Penn State scandal and cover-up.

No, we need to discuss reality and facts to get to the truth. Not drummond up conspiracy theories by those who are not a part of the investigation. Find the problems and fix them. Gut the university leadership if need be. But do it for the correct reasons to correct the mistakes that were made. Not for some lunatic who sees conspiracies everywhere he looks.

 

No, I do not see a conflict of interest in the university using the same legal representation as another organization, nor do I see a conflict of interest on the law firms part. Do you think law firms have but one client? What I have it heard yet, is the actions of the lawyer who did represent both parties. What was his recourse to the allegations at the time? That has not been fully disclosed as of yet.

 

Really! Well, the law firms I've dealt with in CA, CO, PA, NJ, NY, DE, FL and SC (and even in Japan and Korea) in fact had a list of clients on file, so when an individual (or corporation, etc.) comes in for legal representation, they can immediately check to see if they have represented or represent the prospective defendant. If so, only under strict conditions will said law firm represent a client against a former or present client. You might want to bone up on Chapter 81, PA Code, Sec 81.4, Rule 1.7 and Rule 1.8 before you go on about this subject; read the 'comments' following the explanation of the rules concerning conflict of interest.

Now, Doug, time for you to man up: tell me how you know- no guessing allowed, citation to informed sources acceptable- that the actions (recourse) of Wendell Courtney "have not been fully disclosed as of yet." You want to harp about getting to the truth, so tell me the truth now: how exactly do you know this 'fact'?

 

..

 

Right, PSU Loyalist! No one except a select chosen few may discuss, conjecture, invetigate, or even entertain thoughts about this matter!!! Yes, well, very nice, very nice indeed if we were living in the old USSR, Stalin would be proud! No wonder PSU got into this pickle-pisspot...

So here ya go, Doug: start discussing "reality and facts," certainly not the uninformed driveling conspiratorial wild speculation-rap I've been laying down! Let's get right to the very bottom of this! What is this "reality and facts" to which you refer? Spell it out. And what are "the correct reasons" you above anyone else have gripped onto in this matter?

Cast out those lunatics, starting with me. I'm all ears and eyes, Doug, lay it on me. By the way, you've yet to take me to task for any facts I have presented. Once again, what falsehoods have I written?

I need to run all of this by the PSU Board of Trustees and The Second Mile, because for people who have done no wrong, with nothing to conceal, they are sure wasting their money (how much they refuse to say) on big-shot lawyers and PR experts. You need to talk to them, but first, talk to me.

Shoot the bolt, Doug.

 

Latest Sandusky accuser.

usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/06/9256057-another-sandusky-accuser-comes-forward

 

That's a very fine shot of Charles transporting...

 

Sandusky rearrested and faces 12 new charges for molestation of two more children:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/07/us-crime-pennstate-idUSTRE7B61YV20111207

 

Really, so it is up to the client to perform due diligence of a law firms client list to determine if a potential conglicts extists? Hmm....I would think that would be in the law firms best interest to determine that. My comment was directed at how you presented the use of the same law firm as a conflict. My point is that simply having the same law firm does not pose a conflict. You and I can conduct business with the same law firm. As long as the law firm can represent us both equally and we are not acting in a directrly adverse manner towards eachother, there is not a conflict. According to your link, as long as the law

Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or No conflict of interest occured prior to the Sandusky incident. Just as my previous quote said, what the lawyer did at this point is not exactly clear. Just as I mentioned earlier, his actions at that point need to be clarified. The lawyer also represted the organizations and not Sandusky himself according to the press.
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. I do not know the size of the law firm, but they evidentally felt that they could sufficiently handle the case loads of both. No conflict if that is so.

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; Lawyers decision, perfectly legal, no conflict
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;Not seeing anything prohibiting it at this point.
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; At that time, PSU and Second Mile were not in litigation or other proceedings.and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent.I do not know, I would think that would be a part of the investigation and will be a part of the findings of the official investigation. For the sake of arguement, I think it is safe to assume they did.


Comments (highlights)
(4) If a conflict arises after representation has been undertaken, the lawyer ordinarily must withdraw from the representation, unless the lawyer has obtained the informed consent of the client under the conditions of paragraph (b). See Rule 1.16. Where more than one client is involved, whether the lawyer may continue to represent any of the clients is determined both by the lawyer’s ability to comply with duties owed to the former client and by the lawyer’s ability to represent adequately the remaining client or clients, given the lawyer’s duties to the former client. See Rule 1.9. See also Comments (5) and (29). Like I said, up until the Sandusky incident, no conflict existed. At that time, did PSU and Second Mile consent to representation by the same lawyer? Again, the investigation will have to determine this. Again, the actions the lawyer are in question.

