Erickson's Notebook Reveals Deceptions, Possible Crimes

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

one question I have is whether pedos work alone? Clearly those who trade child porn do not. If one were to hypothetically create an organization (like TSM) to harvest victims, one would presume this would attract all sorts of like-minded predators. Right?

I don't think that there is any evidence that TSM was the site of any organized pedo operation, despite the rantings of the talking radiohead from Pittsburgh.

JS used TSM to provide cover for himself alone. It is a strategy that he learned from his father, according to people in his home town.

IMHO, it is reasonable to ask why the people in that town did not do more to protect the children. That is where this all started.

Presumably, JZ does not pursue that angle because it would incriminate JS. I would like to see other investigators/journalists shining a light on that aspect of it, though.

 

[PennSt8er]

You claim lack of evidence but we know evidence has been buried and shredded. So it seems possible that a pedo ring was involved, right? I'd like to hear why this isn't likely.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

You claim lack of evidence but we know evidence has been buried and shredded. So it seems possible that a pedo ring was involved, right? I'd like to hear why this isn't likely.

I have added to my post.

If you had been told this aspect of the JS family history, as I have, you would understand why I take this position.....that this was a solo operation.

All I can suggest is that you talk to some people from that town about it.

 

[PennSt8er]

Ok. For now I view it as a possible scenario, but one that is not very likely. But thanks for more clarity on why you feel this way.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Ok. For now I view it as a possible scenario, but one that is not very likely. But thanks for more clarity on why you feel this way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownson_House

As the story goes, unlike what we have seen with the son, the truth about the father has never been publicly confronted.

I consider my source credible, but one never knows.

 

[lionlurker]

Frank, still love the prose. Seriously.

I'd like to hear how the levee breaks, though. Who breaks it?

 

[The Spin Meister]

Ray. In the instance of there being a single double space in the email from Curley, you state that the double space may be because the prior sentence (discussing it with Joe) would have been caused by that sentence being cut and pasted into the email.

There is another possibility; there may have been a sentence just after the 'discussion' line that was highlighted and deleted. If someone high lighted just all the letters in a sentence and not the spaces, you end up with a double space. I have done that myself when editing emails or posts.

The question then becomes what was in that deleted sentence? Is a better explanation of Joe's position? Perhaps he said to talk to Jerry, perhaps he recommended finding the 'victim' to get a better understanding of what happened. Maybe he said that McQ's told him something different. Maybe Joe said that McQ's statements were so weak that they risked a major lawsuit if they reported it.

Joe is gone. The only way we will know what was in the original email is if Curley finally testifies someday. Unfortunately, it seems that neither side wants that to happen.

 

[WeR0206]

I wonder who will be the first of the old guard trustees to buckle under the pressure and start pointing fingers?? Should be interesting to see who is left holding the flaming bag of poo.

Frank correct me if Im wrong but it seems to me from your posts that there wasn't necessarily a pedo ring at tsm but financial malfeasance with collusion from the psu bot. Bc of this, TSM tried to cover for JS and his proclivities as long as they could but once JS got arrested TSM/PSU OG BOT scrambled to get JS in jail and psu admins/Joe thrown under the bus asap so no one would dig into all the financial malfeasance, etc.

Or there could also be a pedo ring in addition to the financial malfeasance, who the hell knows with this mess...

 

[mhentz]

Hey, Ray, if the emails are fraudulent, why didn't Spanier say so in his lengthy interviews with the New Yorker and New York Times? Here's what he said about the 2001 emails:

He said he had no memory of writing the email in response to Curley in 2001, but now regrets that he used the word “vulnerable,” which many have taken to mean that he already knew that something inappropriate or criminal had occurred. “I didn’t,” he said. “I think what it meant was that if he didn’t get the message and stop bringing boys into the locker rooms, we could be open to criticism. Obviously, in retrospect, using the word was a bad choice. But who would think that 13 years later someone would focus in on that one word?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/m...ham-spanier-penn-states-ousted-president.html

And am I correct that you surmise that the 2001 emails are phoney because in one place Curley had two spaces after a period whereas in others he had one?

