fucking uncommon. Why did they do that? Because they were involved in a lawsuit over Paterno's salary and were forced to open the books. That was their answer to not complying with the existing public records laws -- they fight it in court, they lose, so they go get their state reps/senators to vote in the exemption. If you don't see that it's not about what Paterno made or didn't make but the scorched Earth tactics PSU undertook to get that info squelched then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm sorry your school's reputation is taking a massive hit right now, but that's not my fault.
C'mon....he has roots in the community. Not like he was a flight risk on some unfounded trumped-up minor allegations.......
So your saying Penn State will now lobby legislators to create a law granting university employees exemption from the Child Protective Services Law, got it.
Edit - I never attended PSU
LOL
Citizens Bank is reportedly stopping distribution of Penn State football buttons for away contests at Ohio State and Wisconsin. The slogans for the buttons were to be "Much Ado About Nuttin'" for Ohio State and "Brie 'em to Their Knees" for Wisconsin.
http://mobile.pennlive.com/advpenn/pm_29239/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=X5kzHhXB
Citizens Bank is reportedly stopping distribution of Penn State football buttons for away contests at Ohio State and Wisconsin. The slogans for the buttons were to be "Much Ado About Nuttin'" for Ohio State and "Brie 'em to Their Knees" for Wisconsin.
http://mobile.pennlive.com/advpenn/pm_29239/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=X5kzHhXB
From what I've heard the Board of Trustees would not be considered 'grown-ups stepping in' in how they handled things in 2002... which is why I have been skeptical this entire time that Joe has been solely at fault for keeping this whole thing quiet.
What have you heard? My impression is that the 2002 report went from McQueary to Curley and Schultz, and then to Spanier, but not to the Board, which didn't handle the question at all. It didn't even go to Wendell Courtney, as far as we can tell, since his name never appears in reports of the 2002 rape.
Joe Paterno is clearly not solely at fault, and I don't think anybody here suggested such a notion. Paterno and Spanier were fired, but Curley and Schultz were indicted.
I need to review..but could PSU be interested in keeping the salaries of most of their staff private? Would someone accessing Paterno's salary then be able to access everyone else's salary at the school?
I know that a lot of people have derided Joe for many things (and deservedly so in some cases)... but his salary should not be one of them (in my mind). I doubt he's ever been in the top ten salaries for coaches in the NCAA D1. He has a modest house and has given much of his money back to the school...an act that has also been derided and scoffed at by people that insist that Paterno is pure evil without having heard him say a word or giving him a second thought before last week.
What I've heard is from a conversation with someone who works at PSU..not corroborated as of yet in any story, but it led me to believe the board knew, but I may have misunderstood.
What I think people have suggested is that Paterno is capable of keeping this quiet on his own. That PSU football is the sole reason this has been kept quiet...to maintain HIS legacy..versus that of the school.
He was not indicted, but he was fired...even though he did all he was legally required to do and possibly all he could have done legally (I don't understand why Curley and Schultz are required to go to the police and JP was not, but there are many protocols at universities that don't make any sense...but are there any legal reasons why Paterno could not have brought this to the police...especially since he was not a witness or even an outcry witness?
Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but I feel like I see Paterno's name is out there alot more than Curley and Schultz and I think Paterno's power is often overstated.
Curley and Shultz were indicted for perjury and not as of yet for their inaction, correct?
No, Curley and Schultz were indicted for both perjury (a felony) and for failure to report abuse of a minor (a misdemeanor). Their responsibility for reporting the abuse arises from Pennsylvania law, not from some obscure university protocol.
Paterno had several options: he could have reported to the police himself what McQueary told him. He could have relayed the full account, including the rape, to his superiors -- but he downplayed it. He could have followed up with any of the authorities at some point. In each case, however, Paterno seems to have done the absolute least that he could do.
Paterno had to have been aware of a pattern of child abuse by Sandusky. One such incident in 1998 was clearly known to Paterno, PSU and the police. Sandusky was removed from the coaching succession plan and pushed into retirement at that time, and probably as a result of that incident.
I never said anything of the kind. I said they asked for, and got, an exemption from "public records laws." That's a fact. The rest is your overreaction and stupidity.
To add to what Sprowl said, as I said elsewhere, the legalistic approach may obscure certain more obvious things.
Paterno did not do all that he was able to do, and the law has little to do with it because the law here is about requirements, not limits. If you think a crime happened, you can report what information you have. People jump up and down about hearsay and all that because they've watched a few Law & Order episodes, but that stuff is about the standard of evidence required to convict a person; it doesn't mean that the police might not start taking a case seriously. The law sets a lower bound on what is required of Paterno, but does not place limits on him bringing concerns to the police.
Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation and, as such, is not being charged. But as Sprowl stated, that's a very minimal obligation.
As to why Paterno's name is out there a lot and not Curley's or Schultz's, I think there are many reasons for that. Some are not relevant, but some, I think are. Specifically, Paterno has a certain kind of rep, and it had to do with honor and morality. On the one hand, I agree it's not right to villifiy a person for not being a saint. But on the other, is it not important to understand the radical evil that humans can wreak through what they consider to be mundanities?
Do you know the expression: "Not on my watch"?