(6) Loyalty to a current client prohibits undertaking representation directly adverse to that client without that client’s informed consent. Thus, absent consent, a lawyer may not act as an advocate in one matter against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even when the matters are wholly unrelated. The client as to whom the representation is directly adverse is likely to feel betrayed, and the resulting damage to the client-lawyer relationship is likely to impair the lawyer’s ability to represent the client effectively. In addition, the client on whose behalf the adverse representation is undertaken reasonably may fear that the lawyer will pursue that client’s case less effectively out of deference to the other client, i.e., that the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s interest in retaining the current client. Similarly, a directly adverse conflict may arise when a lawyer is required to cross-examine a client who appears as a witness in a lawsuit involving another client, as when the testimony will be damaging to the client who is represented in the lawsuit. On the other hand, simultaneous representation in unrelated matters of clients whose interests are only economically adverse, such as representation of competing economic enterprises in unrelated litigation, does not ordinarily constitute a conflict of interest and thus may not require consent of the respective clients. Again, before Sandusky, no conflict of interest. The actions of the lawyer after Sandusky need to be determined. Even at that point, there was no criminal trial or tribunal. Again, yet to be determined by the investigation.


Etc, etc, etc. So, you've tried to paint PSU as that of criminal activities, greed, etc. You've tried to paint PSU as an evil empire and that every single activity and individual associated with it is corrupt and acting to cover up Sandusky. You tried to paint the relationship between PSU/Second Mile/and the law firm of 50 years as a conflict of interest. I pointed out, that in and of itself is simply not true. That having the same lawyer or law firm alone does not present a conflict. I pointed out that the actions of the lawyer and law firm were in question after the Sandusky incidents. However, since the law firm did not represent Sandusky, I don't see a conflict. What matters is what the lawyer/law firm did after the fact. Would I conscent to it? I don't know, I do not have all the information nor am I professing to have it all. Now whether or not PSU did consent and later revoked it, I don't know. But, then again, I'm not the one trying to connect every business deal and faculty member to a conspiracy theory or cover-up, am I.

Obviously I'm not a lawyer, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express. So that concludes my law 101 course for today.

 

Good on you for looking up the rules, but did you also read the 'comments' following? If so, now go to the website for the Disciplinary Board for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and do more research on the subject of 'conflict of interest'. Then you'll have a better grip than 95 % of the population does on the subject. And yes, as I wrote (which you misunderstood) and as you wrote, the attorney or law firm has the responsibility to notify the prospective client about a conflict of interest; it is very rare indeed to find a law firm representing two antagonistic parties or parties that could conceivably be antagonistic.

I am not bashful at all in saying that, based on the Grand Jury testimony and investigations performed so far, Wendell Courtney has a big problem. He had a fiduciary responsibility with both organizations (PSU and The Second Mile) not only to inform both organizations about the accusations and corresponding lengthy police investigative report in 1998 (and thereafter), but also make absolutely certain that all of the board members of both institutions knew of their rights, responsibilities, and liability exposure. As you should know, The Second Mile claims he did no such thing, that they were totally unaware of any accusations about Sandusky until 2008. If that is true, and we'll see soon enough, Courtney could lose his license to practice law. By the way, when Wendell Courtney resigned from The Second Mile on or about 07 NOV 2011, he cited a 'conflict of interest' as the reason for his withdrawal. Need we belabor that point?

Now then, regarding the 'second part' of your treatise, you continue to make claims about me that simply don't hold water. It's okay, I'll hold up under your dedicated internet onslaught because I know you are trying to salvage some dignity and respect for the PSU operation. But Doug, the things I am reporting here are taken from public sources, with rare exception; there are no surprises, nothing that others more experienced than both of us have said or written. I've actually spared you some of the more vitriolic observations others have made about PSU, so you see I'm not the 'excitable boy' you have made me out to be. You simply do not accept the obvious: there was a cover-up that possibly extended through PSU and The Second Mile into the offices of the Attorney General and possibly the Governor. There were (and are) large sums of money involved. There were, and are, politics involved. There will be questions and there will be answers forthcoming in the many civil and criminal cases. Heads will roll. And let's not forget about that 'investigation' the PSU Trustees authorized, as well as the federal investigation ongoing.

Your attitude, athough I admire your willingness to take this on, reminds me of the French at Dien Bien Phu..in fact, that place was in a 'happy valley,' just like PSU! You've hunkered down in your fortifications, just like the French, believing themselves superior by the virtue of being...well, French...but those damn little men of the Viet Minh kept coming, didn't they, and they had a few surprises of their own. Moral of the story is: never surrender the high ground, Doug, and don't bring knives to a gunfight....at least, bring very long screwdrivers.