You seem to be having difficulty with this topic as you seem to have difficulty with pretty much every topic on which you comment. Ray is not stating that the E-mails ARE fraudulent. He's stating that all experts he's shown them to have deemed them to be suspicious, and they certainly are suspicious; however, the experts would need to examine the unaltered source e-mails to be certain whether Freeh's versions are fraudulent or not. Y'know, the ones that John Corro retrieved from Penn State's computer system, NOT the versions that were churned through Freeh's computer system during his "investigation." Spanier has asked for access to his own E-mails but has been denied by Penn State; therefore, it is impossible for Spanier to determine that Freeh's versions are forgeries. He couldn't honestly come out say so that they are forgeries because he can't possible know having been denied access to his own e-mails. Furthermore, Spanier's comments that you cite were made before the provenance of the e-mails began to publicly come into question. His opinion on the e-mails might have shifted by this time as a result. Recall that he has no memory of writing that e-mail response so it furthermore doesn't stand to reason that he would recall exactly why he wrote that response as he did. Opining on it even for Spanier is BS, but that is how your side has forced us all to play this game, BS being the only thing your people understand. It remains a possibility that the reason for Spanier being unable to recall writing that response is because he didn't write that response. Ta-da! We have no way of knowing thanks to Penn State's board, administration, and legal team.

Y'know, this all really is infinitely simpler a matter than even you always make it out to be. All these questions would be quickly cleared up and laid to rest if the university would simply publicly disclose all unaltered and unredacted source materials of the Freeh "investigation." We could all see for ourselves that the E-mails were not tampered with and that Spanier is guilty of.... of whatever it is you're charging him with...and all these questions would quickly and easily be dispensed with and we could all finally move on with our lives. It is the university alone that is insisting that this all to go on for so long. You don't seem to be able to grasp that and I find that an enduring mystery. It's SO simple, almost as simple as tying one's shoelaces, and yet the fact that you can't seem to figure that out it does lead me to wonder how you manage to feed, clothe and bathe yourself....assuming you do, of course.

 

[BobPSU92]

You seem to be having difficulty with this topic as you seem to have difficulty with pretty much every topic on which you comment. Ray is not stating that the E-mails ARE fraudulent. He's stating that all experts he's shown them to have deemed them to be suspicious, and they certainly are suspicious; however, the experts would need to examine the unaltered source e-mails to be certain whether Freeh's versions are fraudulent or not. Y'know, the ones that John Corro retrieved from Penn State's computer system, NOT the versions that were churned through Freeh's computer system during his "investigation." Spanier has asked for access to his own E-mails but has been denied by Penn State; therefore, it is impossible for Spanier to determine that Freeh's versions are forgeries. He couldn't honestly come out say so that they are forgeries because he can't possible know having been denied access to his own e-mails. Furthermore, Spanier's comments that you cite were made before the provenance of the e-mails began to publicly come into question. His opinion on the e-mails might have shifted by this time as a result. Recall that he has no memory of writing that e-mail response so it furthermore doesn't stand to reason that he would recall exactly why he wrote that response as he did. Opining on it even for Spanier is BS, but that is how your side has forced us all to play this game, BS being the only thing your people understand. It remains a possibility that the reason for Spanier being unable to recall writing that response is because he didn't write that response. Ta-da! We have no way of knowing thanks to Penn State's board, administration, and legal team.

Y'know, this all really is infinitely simpler a matter than even you always make it out to be. All these questions would be quickly cleared up and laid to rest if the university would simply publicly disclose all unaltered and unredacted source materials of the Freeh "investigation." We could all see for ourselves that the E-mails were not tampered with and that Spanier is guilty of.... of whatever it is you're charging him with...and all these questions would quickly and easily be dispensed with and we could all finally move on with our lives. It is the university alone that is insisting that this all to go on for so long. You don't seem to be able to grasp that and I find that an enduring mystery. It's SO simple, almost as simple as tying one's shoelaces, and yet the fact that you can't seem to figure that out it does lead me to wonder how you manage to feed, clothe and bathe yourself....assuming you do, of course.

cdw is a loafer kind of guy. Safety first.

 

[green2623]

that makes way to much sense

 

[CDW3333]

You seem to be having difficulty with this topic as you seem to have difficulty with pretty much every topic on which you comment. Ray is not stating that the E-mails ARE fraudulent. He's stating that all experts he's shown them to have deemed them to be suspicious, and they certainly are suspicious; however, the experts would need to examine the unaltered source e-mails to be certain whether Freeh's versions are fraudulent or not. Y'know, the ones that John Corro retrieved from Penn State's computer system, NOT the versions that were churned through Freeh's computer system during his "investigation." Spanier has asked for access to his own E-mails but has been denied by Penn State; therefore, it is impossible for Spanier to determine that Freeh's versions are forgeries. He couldn't honestly come out say so that they are forgeries because he can't possible know having been denied access to his own e-mails. Furthermore, Spanier's comments that you cite were made before the provenance of the e-mails began to publicly come into question. His opinion on the e-mails might have shifted by this time as a result. Recall that he has no memory of writing that e-mail response so it furthermore doesn't stand to reason that he would recall exactly why he wrote that response as he did. Opining on it even for Spanier is BS, but that is how your side has forced us all to play this game, BS being the only thing your people understand. It remains a possibility that the reason for Spanier being unable to recall writing that response is because he didn't write that response. Ta-da! We have no way of knowing thanks to Penn State's board, administration, and legal team.

Y'know, this all really is infinitely simpler a matter than even you always make it out to be. All these questions would be quickly cleared up and laid to rest if the university would simply publicly disclose all unaltered and unredacted source materials of the Freeh "investigation." We could all see for ourselves that the E-mails were not tampered with and that Spanier is guilty of.... of whatever it is you're charging him with...and all these questions would quickly and easily be dispensed with and we could all finally move on with our lives. It is the university alone that is insisting that this all to go on for so long. You don't seem to be able to grasp that and I find that an enduring mystery. It's SO simple, almost as simple as tying one's shoelaces, and yet the fact that you can't seem to figure that out it does lead me to wonder how you manage to feed, clothe and bathe yourself....assuming you do, of course.

I'm sure this material has been disclosed to the defendants. If the emails were fraudulent, don't you think we would have heard about it by now?

And my question stands. Is the only evidence that these emails are "suspicious" the fact that there is an extra space after a period?

And, finally, Spanier's interview with the NY Times was two years after the emails became public. You're saying it took more than two years for anybody to cotten to the fact that the emails are "suspicious"?

 

[marshall23]

It would merely be the icing on the cake if the emails are doctored. The fact is this, even Barron and Frazier have refused to offer any sort of endorsement of the Freeh Report. It has been universally discredited. Incomplete? Lacking hard evidence? Pure fiction? All of the above?
Yet the arrogant, misanthropic Fools hide behind one comical objection after another to permit examination of its source materials. At the very minimum they are petrified that these materials will prove that they paid 8.5 million dollars for a report that is not worth the paper it is written on. My bet is that the truth will be a great deal more devastating to the Ship of Fools.

 

[lionlurker]

Hey, Ray, if the emails are fraudulent, why didn't Spanier say so in his lengthy interviews with the New Yorker and New York Times?

Dude, they won't let it go to trial. When are the defendants going to talk about it? On Oprah? And you don't think it's possible that he really didn't have it all in front of him, all the time?

God, you are so stupid. At least try to be a worthy adversary.