Speaking of which, Sandusky got hisself arrested again, thanks to two more brave young men coming forth.

 

Under my internet onslaught? So, your connecting the dots of a massive conspiricy that includes staff and facualty not even associated with anyone involved in the investigation through "public sources" (internet) and you think I'm conducting an "internet onslaught". That's priceless right there :up:. Actually, the only source I have used is the one that you provided. I'll also clue in that two of the points referenced are from the Comments section. I even annoted that for you.

 

Well at least you've got a sense of humor. Seriously, Doug- can you say, in all good faith, that you are totally convinced that there was no 'cover-up'? You've never heard of such things? Of course you have! You just don't think it happens right there in Utopian Happy Valley! Who do you think participates in a cover-up? Yes, that's right: people, usually with a vested interest in the outcome, both 'good' people with big reputations, and 'bad' people we never even heard of before. By the way, some of my info comes from internet research, some from various media print sources, some from court records, and some from friends in PA. The conclusions are mine but shared by quite a few. And I read all that you wrote, regarding the 'conflict of interest' issue. Did you read what I wrote, that Wendell Courtney settled this issue all by himself when he withdrew his representation From The Second Mile due to a 'conflict of interest'?

So now Doug, let's press on: one or more of these individuals is lying, because their testimony contradicts. You pick the ones who you believe are full of shit: Spanier? Paterno? McQueary? Courtney? Curley? Schultz? everyone's golden boy and molder of linebackers (and backcracking), Sandusky, or...former State Attorney General, and now Governor, Corbett?

 

Good work Charles. Judging by some of the respones here I think it's a possibility further investigation might expose vested interest by someone on this board.

 

Hmmm.....I wonder who that could directed at?? I've presented my vested interest in this. I've said all along that an independent investigation on the university has to be conducted. I've said all along that a criminal investigation needs to happen. I've said all along that the individuals identified in that investigation need to be terminated, charged, or both. I've said the football team and sports program needs to be gutted and rebuilt from the ground up.

What I have argued against is the negative association of the acts of a few against the great success and achievement of the many who have absolutely nothing to do with this. I've argued against going on a witch hunt of making a grand conspiracy that has every aspect of the university involved in a cover-up. That's just bullshit. I've argued against trying to turn every aspect of the university into a grand conspiracy. I've argued to let the invstigation run their course and handle the situation appropriately. I'm not just going to jump on a bandwagon.

So, since you want to make inuedo's like that. Are you saying that an alumni member who supports and defends the greater good of the university and those associated in it must be involved in a conspiracy? That's a pretty big conspiracy consider the PSU Alumni Association is the worlds largest. How does an organization that size keep that secret? Honestly, that is about the most idiotic thing I have ever read on here. You just trumped Pooch.

To answer both yours and Charles on that matter. A conspiracy or cover-up has the best chance of success with the minimum number of those involved. It is quite obvious that something along those lines happened. Was it 3, 4, 5, or 10 people involved? I don't know. But I know it damn sure wasn't 10,000.

 

This thread needs a Cliff's Notes version. It's gotten exhausting to read.

Maybe I'll just wait for the movie to come out.

 

Easy, Doug, easy...think of all the bandwidth you're taking up trying to find a conspiracy here among us! Either way, Doug, remember there are rules. We need rules. Here, the rule is we get to say almost anything, no matter what the facts are, as long as we don't threaten anyone or use certain words on the list of taboo words...so far, so good. Okay, now, you want to get into "negative association." I mean you very obviously don't want any of us to say anything 'negative' about dear old Penn State.

That's not going to happen. We reserve the right to skewer anyone or anything. Nothing is sacred here, certainly not a bunch of buildings no matter where they are located, and no matter what those buildings are collectively called. Now, what we're focused on in this thread is the continuing and growing investigations (now the Big Ten has hopped on board). Think of all of those people, snooping and detectivatin', trying to uncover conspiracies at Penn State! Mindboggling! And the lawyers! Droves of lawyers! Mountains of legal documents and large yellow legal pads! Fingers pointing this way and that....this could go on for a very long time. So you need to go with the flow, Doug.

 

I thought you were right on top of this!

Okay, Cliff's Notes version: Sandusky fucks up. PSU does the Three Monkey Act. New governor. More victims speak up. Sandusky now in the shitpile. PSU gets rid of JoePa and the other two monkeys. New football coach and the end of three yards and a cloud of dust. Legal threats and the smell of big money. PSU hires new monkeys. End of story (so far).

 

Your not the first person in history to defend an unsavory institution to the end. Just think, if these allegations of child sexual abuse had never surfaced the reputation of your sterling university would be intact.