 

[simons96]

It would merely be the icing on the cake if the emails are doctored. The fact is this, even Barron and Frazier have refused to offer any sort of endorsement of the Freeh Report. It has been universally discredited. Incomplete? Lacking hard evidence? Pure fiction? All of the above?
Yet the arrogant, misanthropic Fools hide behind one comical objection after another to permit examination of its source materials. At the very minimum they are petrified that these materials will prove that they paid 8.5 million dollars for a report that is not worth the paper it is written on. My bet is that the truth will be a great deal more devastating to the Ship of Fools.

the amazing thing is CDW thinks the emails as they are indict Paterno et al is some grand conspiracy.

the emails as they are . . . complete bunk.

which shows you how weak the argument was against Paterno and the 3 admins

they "reviewed" 3.5 million documents and only used 7 of them in the Freeh Report. Even a blind dog with syphilis can see that is suspicious. I have no doubts there are exculpatory emails that HAVEN'T been released.

then Freeh had to doctor emails, take them out of context, present them out of order . . . just to present one of the most pathetic BS indictments a first year law student could dispel . . . this is what CDW and his ilk hang their hats on.

pathetic

 

[BobPSU92]

the amazing thing is CDW thinks the emails as they are indict Paterno et al is some grand conspiracy.

the emails as they are . . . complete bunk.

which shows you how weak the argument was against Paterno and the 3 admins

they "reviewed" 3.5 million documents and only used 7 of them in the Freeh Report. Even a blind dog with syphilis can see that is suspicious. I have no doubts there are exculpatory emails that HAVEN'T been released.

then Freeh had to doctor emails, take them out of context, present them out of order . . . just to present one of the most pathetic BS indictments a first year law student could dispel . . . this is what CDW and his ilk hang their hats on.

pathetic

cdw thinks? Since when?

 

[simons96]

cdw thinks? Since when?

"regurgitate" seemed like an appropriate verb, but I was trying to be nice

 

[marshall23]

Admittedly, it is a guess or hunch....but I believe there are many like CDW in Centre County with good reason to oppose exposing the truth. They cling to the narrative that the blame for Sandusky's crimes belongs to a football coach and an athletic director. Certainly not the Judges, social workers and other wealthy movers and shakers who either failed in their duties or lined their pockets and turned a blind eye to child abuse.

 

[mhentz]

I'm sure this material has been disclosed to the defendants. If the emails were fraudulent, don't you think we would have heard about it by now?

And my question stands. Is the only evidence that these emails are "suspicious" the fact that there is an extra space after a period?

And, finally, Spanier's interview with the NY Times was two years after the emails became public. You're saying it took more than two years for anybody to cotten to the fact that the emails are "suspicious"?

Why doesn't the university just release all the Freeh materials, everything, including all the incriminating evidence, and just shut us all up once and for all?

 

[NapaNit]

I have added to my post.

If you had been told this aspect of the JS family history, as I have, you would understand why I take this position.....that this was a solo operation.

All I can suggest is that you talk to some people from that town about it.

Very much respect your position/knowledge, 10M, but didn't one of the 'victims' claim he attended an event where JS and others of his ilk had 'trading cards' of himself and others? If true, wouldn't that suggest a pedo ring might exist? This could be complete BS as I've not followed this debacle in the detail that many have. I certainly respect those that have.

 

[PennSt8er]

There are different folks, including Greg Buccaroni, making claims of a pedo ring. Greg sounds credible when he talks most of the time. But nobody can seem to find evidence to support his claims.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Very much respect your position/knowledge, 10M, but didn't one of the 'victims' claim he attended an event where JS and others of his ilk had 'trading cards' of himself and others? If true, wouldn't that suggest a pedo ring might exist? This could be complete BS as I've not followed this debacle in the detail that many have. I certainly respect those that have.

I believe that you are referring to what is reported in these stories that I found with a google search. I remember hearing it back then. Seems like nothing has come of it, though.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=penn+state+pedo+ring+trading+cards

 

[psu00]

Why doesn't the university just release all the Freeh materials, everything, including all the incriminating evidence, and just shut us all up once and for all?

That's the $10,000 question. They bitch that the alumni are wrong and hurting the school. Fine- then release the info and shut everyone up. The fact they won't should raise eyebrows. How the media is so blind and compliant with Old Main is both infuriating and at the same time scary for the supposed "watchdog" of the country.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

PSU's recent filing denying alumni trustees access to Freeh's source materials falsely argues that the University is protecting employee confidentiality. The reality is that they are hiding evidence of possible crimes.

By
Ray Blehar

Today, I am making a partial release of evidence I received in October 2012. The release is in response to the PSU's administration's continued stonewalling in providing access to the Freeh Source Materials -- that will help us get to the truth of the Sandusky matter.

Today, we take another step toward the truth.

The evidence released today reveals:

-- The administration knew Freeh lied about his independent discovery of the email evidence.

-- The NCAA got at least one substantive update on the progress of the ongoing investigation at PSU; and,

-- The administration planned to submit false personal injury claims to the Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Insurance Company (PMA) in an effort to get reimbursed for the settlement costs of the John Doe A lawsuit and, if successful, likley future lawsuit settlements.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/05/ericksons-notebook-reveals-evidence-of.html

What is the date of the notation about MM's gambling?

The DVN article was not published until 3/14, and there was not much...if any...public discussion of the gambling prior to that.

Why was Erickson making a notation about the gambling in this notebook?

 

[MichaelJackSchmidt]

What is the date of the notation about MM's gambling?

The DVN article was not published until 3/14, and there was not much...if any...public discussion of the gambling prior to that.

Why was Erickson making a notation about the gambling in this notebook?

Perhaps the briefing that Erickson attended discussed how the MM gambling was about the only marginally traceable football related "dirt" that existed prior to the Triponey/Freeh creative writing.

 

[rmb297]

You seem to be having difficulty with this topic as you seem to have difficulty with pretty much every topic on which you comment. Ray is not stating that the E-mails ARE fraudulent. He's stating that all experts he's shown them to have deemed them to be suspicious, and they certainly are suspicious; however, the experts would need to examine the unaltered source e-mails to be certain whether Freeh's versions are fraudulent or not. Y'know, the ones that John Corro retrieved from Penn State's computer system, NOT the versions that were churned through Freeh's computer system during his "investigation." Spanier has asked for access to his own E-mails but has been denied by Penn State; therefore, it is impossible for Spanier to determine that Freeh's versions are forgeries. He couldn't honestly come out say so that they are forgeries because he can't possible know having been denied access to his own e-mails. Furthermore, Spanier's comments that you cite were made before the provenance of the e-mails began to publicly come into question. His opinion on the e-mails might have shifted by this time as a result. Recall that he has no memory of writing that e-mail response so it furthermore doesn't stand to reason that he would recall exactly why he wrote that response as he did. Opining on it even for Spanier is BS, but that is how your side has forced us all to play this game, BS being the only thing your people understand. It remains a possibility that the reason for Spanier being unable to recall writing that response is because he didn't write that response. Ta-da! We have no way of knowing thanks to Penn State's board, administration, and legal team.

Y'know, this all really is infinitely simpler a matter than even you always make it out to be. All these questions would be quickly cleared up and laid to rest if the university would simply publicly disclose all unaltered and unredacted source materials of the Freeh "investigation." We could all see for ourselves that the E-mails were not tampered with and that Spanier is guilty of.... of whatever it is you're charging him with...and all these questions would quickly and easily be dispensed with and we could all finally move on with our lives. It is the university alone that is insisting that this all to go on for so long. You don't seem to be able to grasp that and I find that an enduring mystery. It's SO simple, almost as simple as tying one's shoelaces, and yet the fact that you can't seem to figure that out it does lead me to wonder how you manage to feed, clothe and bathe yourself....assuming you do, of course.

In my San Diego presentation, I discussed the emails at length. In 2001, there were five emails that were used as exhibits in the Freeh Report. Only two of the five had the html tags. Each of emails were used as "evidence" by Freeh that the Big 4 were doing something nefarious. As it turned out, the second email discussion of the "coach" was Jerry Dunn -- not Joe.

The other problem with the email (5G) is that it has the WRONG signature block at the bottom. It should be Schultz's, not Spanier's. This occurs twice in the 2001 emails.

As mhentz said - and as I have said since August 2012, all the University has to do to put this to rest is pull the original files from the server and compare to the ones in the Freeh Report.

 

[rmb297]

What is the date of the notation about MM's gambling?

The DVN article was not published until 3/14, and there was not much...if any...public discussion of the gambling prior to that.

Why was Erickson making a notation about the gambling in this notebook?

30 January 2012 is the date for all of the notes I posted. After those entries, nothing else is in the notebook...but there's a boat load of stuff before them.

The gambling and illegal benefits information was passed onto the NCAA as they were "monitoring the progress" of the investigation. The gambling wouldn't have helped the NCAA because it was outside the SOL. Illegal benefits is a minor violation, so also not helpful to the NCAA who was looking to come down hard on PSU.

So, "NCAA - waiting for Freeh Report" (or something big to punish PSU with)

Obviously, I knew about McQ's gambling long before Van Natta wrote his article. One time I made a cryptic reference to it on twitter as part of a discussion of McQueary #PeteRose

 

[rmb297]

I'm sure this material has been disclosed to the defendants. If the emails were fraudulent, don't you think we would have heard about it by now?

And my question stands. Is the only evidence that these emails are "suspicious" the fact that there is an extra space after a period?

And, finally, Spanier's interview with the NY Times was two years after the emails became public. You're saying it took more than two years for anybody to cotten to the fact that the emails are "suspicious"?

If you actually took the time to do some research, you'd know that the defendants got the exact same (paper) copies of the emails in the Freeh Report.

Thank you for asking about the other errors on that email. It has the WRONG SIGNATURE BLOCK. It should be Schultz's at the bottom, not Spanier's.

There are five emails from 2001, two of the five have html tags and three do not. It his was simply an error caused from a transfer from Eudora to Outlook, then all five would have the error.

Also two emails from the 1998 group have problems. On one the time and date stamps are out of order (Exhibit 2B). Exhibit 2C contains and extra address box and Harmon's response from the previous chain/thread of emails has been deleted.

 

[psu00]

30 January 2012 is the date for all of the notes I posted. After those entries, nothing else is in the notebook...but there's a boat load of stuff before them.

The gambling and illegal benefits information was passed onto the NCAA as they were "monitoring the progress" of the investigation. The gambling wouldn't have helped the NCAA because it was outside the SOL. Illegal benefits is a minor violation, so also not helpful to the NCAA who was looking to come down hard on PSU.

So, "NCAA - waiting for Freeh Report" (or something big to punish PSU with)

Obviously, I knew about McQ's gambling long before Van Natta wrote his article. One time I made a cryptic reference to it on twitter as part of a discussion of McQueary #PeteRose

Anything big in the notes before january 30, 2012? When exactly did the NCAA force the consent decree on psu again?

 

[rmb297]

Very much respect your position/knowledge, 10M, but didn't one of the 'victims' claim he attended an event where JS and others of his ilk had 'trading cards' of himself and others? If true, wouldn't that suggest a pedo ring might exist? This could be complete BS as I've not followed this debacle in the detail that many have. I certainly respect those that have.

That was Greg Bucceroni, who is not officially a Sandusky victim according to the authorities, but claims to have been set up to meet with Sandusky for a tryst that didn't happen.

I don't think a pedo ring can be ruled out. There is evidence of connections between Second Mile and a couple charities in Philly.....money transferred as "grants" to Second Mile kids.

Quite a bit of other circumstantial evidence that Second Mile could have been part of a network. I'll write about it soon.....but am working on some NCAA stuff right now.

 

[rmb297]

Anything big in the notes before january 30, 2012? When exactly did the NCAA force the consent decree on psu again?

The NCAA didn't force PSU into anything. PSU and the NCAA agreed to use the Freeh Report to nail PSU football to the wall back in December 2011. The Freeh Report and CD were rushed because FIFA was going to blow up on Freeh. If that happened, all would have been lost for Frazier and his cohorts.

As for something big....we'll see.

The other day's post was just a shot across PSU's bow to let them know they don't hold all the cards.

 

[psu00]

The NCAA didn't force PSU into anything. PSU and the NCAA agreed to use the Freeh Report to nail PSU football to the wall back in December 2011. The Freeh Report and CD were rushed because FIFA was going to blow up on Freeh. If that happened, all would have been lost for Frazier and his cohorts.

As for something big....we'll see.

The other day's post was just a shot across PSU's bow to let them know they don't hold all the cards.

What I was trying to ask is when was the CD announced? Just checking on how Erickson who was so copious in his notes apparently suddenly stopped taking any more after January 30, 2012.

 

[B_Levinson]

According to Freeh, the only intervening factor that stopped Curley from reporting the incident to the authorities was his conversation with Joe Paterno.

If this email is a fraud -- and it is -- and not just the line about Paterno -- then Freeh lied about Paterno's role....which confirms Frank Fina's conclusion that there was no evidence of Paterno's involvement in a cover-up.

And Aoshiro is correct, if forgery is proven, then the ENTIRE DOCUMENT is worthless.

If a forgery is proven, we are talking about a felony like honest services fraud, the same thing that got Mark Ciaverella sent to Federal prison. (Not legal advice, but common sense says fabrication of this nature is a criminal offense.)

 

[rmb297]

What I was trying to ask is when was the CD announced? Just checking on how Erickson who was so copious in his notes apparently suddenly stopped taking any more after January 30, 2012.

CD was 23 July 2012.

It's not that Erickson stopped taking notes....it's just he stopped doing it in that particular notebook....that just so happened to find its way to the "good guys."

 

[rmb297]

If a forgery is proven, we are talking about a felony like honest services fraud, the same thing that got Mark Ciaverella sent to Federal prison. (Not legal advice, but common sense says fabrication of this nature is a criminal offense.)

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of forgery if, with
intent to defraud or injure anyone, or with knowledge that he is
facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone, the
actor:
(1) alters any writing of another without his authority;
(2) makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues or
transfers any writing so that it purports to be the act of
another who did not authorize that act, or to have been
executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other
than was in fact the case, or to be a copy of an original
when no such original existed; or
(c) Grading.--Forgery is a felony of the second degree if
the writing is or purports to be part of an issue of money,
securities, postage or revenue stamps, or other instruments
issued by the government, or part of an issue of stock, bonds or
other instruments representing interests in or claims against
any property or enterprise. Forgery is a felony of the third
degree if the writing is or purports to be a will, deed,
contract, release, commercial instrument, or other document
evidencing, creating, transferring, altering, terminating, or
otherwise affecting legal relations. Otherwise forgery is a
misdemeanor of the first degree.

Honest services fraud would be a RICO case -- this could end up there. As I've opined before, Freeh runs a phony investigation racket.

 

[psu00]

CD was 23 July 2012.

It's not that Erickson stopped taking notes....it's just he stopped doing it in that particular notebook....that just so happened to find its way to the "good guys."

Ok that' makes sense. I'd find it hard to believe that he just stopped taking notes for 7 months. Was just looking not only what was in released documents but what was missing as well. Any chance to get them to turnover all his notes by FOIA?

 

[marshall23]

One of the things that surprised me was that Stephanie Deviney was a mixed up with heavy hitters like Lubert and Eckel. I would think she is very nervous right now.

 

[psu00]

One of the things that surprised me was that Stephanie Deviney was a mixed up with heavy hitters like Lubert and Eckel. I would think she is very nervous right now.

I was surprised her name was in there too. She's definitely the weak link.

 

[simons96]

One of the things that surprised me was that Stephanie Deviney was a mixed up with heavy hitters like Lubert and Eckel. I would think she is very nervous right now.

she is tucking her kid into bed every night thinking of the poor poor victim named Stephanie Deviney

 

[rmb297]

One of the things that surprised me was that Stephanie Deviney was a mixed up with heavy hitters like Lubert and Eckel. I would think she is very nervous right now.

It's an interesting group to say the least. On the surface, we have a B&I trustee, an Ag trustee, and an alumni elected trustee.

Below the surface, we have a former TSM board member and casino owner (Lubert). Then there's Eckel, who admitted close ties to a suspected mobster (DeNaples), who also owned a casino.

Deviney was there as window dressing. She certainly wasn't there because of her brilliant legal mind.